groundless and unconceivable Therefore the last must be admitted And this is so much the more rational because the Socinians are Men too learned not to know that the Primitive Writers or to speak the words of a truly great Man of this Nation all the first Writers of the Church of God have expresly attributed the Creation of Man to the Son and have brought in the Father speaking thus to him Let us make Man Not to multiply citations read Orig. cont Cels l. 2. In Gen. 3.22 is another place of the same nature and to the same design The Man is become as one of us to know good and evil I think that custom of Princes has nothing to do here Those little Pedantical evasions are too mean for the weight of the expression If there is but one Person in the Divine Nature how comes the Vs so emphatically Why say those Gentlemen in the page cited Onkelos and Oleaster render the words more truly The Man is become one knowing of himself good and evil Grotius not trusting to this would have God speak here to Angels Thus a groundless supposition is made a solid answer to a translation universally receiv'd before any of these Disputes I humbly conceive that the Irony us'd in that place has no force if the knowledge here spoken of is not that Primitive Essential Knowledge which belongs only to God which Man 's ambitious designs aim'd at and of which neither he nor Angels are capable of v. 5. You shall be as Gods knowing good and evil which is to say just nothing if this consists in the sad experience of his misfortune and not in the rashness of his undertaking The book of Job is certainly a part of the Old Testament and St. Austin in an Epistle to St. Jerom calls Job deservedly a Prophet In the 19.25 26 27. he expresses himself thus I know that my redeemer lives and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth and though after my Skin Worms destroy this body yet in my flesh shall I see God The old Latin Interpreter reads Deum meum my God Whom I shall see for my self and my eyes shall behold and not another I pass over that most solemn and elegant Preface more lasting than the rock on which he wishes the assertion to be written 1st The Holy man draws an argument of comfort in the deepest of his afflictions from the thoughts of another and a better life 2ly He looks upon him who is able to save to the uttermost not only them that come after but all them also who are gone before him 3ly He is satisfi'd that he lives who will redeem him from the pains that he lyes under who knows his innocence because he is the searcher of the hearts 4ly He asserts a final judgment wherein justice will be done to all men who shall rise from their graves and be clothed with flesh to receive it 5ly He avers that he who lives now though invisible will become visible and be their Judge in that great day 6ly He is now only the object of his knowledge and faith but then he shall be the object of his sense He shall see him 7ly He who is now invisible but shall be visible then he calls His God the ground of his hope and indeed of all his confidence This is so positive that it is capable of no allegory but only of a litteral sence That this is spoken of Christ is agreed by the old Rabbins That it is understood of Jesus is the opinion of most Christian Interpreters That that God who is represented here as living according to the noble and usual expression of Scripture which cannot be apply'd to Moses Solomon or any of them who are call'd Gods will stand as a judge and be seen by men in their Flesh and be beheld with their eyes is not the Father is consented to on all hands It must then be the Son who in the union of the two natures is the Redeemer Who as God is known to live and to inhabit Eternity Who in the fullness of Times has appear'd in the flesh and obtained to be at the end of the World the judge of the quick and dead It may be objected to this that Grotius for these Gentlemen look upon an objection not to be answerable if it has but the name of Grotius is positive that the Jews never understood this text of the resurrection of the dead How this learned man comes to be mistaken is strange to me But that he is so may invincibly be made to appear from the body of the Jewish Writers What is taken out of the Book of Psalms to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ has so much the more force because most of it is appli'd to the same purpose by the writers of the New Testament This gives these proofs a double authority and fully determines their sence Nor can any other be put upon them then that in which they are taken by them whom we all acknowledge to be inspir'd This is so natural and carries so much self-evidence along with it that I cannot hear without a deep astonishment Hugo Grotius saying that those Prophecies Non in vim argumenti propriè adhiberi sed ad illustrandam atque confirmandam rem jam creditam That they are not properly arguments to make us believe but a sort of illustrations and confirmations of a truth already believ'd I thought those excesses buri'd long since with Theodore of Mopswest Anathematis'd on that very account by the Fathers of the fifth General Council and Faustus the Manichee so often confounded by St. Austin I was glad to hear Observat on Dr. Wallis's four Letters pag. 16. That those Gentlemen do not profess to follow Socinus but the Scripture that if Socinus has at any time spoken erroneously or unadvisedly or Hyperbolically t is not Socinus who is their Master but Christ yet after all they espouse the same enormity in the brief Hist pag. 16 17. and lay this as a rule Nothing is more usual with the Writers of the New Testament than to apply to the Lord Christ in a mystical or allegorical sence what has been said by the Writers of the Old Testament of God or any other in the litteral and primary sence of the words This they do as often as there is any likeness between the Persons or things or events He that shall read the Thalmud or other Rabbinical Writings will see that the Apostles took this way of Interpreting from the Writers of the Jewish Nation For as often as the Jewish Rabbins met with any event or thing or Person like to what is recorded in some place of the Old Testament they said that place was fullfill'd or was again fullfill'd and accommodated immediately the words of such Scripture to that Person event or thing If this be receiv'd it is a folly to pretend to reason or to dispute First Though there are some Prophecies of Christ which may admit of
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
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
be that then in the Messias whom we all acknowledge to be the Holy Jesus which makes the Glory of this latter Temple to exceed that of the former I take this to be the stress of the Question To think that the difference lies in the Building and Architecture as some have fansied of the Temple built afterwards by Herod or even of the duration of this which is the Opinion of some Jews does not deserve any consideration It is said then of the former Temple that the Almighty did appear by a Cloud That he sent a Fire to consume the Sacrifices and this with so great a sence of his Presence that 2 Chron. 5 7. Chapters it is repeated four times that the Glory of the Lord fill'd the House An Argument not only of his approving what they did but even of being himself amongst them How could then the Glory of the second Temple be made greater by the Coming of the Messias For granting that the Spirit of God did inhabit in Christ in a vast measure That he wrought Miracles and pleas'd God by the great Holiness of his Life yet this at most but equals the frequent and glorious appearing of God himself Nothing can justifie the Assertion of the Prophet but this That God in the second Temple is become visible appearing to men in their own Nature That having sent his only Son in the likeness of sinful flesh he has consecrated this second House with his Blood That by assuming our Nature he has made good his Promises and shew'd himself glorious not only in a small corner of the Earth and for a short time but establish'd an endless Kingdom and procur'd ro men an incomprehensible Glory Hence Christ is call'd by David Psal 23.7 The King and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory two of the most High God's Qualifications The Author of the Brief Hist has taken no notice of this place but the Lord Bishop of Sarum having made use of it in a Book or Sermon which I have not seen I find that what they say to it Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 24 25. amounts to this 1st That my Lord is mistaken to think the word Glory in the second Temple alludes to the Cloud of Glory in the first 2ly that My Lord has added His to the Text led to it by that chimerical mistake 3ly That the meaning is plain They have built as well as they could considering the streight they were in But that God in due time will cause this house to be more magnificent even then that built by Solomon 4ly That admitting My Lord's opinion that God has appear'd in the Person of our Saviour in whom the Majesty of God dwelt Bodily the Temple would not be more glorious than any other place where Christ resorted But particularly because Christ never enter'd into the Temple 5ly That this Prophecy was fullfill'd in the rebuilding of the second Temple by Herod To the 1st I say that the sacred writer in speaking of the Glory of the second Temple must allude to the cloud of Glory of the first or else he is not intelligible This is evident if the Glory of the first Temple has no other foundation then the appearing of God in the cloud of Glory But that it is so is undenyable since all the excellence of a building of that nature consists neither in the magnificence of the structure nor the rarity and beauty of the pieces of which it is made But only in God's acceptation The burning bush was certainly more glorious then the palace of the Pharao's The cloud of Glory was a sign that God was pleas'd with the erecting of a House which himself had required Therefore the cloud of Glory was the true and principal Glory of the first House That it is so of the second appears from that magnificent preface of shaking the Heavens and the earth and of bringing in the desire of the Nations and then the promise of filling the House with Glory This proves invincibly that as God appearing in the cloud of Glory was the Glory of the first so the appearing of the Messias the desire of the Nations was the Glory of this second House To the 2d then The Bishop did not undeservedly add the word His but follow'd the sence of the words For if God's appearing in the Cloud made it His Glory His appearing in the Messias must make it His Glory too To the 3d. It is altogether wide of the question 1st The Glory of the Lord was not only visible to the Priests and Ministers of the Altar but to all the Children of Israel 2. Chr. 7.3 2ly It was not only in the Holy of Holies or where the Priests Minister'd but it was upon the house Thus Christ the Glory of the second house appear'd to all the people and did those Miracles which no Man can do except God be with him Joh. 2.3 3ly It is visible that the Glory promis'd to the Temple is not so much to the Temple it self as to the time of its standing since the Temple it self was to be destroy'd A substantial observation and strangely overlook'd by these Gentlemen That time was to be more glorious by bringing in a dispensation of Eternal righteousness By putting an end to all Types and Figures By fullfilling of God's Promises by introducing into the World the desire of the Nations Heb. 12.27 And this word once more signifies the removing of those things that are shaken as of things that are made that those things which cannot be shaken may remain To the 4th It deserves no answer These Gentlemen are positive in things which are really very disputable The modern Jews may be of their opinion The Ancient were not That Herod the Great rebuilt the second Temple is assur'd by them but flatly deny'd by Josephus Ant. Jud. lib. 15. c. 14. They say that it is confess 't by all to have excell'd that of Solomon But this is flatly contradicted by several learned Men and I think to the purpose by Villapandus Tom. 3. in Ezech. In a word These Gentlemen imagine in the place before cited that this noble Prophecy amounts to no more than this ..... We have not so much Money as Solomon but we have done what we can God will provide us more and then we shall do better Consid pag. 24. How can Men of sence and learning espouse such comical Interpretations If they are in earnest what must we think of them And if they are not let them consider that God is not to be mock't The whole Prophecy of Zechariah seems to have no other end but to discover the Messiah to the World His Divine nature is so fully express't in the second Chapter that it is above the reach of any little Criticisms or evasions whatsoever The four first verses announce to Jerusalem that it shall be built again and to its people that they shall inhabit it The 6
But that for all this he is a Man and no more than a Man he has no other Existence no other Nature We on the contrary besides all these titles insist on that of Nature We say that he is the Son of God after a manner incommunicable to any Created Being I suppose that if the Pre-existence and Pre-eternity of the Son can be prov'd his Equality with the Father his sameness of Nature and a communication of those names by which the only true God is known to us the assertion will be justifi'd For all that we conceive of God being that he exists before all things that he has neither beginning nor ending that he is above all things that he is infinite in perfections That he is the Creator and in a most eminent way the Lord of all that is If this is made out of the Son in vain those Gentlemen struggle to reduce what is said of him to their poor wayes of explaining how he is the Son of God since none of their explications can amount to any part of this 1st Then to prove his pre-existence that is that he had a being before he was conceiv'd of the Virgin read Joh. 6.62 What and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before The design of the whole Chapter is to convince the Jews that they ought to receive him The Argument he uses is that he is come down from Heaven He tells them that he is the food of their Souls That their Fathers indeed had meat sent from above but that it could not keep them from Death But that he brings them bread of so great a vertue that it would procure immortality That this bread is his Flesh which he gives for the life of the World His hearers were scandalis'd at this The discontent affected even his Disciples Till Jesus to convince them that he came from Heaven tells them positively that he was there before and that as a proof of this they should see him ascending thither again There is not nor can be a more easy way of Arguing You doubt whether I come from Heaven to feed and preserve to save and redeem you What greater proof of this can you desire then to see me ascend to Heaven where I was before and from whence I descended If Christ then was actually in Heaven before he was born these two truths cannot be deny'd 1st that he had another Nature besides the human since he had another existence 2ly That he must have existed before the time assign'd by these Gentlemen to be the first of his Existence that is his Conception in the Virgin If Christ was not before he was born how can he say that he was in Heaven If Christ was not in Heaven how does he offer them to let them see him ascending thither again The Apostle takes this for granted Eph. 4.9 He proves by Christ's ascending to Heaven that he descended from thence Whether he alludes or no to this place is uncertain But he looks upon Christ being come down from Heaven and having been actually there as a principle agreed on by all Men. How that he ascended what is it but he also descended first and v. 10. He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all Heavens c. He then who ascended from us to Heaven did first descend from Heaven to us Joh. 6.33 The bread of God is he which comes down from Heaven Joh. 3.31 He that comes from above is above all ... He that comes from Heaven is above all Joh. 16.27 I came forth from the Father and am come into the World again I leave the World and go to the Father This Doctrine is not only of the Scripture but it may be said to be one of the first notices of Christianity there being scarce any Sect or denomination of Christians but believes that Heaven is the place from whence their Redeemer is come A notion so plain so easy so consistent with the whole revelation of the will of God that Photinus Bishop of Syrmium the Socinus of his Age was not only condemn'd by several Councils but Anathematis'd also by the several perswasions of Christians and even by the Arrians and Semi-Arrians themselves What these Gentlemen oppose consists in this The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says pag. 25. That Christ was actually taken up into Heaven and took his instructions from the Father before he enter'd upon his Prophetical Office That this is intimated by the very place which we have examin'd by Joh. 8.38 but particularly by Joh. 3.13 No Man has ascended to Heaven but he that is come down from Heaven even the Son of Man who is in Heaven That the word is must be read was that Erasmus Beza Camerarius read it thus That the Evangelists have not spoke of the time of this assumption because it was before their being call'd to be his Disciples that Christ never told them of it but only hinted it in some discourses The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 27.28 Cites the same Authors for the word was He tells us That the must Orthodox Interpreters understand it metaphorically But that the Socinians understand this Text litterally and say that 't is here intimated that before our Lord enter'd upon his Office of Messias He was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the mind and will of God as Moses was into the mount Exod. 24.1 and foll and from thence descended to execute his Office That the same thing is also hinted Joh. 6.38 Joh. 8.40 When I see such answers to a place of that importance so express and so positive and from Persons of so much Learning I ask my self whether I dream or am really awake I am tempted to lose all the respect which I have for them and begin to think that it is not reason and conscience but obstinacy which makes Socinians 1st The Authors before cited do not say that it ought to be read was but that it may be read thus Qui est in coelo says Beza 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel qui erat in coelo Beza in Joh. 3.13 These great Criticks are not sensible that the was is as much for us as the is I hope they have read the advice of this Learned Man in the notes on this very Verse Having discourst of the Union of the two natures in Christ He concludes in these words I thought fit to make these short remarks against a sort of Men who are not asham'd in this our Age to fetch back from Hell the detestable errors of Nestorius and Eutyches oppos'd by the vast labours and studies of all the Fathers and condemn'd with the clear and unanimous consent of the whole Church 2ly I deny that the most learned Interpreters have understood it in a Metaphorical sence This is another of those Gentlemen's boundless citations A Metaphorical sence of these words is ridiculous impertinent and inconsistent with the thing it self They see
and working the Heavens Do created beings perish and decay really or Metaphorically Is the World's destruction real or only Figurative No Man ever indulg'd his fancy to that degree as to call this an Allegory It is then a real and actual Creation Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth It was done in the beginning before any thing did exist or began to be The consequence then is as bright as the sun that as he who has given a beginning to any thing is before that thing which he has given a beginning to so Christ is pre-existent and before all created beings since it appears by the express Authority of the Scripture that he has given a being to the whole Creation I pass by that Elegant Description of an Eternal Being who is always the same incapable of change and not mov'd even in the general destruction of all things But hold says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 17. You are in a mighty mistake This seems indeed appli'd to Christ Heb. 1.10 But Thomas Aquinas observes that it may be understood of God only not Christ Grotius tells you and so do Estius and Camerarius that this Text must be referr'd to v. 13. Hold again says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 10 11. This is an Allegory and must be understood as the new Heavens and the new Earth spoken of Esay 65.17 and 66.22 2 Pet. 3.13 Revel 21.1 which all the Trinitarian Interpreters have understood of the Gospel state of things in opposition to the Jewish which is antiquated and done away agreeable to the assertion of Christ Matt. 24. If this is not satisfactory there is another shift ready He tells you That others of his party take this as an Apostrophe conversion and devout address to God not intended of our Saviour The Allegory has so much the more weight that it comes from the Allegorical Hugo Grotius to whom may be appli'd what the 5th General Council said of Theodore of Mopswest that rather than be convinc't He would turn the plainest truths into Allegories But for all that these Gentlemen are in the wrong St. Peter speaks of the end of the World and of the destruction of all things in the last day The 24th of St. Matthew is of the same strain and though several learned Men have understood these places of the destruction of Jerusalem yet they have agreed that it contains also that of the whole World Christ answers his disciples first says Tertullian de Resurr car follow'd in this by very many of the Fathers of the time of the ruine of Jerusalem and then of the end of the World The notion of the Apostrophe or address to God is scarce worth any notice and time is too precious to spend it in answering trifles of that nature It is like that of Socinus and I believe flows from it that these words are not spoken of the Son because with the conjunctive particle and there was not rursum again An ordinary measure of common sence will shew the vanity of this Let ten thousand People read this Chapter and these two Verses in particular But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God ... and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid but will think them to be spoken to the same Person No not that plain Countryman who hearing his Parson read these words of St. Paul thought it not robbery did fancy that the It was not in the Original Ans to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. I must beg these Gentlemens Pardon If I am forc't to say that they are guilty in their Disputes of an unparallel'd Injustice The Scripture speaks of a real Creation It mentions one also which is Allegorical Some Interpreters and not all the Interpreters according to their large way of talking have understood the places which they have cited out of Isaias and the Revelation of this last Therefore right or wrong they must be appli'd to the first Rather than give up the Argument they will give over the litteral sence of a Text which is capable of no other and run to the Metaphorical which by no means can agree with it It is confest on all hands that the Prophet in the words in dispute speaks of a real actual Creation and of a real actual Destruction of the Word It is also confest that the words are addrest to the real actual Creator of the World to that Eternal God who in the change and alteration of all things is himself incapable of change This they themselves do not deny The Apostle brings in the Father speaking to his Son attributing to him that real actual Creation as to the real actual Creator and because this is plain evident and unanswerable then the Apostle must be made to speak in an Allegorical and Figurative way This is such a method of arguing which I durst almost say is scandalous I honour Grotius but I would borrow an impertinence of no Man to elude a visible Truth That this Doctrine of the real and actual Creation of all things by Christ is not deliver'd obscurely or by the by but is the constant and universal Doctrine of Scripture appears from Colos 1.15 and foll v. Who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they by Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers All things were created by him and for him and be is before all things and by him all things consist There is not a word in this but what invincibly proves the question and this after so clear a manner that it leaves no room for Allegories figures or any such poor shifts Passing by the first expression the image of the invisible God of which we shall have a further occasion to speak The Apostle says positively of Christ that he is the first born of every Creature that is born before all Created Beings which is the true rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primogenitus omnis Creaturae reads the old latin that is genitus ante omnem creaturam says Tertullian lib. de Trin. born before any creature The passage of that Father is home to the thing It was before any of these disputes and shews exactly the sence of the Western Church in the Primitive Times Quomodo Primogenitus esse potuit nisi quoniam secundum Divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre sermo processit How could he be the first born but that in respect of his Divine nature The word proceeded from God the Father before any thing was created Origen lib. 2. contr Cels to an objection made by Celsus that he whom we assure to be God and suppose to suffer so willingly could not forbear cryes and lamentations answers That he does not discern the difference of the Scriptures Expressions That Christ speaks sometimes as Man and sometimes as God We have laid down says
men The visible and glorious appearance of God amongst Men. God then is become visible in Christ Jesus The word the Eternal God has made the human nature of Chirst the Tabernacle where he shews himself to Men. 2ly That appearance is call'd by the Greeks glory for so the septuagint so all the sacred Writers in the New Testament render it Exod. 40.34 Numb 16.42 1 Sam. 4.22 2. Chron. 5.14 Ibidem 7.1 Isay 6.1 Joh. 12.41 Matt. 25.31 Mark 8.38 Luk. 2.9 Therefore as a proof of this appearance of God in the Flesh St. John adds and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father Wherein the Particle as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Comparison but an Explanation of that glory And we have seen him present amongst us with such declarations from Heaven such a train of stupendous miracles with such a glory as could become none but the only begotten Son of God I have been somewhat large on this place because it is home to the question those Texts being decisive and staring in one's face These Gentlemen are sensible of it and have turn'd their Answers into several shapes and still with a kind of mistrust owning and disowning taking up and laying down again sometimes opposing the litteral sence and sometimes obtruding a poor miserable Allegory The Author of an Answer to a letter of Dr. Wallis by his Friend touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity consults in the letter one of these Gentlemen who gives him several explications of this place The first is that which he calls the ancient Orthodox sence at the Council of Nice and afterwards of some centuries The second of the Modern Orthodox The third that of the Arrians All pag. 9. The fourth is attributed to Paul of Antioch as he remembers it somewhere related by Melanchton which he owns to be uncouth and strange pag. 10. and the Socinian interpretation to be forc't and unnatural because says he we have inbib'd from our youth and even from our Cathechism contrary Expositions The first is that of Grotius pag. 11. who being the only Man of reputation who has lent them Allegories is upon every occasion call'd great and illustrious He concludes by saying I think I have said enough to convince any Man that is not extremely prejudic't that this is an obscure Scripture For as every one of those sences finds some specious grounds in the Text so never a one of them can clearly answer all the Objections that are levied against them and that of the Trinitarians least of all It is then a Text which in his opinion cannot be explain'd This indeed is strange to a high degree that a Writer divinely inspir'd an Evangelist who lays the foundation of a Faith once deliver'd to the Saints and which we are all oblig'd to embrace is by no means to be understood It is also very odd that this should have seem'd clear to all the Ages before and even to all the Christian Churches of this Age which all agree in this though they differ in other points and it should be dark and obscure now to this Gentleman Admirable that some particular Wits should be made now so different from all Mankind as to see what all the World before has not seen and not to see what has been seen by all the World before He tells his Friend further That Dr. Wallis has not done like a Divine but like a censorious he will not say a malicious Person when he Dr. Wallis says if God says The word was God and The word was made flesh shall we say Not so only because we cannot tell how As if these sayings were so clear that they admitted no sence but his He runs on in the difference between the word taken personally which he says is but seldom and impersonally which he says is very often He concludes That they have reason to complain of forc't interpretations depriving God of an incommunicable Attribute even his Unity and of defending their interpretations with sad distinctions between the Essence and the Divine Persons the threefold manner of Existence in God Hypostatical Union Communication of Properties c. This Gentleman is not sensible that he himself justifies Dr. Wallis And that instead of a censorious he represents him like a candid Man when he tells them that is the How can it be that they dispute against Have they not been perpetually minded that we preserve inviolably the unity of God That Three Persons subsist in one Divine Nature because that one God has reveal'd it to be so Let them deny the Revelation if they can But as long as they are angry with the Expositions of the Church concerning how it is The Doctor is in the right it is the How can it be that they quarrel with and upon which they deny the whole But after all this what should we say if this Gentleman who finds this chapter of St. John so obscure and the Catholick interpretation the most unreasonable of all with never so little help should find the one clear and the other highly rational He has himself shew'd us the way in the same Letter pag. 9. The consulting Friend reading to him the Drs. Letter he comes to this place John 1.1 and the 14. The word was God and The Word was made Flesh This says the Gentleman who was consulted were to the purpose If by this term The word could be meant nothing else but a Pre-existent Person and by the term God nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and if taking those terms in those sences did not make St. John speak nonsence and if by Flesh could be meant nothing but a Man how excellent soever and not a Mortal Man subject to infirmities but all these things are otherwise Will this Gentleman stand to this Will the Author of the Brief History and the Answer to Mr. Milbourn and the humble adorers of Grotius his strain'd and Allegorical Explications put the thing upon this issue 1st He does not deny the word to signify a Person but only a Pre-existent Person Nor can he deny him to be pre-existent since he was before all things began to be since by him all things were made 2ly He cannot deny that the term God is meant of the Almighty since the God with whom the word was is undoubtedly the Almighty and the word being said here to be God and God being but one the word must be that Almighty God 3ly He will not offer to deny that the term Flesh here is nothing but our human Nature and that the word made Flesh implies the word being made Man This Author then has plainly answer'd himself and ruin'd all that he pretended to say to his Friend But as for this strange sort of an If and if says he taking those terms in these sences did not make St. John to speak nonsence I will pray him to take to himself what the Author of an Answer to
For. But if you speak of the spiritual it must be render'd By. These Ifs are much like the Hints spoken of before which Christ gave to his Disciples that he had been taken up to Heaven before he came down to preach the Gospel There is another Criticism of a vast importance For if it be admitted says the Author as it ought to be admitted it turns the whole context against us and utterly overthrows the orthodox Belief We should have translated was Flesh which makes a vast alteration in the Question He proves this by the 6. v. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is render'd not was made but was Yet after all this This ingenious Man spares us the trouble of shewing the vanity of this and gives up this Text. In the answer to the late Archbishop pag 54. we do not care at all says he whether our Opposers read here The word was made man which is His Grace's reading or as we do The word was man 2ly As to their difficulties The one is the case of the unlearned the other is that of Transubstantiation Upon the Question what the Unlearned must do in this difference of readings he Answers That he must stick to theirs and that his reason will give him that it is the true because the thing being impossible and contradictory ours must be false This is a plain begging of the question and once more it is to suppose that which they are to prove This is still the How with which we have nothing to do and which all Mankind cannot resolve because God proposes it as the great object of our Faith and not of our reason They ought to prove that it is not reveal'd by all the ways by which a reading can be prov'd not to be true as we do their pretended Cricisms but not by imaginary consequences altogether foreign to the thing propos'd I conceive that there are two sorts of unlearned men The one are absolutely illiterate and incapable of any examination not only of these disputes but even of points a great deal more obvious then these A sort of people who are religious not by reasoning but believing not by inquiry but Tradition Not so much by the conviction of their minds as an impression of God's Grace upon their hearts These can never be Socinians They have a strong and an invinible inclination to believe as the Church believes It is an unsuccessful undertaking to propose to them the various readings of a Text. The other are Men of a good natural and improv'd sence of a better education and of a freer conversation with all sorts of people but yet destitute of learning to judge of things themselves I say that if they are equitable they are less in danger of being Socinians then the other A place of Scripture is alledg'd which not only the Church wherein we live but all the Churches in the World have read and understood in the plain sence which the words bear and this from the beginning of Christianity and there comes in this or at the end of the latter Age a witty Criticiser who pretends to acquaint the World that all the Holy and learned Men who have liv'd hitherto and live to this day have been surpris'd and have surpris'd all Mankind and that this place is not to be read or render'd as they have done but as himself does I say there is no equitable Man who though unlearned is yet a Man of sence or understanding but will acquiesce in the receiv'd Doctrine and look upon this new reading or rendring as a design or at least a mistake The case of Transubstantiation is yet more unreasonable and yet These Gentlemen are never weary of urging it If you will believe the Trinity you must believe Transubstantiation You reject the one because it is impossible Therefore upon the same account you must reject the other This is my body is as express against you as the word was God and the word was made Flesh is against us But 1st Is it not a great injustice that these Gentlemen who are as much against Transubstantiation as we are and know that it is not to be found in these words this is my body should make use against us of a Topick which they themselves own to be false There is not any one point in Religion which some Heretick or other has not attempted There has not been an Heresy if we believe St. Jerom but has pretended to defend it self with some place of Scripture What should we say of one who believes none of their assertions to be true and all the places which they cite to be misunderstood by them and yet would make use of every one of them to prove that no part of Religion is true This is exactly the case of these Gentlemen They argue against us from a Doctrine which they detest and would infer a parity from a Text which they are satisfy'd does not at all prove that which the Church of Rome would prove by it Let them but go round with this and in a short time there will be no such thing as Religion God forbid that I should think that they design it but this is the unhappy Consequence of that sort of Ratiocinations 2ly The Author never consider'd the weight of his assertion pag. 29. That in this point the decisions of the Church in Councils and the mere letter of Scripture are against us For if the Church of Rome could make it out clearly and substantially that the letter of Scripture and the decisions of the Church are of their side not only we and the whole body of Protestants but these Gentlemen themselves must go over to it But either of them is false There is no such thing as the letter or the mere letter of Scripture or any decisions of the Church of any Antiquity for Transubstantiation I appeal to this very Author for the truth of this who however in the height of dispute has let this to slip from his pen is too learned not to know the contrary 3ly If the dispute between us and the Church of Rome about Transubstantiation is truly stated it signifies nothing to the matter in hand and that the objection is really against them There is no difference between us as to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament This is admitted by all the Societies of Christians who pretend to a name in the World The French Protestants who have stray'd in this particular from the Doctrine of the Fathers more than any other have freely acknowledg'd it in the admirable writings of Mr. Claude against the great Monsieur Arnauld The sober Church of England and Enemy to all extremes has kept strictly to this that Christ is truly and indeed in the Sacrament without pretending to explain the manner of that presence She has own'd that it is Divine and Incomprehensible and look't upon it as a Mystery according to the name given to the Holy Sacrament by the Fathers of Dreadful
Sacred and Divine Mysteries The Church of Rome and some others have presum'd to go further and to six the manner of Christ's being in the Sacrament I demand then with what equity these Gentlemen can make that Objection and repeat it with as much earnestness as if they reason'd upon an undisputed Principle The Trinity and Incarnation we believe The How can it be we acknowledge incomprehensible We do the same of Christ's presence in the Sacrament The Revelation concerning all this is plain and express We pretend to no more It is disingenuous and obstinate to deny that any thing is because we cannot shew how it is Had we deny'd the presence of Christ in the Sacrament the Objection had been of some force But denying only Transubstantiation that is the manner of that presence it is altogether wide of the question Having done with this Author I pass to that of the Brief History who did not think this Answer of Mr. Milbourn's Adversary solid enough to embrace it But after some cursory animadversions on the Churche's Exposition shelters himself under Grotius's Wings and delivers that learned Man's Opinion It is needless to transcribe it all that he says pag. 26 27 28. amounting to this Grotius understands as we do the Creation here spoken of to be that of the Natural World He explains the words in the beginning as we do when God created all things or when all things began to exist He makes as we do that word to be not only Pre-existent but Eternal He understands as we do the word to be with God and to be God He reads as we do all things were made by him and for him He renders as we do The word was made Flesh acknowledging that Flesh is the usual Scripture Phrase for Man and saying also in the Explication of the 10th Verse that in process of time the word come to be Incarnate You will say then where does he differ from the Orthodox For as yet nothing appears contrary to the sence receiv'd in the Christian World He differs only in this that he makes this word to be only a property and an Attribute of God i. e. his Wisdom and Power but not a Divine Person I wonder that this Author would embrace an Exposition which really ruines all their little Criticisms their charming Allegories and brings the question to this only difficulty whether the word is no more than an Attribute or whether he is a Person Whatever Grotius in other places has done for these Gentlemen he has certainly given up the cause here by cleaving to the litteral sence of the words which indeed he could by no means avoid I will only propose these difficulties 1st If the word here is no more than an Attribute or Property how is he constantly spoken of here by he and him The world was made by him The world knew him not It is ridiculous to say that it is in the same manner that Prov. 9.1 Wisdom is said to build her House and David calls God's Commandments his Councellers Since in those places is a visible and a design'd Metaphor But Grotius owns here a real actual natural Creation of the World which admits of nothing Figurative 2ly If the word is no more than an Attribute of God what can be the meaning of the Evangelist In the beginning was the word and the word was God What is there in this so singular and to what can this lead us The Wisdom of God was before all things and the Wisdom of God was with God That is God was wise before the World was Created Certainly St. John means somewhat more than this Why not in the beginning was the Power the Mercy the Truth the Holiness of God For all this God was before things began to be 3ly What can be the design of this and the word was God Who ever heard any one say that Wisdom is God and Power is God Nor will it serve here to say as the Author of the History That all the Attributes of God are God or that the name Jehovah is attributed to Angels and that Moses is call'd God Either of these answers destroys the other For if the Attributes of God are God then Wisdom is the supreme God and not as the Angels or Moses Or if Wisdom is call'd Jehovah as the Angels and God as Moses then all the Attributes of God are not the Supreme God 4ly If the word is no more than an Attribute what can be made of this He was in the world and the world knew him not He came unto his own and his own receiv'd him not Living in the World unknown to the World coming to and rejected by Men cannot be said of Wisdom If it could bear that sence the Evangelist says nothing since before the Gospel before Moses before the Flood the Wisdom of God was despis'd by Men. 5ly The following words can never be spoken in the sence of an Attribute So many as receiv'd him to them gave he power to become the Sons of God even to them who believe on his name Can sence be made of wisdom giving us power or believing in the name of wisdom 6ly If wisdom is no more than a qualification how comes this and the word was made Flesh I remember that these Gentlemen value themselves much upon this notion of the Author of the Impartial Account of the word Mystery that they cannot believe the Trinity because they can have no notion of a Trinity I humbly beg a notion of Justice Prudence Holiness or as here Wisdom made Flesh I humbly beg a notion of an Attribute made Flesh 7ly And we beheld his glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father I again humbly beg to know whether the Attribute Wisdom is the only begotten Son of the Father I beg a notion of the Glory of God's Wisdom to be seen by human Eyes No says the Author you mistake it is the Glory of the Man on whom the word did abide But I must beg his pardon and tell him that this is too great an imposition on the sence of Mankind Any one who knows somewhat more than his A. B. C. knows that The word is the subject of all that is said here It is of the word that it is said that he was in the beginning that he was God that he was with God that he made the World that he was made Flesh that his Glory was seen as of the only begotten Son of God He must not He cannot admit the word to be the subject of all the other Propositions and deny him to be the subject of this I beg your pardon for having been so long on this Text. But the Answers of your Friends being of so great an extent though of so different a nature it was fit to shew how weak and unsatisfactory they appear I then prosecute the Argument and offer some others to your consideration I think that nothing proves the Eternity of God so
and born before any created substance but the Father who has begot him Nor can any know the Father after the same manner but his living word who is both his wisdom and truth I remain SIR Your humble c. THE Fourth LETTER SIR HAving prov'd the Pre-Existence and Pre-Eternity of Christ his Antemundane and Eternal Being with God before he assum'd our Nature and shew'd how deficient or to use the very words of your Friends in the Brief Hist pag. 23. how harsh and strain'd their answers seem to be to the Texts produc't against them it remains to make good that Christ is God by a communication of the Divine Essence and that the Scriptures represent him to be God after a manner applicable to no Creature The first of these two assertions is grounded on Phil. 2.6 and foll v. The Apostle proposes Christ to the Philippians as a Divine instance of Humility and Obedience He makes both to consist in this that being really God and equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation but became Man and humbl'd himself to the Death of the Cross The words of the Text are clearer than any Commentary v. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God The form of God is here the Nature and Essence of God For though in some other places of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Form signifies no more than an Image or a personal appearance yet in this it is determin'd to this sence of Nature and Essence by the next Verse where the form of a Servant is certainly the Nature and Essence of a Servant The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting rather than being in the form of God as these Gentlemen will not deny that it should have been translated implies a real and an actual in-being in the Divine Nature St. Paul having asserted that Christ subsisted in the form of God says that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God an expression which crumbles to dust the poor notion of a God by deputation as Socinus has contriv'd and an inferior though an excellent God as Arrius For what inferior or deputed God dares claim an equality with the God of Heaven and Earth audet pariari Deo says Tertullian What Moses Solomon what Lord Lieutenant of a County or Mayor of a Town because the Scripture calls Magistrates Gods would pretend it to be no robbery to equal themselves with God The excessive humility of Christ appears then in this that though God and equal with God yet v. 7. He made himself of no reputation semetipsum exinanivit reads the Old Latin exhausted himself says Tertullian contr Marci more agreeable to the Original he lessen'd he empty'd himself He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men both so Highly Disproportionate to the Infinite Being of God v. 8. He carry'd yet the humiliation to a more stupendious degree For being found in fashion as a man he humbl'd himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross There is then not only a plain assertion but a visible Union of the two Natures There is a God becoming a Servant and a Man and suffering for us in that humanity which he was pleas'd to assume The Author of the Brief History pag. 37. excepts against this He says 1st That it cannot be the design of the former part of these words to intimate that Christ is God because 't is added at last that God has exalted him and given him a name that is above every name These words plainly distinguish Christ from God as one who is not himself God but exalted by God 2ly That this has oblig'd several judicious and learned Trinitarians to interpret the whole Context of Christ as he is a Man 3ly He explains pag. 38. being in the form of God only to be like God by a communication of the Divine Power 4ly He does not translate as we do thought it not robbery to be equal with God but committed not robbery to be equal with God i. e. did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. and foll says almost the same things only he brings in a Tale and a Proverb The Tale is of a Countryman who without a remnant of Greek or Latin did yet puzzle his Vicar by asking whether It was in the Original whether the true reading was thought it not robbery or only thought not robbery to which last the Vicar yielding the Countryman was satisfy'd that this Text did destroy the Divinity of Christ The Proverb is that every like is not the same and therefore that since Christ was in the form of God that is like God as Adam and all other Men he cannot be God He says further that it is both Morally and Physically impossible that God should do any of these things and undergo any of these changes He observes and that Socinus had done before that if Christ is equal with God he cannot be God since nothing can be equal to it self He cites Christopher Sandius who has made a considerable Collection of Authors Fathers as well as modern who confess that this Text is to be understood of Christ as Man and not as God The Answerer to two Discourses of one Monsieur la Motté done out of French repeats all this in other words Only he is so confident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be translated thought it not robbery that pag. 11. he sends us to the School Boys and pag. 8. to the Lexicon I hope they are Persons of too much judgment to take this for an Answer that Christ is not God because God has exalted him and God cannot exalt God For all that is or ever was pretended from thence is not that God has exalted God But God has exalted that humane nature that Man Christ Jesus assum'd by the word to the participation of the honour due to God That other sort of reasoning is as bad as this that if he is equal with God He cannot be God because nothing can be equal to it self I suppose they mean because equality implies comparison and comparison excludes identity This is certainly false in Geometry and false again in Divinity But admitting the Proposition as it lyes It is nothing at all to the Question The design of the Apostle is not to compare Christ with God or a God with another God But only to shew that Christ is that supreme God who humbled himself to that degree as to take upon him the form of a Servant Now what more significant sort of expression could be us'd than this that though he was God and had reason to think all the perfections and glory of the Divine Nature to be his own which is the full and only importance of being equal with God yet he humbl'd himself to death c. I hope also that they are
of Mark 16.19 He was receiv'd up into Heaven This Text is express for the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures A Mystery truly great and incomprehensible God made Man An admirable instance of the love of God to us and a most powerfull motive of our Obedience to him These Gentlemen have made two sorts of Objections to this The one they have taken from Chrellius and their other profess't Friends the other from Erasmus and Grotius For the 1st the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 40. says That if we will make sence of this Text we must translate Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested by Flesh i. e. God's nature and will was manifested by Flesh that is by Man by Jesus Christ and his Apostles to us Gentiles Was justify'd in the spirit i. e. the same will and nature of God was verify'd by miracles done by the spirit or power of God Was seen of Angels i. e. was known to the Angels who were desirous to understand this new revelation Believ'd on in the world receiv'd with Glory or Gloriously and not receiv'd up into Glory The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says That by Godwe may understand here as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themselves do not the Person but the will and mind of God This was manifested to us by Flesh that is by Christ and his Apostles They have as much reason to translate by instead of in Flesh as we have to translate by the spirit instead of in the spirit It ought not to be translated receiv'd up into Glory but receiv'd gloriously i. e. extoll'd magnify'd lifted up He gives this reason for understanding the word God not of God himself but of his will and mind that we interpret it thus Gal. 1.10 do I now perswade men or God Do I seek to perswade human invention ..... or the very will and commands of God Thus silly and bold Criticisms are made use of to undermine the Christian Faith The poverty of this new translation will be evident from this very observation that God to express the mind and the will of God is a dialect which they may have us'd themselves to but is wholly unknown and unpractis'd in Scripture They are desir'd to give any one single instance of it but clear plain and lyable to no exception Gal. 1.10 is far from being of that nature Men do not signify there human inventions nor God the will and commands of God The Generality of Interpreters and indeed the nature of the thing it self leading us to this sence of the place Do I seek to approve my self to men or to â—od ..... For if yet I pleas'd men I should not be the Servant of Christ Their translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Flesh is contrary to the original to the Faith of all translations and to the sence of Manknd The reason which they give for it that we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the spirit is wholly false But the last part of this Text receiv'd gloriously that is as they say extoll'd magnify'd and not receiv'd up into glory is an insufferable attempt on the Eyes and sence of men They should have imitated Erasmus who having strain'd as much as possible every part of this Text was so struck with the evidence of this last expression that though a great Wit and a great Critick he thought it the best way to let it alone and say nothing to it He saw clearly that the will and mind of God taken up to Heaven is a barbarous way of expression He was sensible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dialect of the Scripture Mark 16.19 Act. 1.11 Act. 1.22 is an actual real personal being taken up of Christ into Heaven He knew that this is the language of both the Testaments and that the same is us'd of Enoch of Moses and of Elias The first part then of their answer is not solid and if they had no more to say than this they must be look't upon as unreasonable and obstinate men Indeed the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn has made a pretty paraphrase and very intelligible It has only that unhappiness that he has given us his sence and not the sence of the Apostle and absolutely departed from the truth and meaning of the Text which a Paraphrast ought not to do It is very diverting to read these Gentlemen's Paraphrases They make what words they will and give them what sence they please Then they muster all up and end in a pretty Speech What they have borrow'd of Grotius consists in this That the word God is not in the Text. Brief Hist pag. 44. This appears by the Syriack Latin Ethiopick Armenian Arabick and most ancient Greek Bibles by great many citations out of the Greek and Latin Fathers who read not God was manifested but which was manifested Macedonius was the first who corrupted this Text by substituting the word God instead of the word which and for this and other matters he was depos'd by the Emperour Anastasius about the Year 512. The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 2 3. says That the Latin Syriack and Armenian Translations the Council of Nice and St. Jerom himself a bigotted Trinitarian read which and not God Erasmus says that Multa vetera exemplaria many but not very many as the answerer has translated it of the ancient Copies read which a reading approv'd by Erasmus himself Grotius cites Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes saying that the Nestorians substituted God in the room of which the better to defend themselves from the Eutychians Liberatus the Archdeacon of Carthage assures us that Macedonius was depos'd for so doing This and some heats against Mr. Milbourn is the sum of what he has to say What Erasmus says of his many or as this Author will have it very many ancient Greek Copies that read which and not God with the leave of that great Man is a real mistake Beza examining himself this very place of Erasmus answers plainly Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci codices But All the Greek Copies with an universal consent give him the lye All the Greek Copies do agree in the word God says one of the best and most learned Prelates this Nation ever had The joint consent says he in another place of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the Authority of these two Translations He means the Latin and Syriack But to examine this most particularly Grotius does not condemn or reject but only insinuates that he has some cause to suspect the reading God The Latin Interpreter as the most ancient is the great objection for all the rest Armenian Ethiopick Arabick are names serve only to fill the Page and make the simple Reader to stare But it will prove at last no Objection For if a thousand Translations read contrary to the Original Text we ought not to depart from it if the Text is true genuine and indisputable But
like to do much for an Argument Dr. South going to deliver the Opinion of the Church concerning the Holy Trinity does it Animadv Chap. 8. pag. 240. with the humblest submission to the Judgment of the Church of England Mr. Milbourn has done the same There is in those sort of expressions a great deal of modesty and Justice If an Author even in a point of humane Learning must not pretend to dictate but gives an easie Introduction to his Reasons by removing all that is imposing and positive How much more in the treating of things of so sacred and abstruse a nature And is it not just that a private man who pretends to shew what the Church believes should leave to the Church to judge whether he has not misrepresented her Doctrine This submission of these Reverend Persons is thus taken up Consider on the Explicat pag. 20. Truly I am heartily sorry that Dr. South has no fixt Religion of his own no not concerning the Trinity it self but is ready to turn with the wind is prepar'd to renounce a Doctrine and Explication which he believes to be not only true but fundamental if the Church commands him and lower We may infer however from these publick Professions of the Writers That could the Socinians get Mother Church of their side all her Champions would also come over to us for 't is not it seems the Cause that they defend 'T is not the Trinity and Incarnation which they value but our Mother our Mother the Church and in the Preface to Mr. Milbourn pag. 7. On the same conditions Mother Shipton should be as sacred and as infallible with them as Mother Church and they would believe the Kingdom of Oberon and the Territories of Fairy-land In a Book call'd the Trinitarian Scheme which I can compare to nothing better than a Pamphlet in the late King's Reign intituled The Papist misrepresented and represented pag. 16. having misrepresented a Doctrine which is true in it self and that is that the most wicked men are sometimes converted to God at the last hour of their life an Instance of which we have in the Thief on the Cross the Author is so far transported as to say The next thing that we may expect from some men is that they will write a Panegyrick in the praise of the Devil These Exceptions I make to their way of writing There is another I confess I must make to their persons I mean as to the Name which they are pleas'd to assume to themselves They are pleas'd to call themselves Vnitarians To quarrel with a Name is somewhat extraordinary But truly that a handful of men who have not yet pretended to make a Body and are only distinguisht by a singularity of Opinions which the whole Christian World even in their own Confession exclaims against is in its own nature strangely extraordinary If by Vnitarians they mean all those who live in the belief of One only true God they do all Christians an extreme injury Since there is none who believes in or adores more than one only God I will not grudge to men the pleasure to say that they are of Cephas and Apollo though contrary to his design who would have us say that we are of Christ and only of Christ If they have so great a veneration for Names as to love to be call'd Calvinists Arminians Socinians and what not let them freely enioy that imaginary happiness But to take the name of Vnitarians as if by it they pretend to denominate a Sect is a strange sort of Undertaking But if by it they contradistinguish themselves from us by pretending to defend the Unity of God it is an unwarrantable Invasion of the Rights of all Christians who make this the Foundation of their Faith They have run into another Excess and call'd the Defenders of the Catholick Doctrine Trinitarians having perswaded themselves and endeavouring to perswade the World that we teach Tritheism and by a more refin'd way of Idolatry have brought in the Adoration of three Gods Whereas they must acknowledge that this is a Notion detested by all Christians that at the same time that being taught from above to use the expression of an ancient Bishop of the Greek Church we assert three Persons we assert them in one only God and that all that they have to say against this is only a Consequence ill drawn from a Doctrine which they have misunderstood The Question is not between us Whether God is one This is granted on all sides The Question is Whether admitting three Persons in that one God does not destroy that Unity which we all contend for These Gentlemen say it does We maintain that it does not Now the misery in this case is That the Socinians will not be contented with the common Topicks of arguing which have hitherto been made use of amongst Christians For when we pretend to prove what we advance by such places of Scripture as are plain and evident then we meet with a witty Criticism a pretty Paraphrase or a Tale by the by as that in the Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. The most Illustrious Grotius or the most Learned Erasmus come in at a dead lift The one who is the brief History of the Vnit pag. 11. is represented as Socinian all over The other of whom it is said in the same place that he would have been of the Arrian Perswasion if the Church had allow'd it When we answer their Objections instead of that equitable Temper which is willing to be overcome nothing being so glorious as to be conquer'd by the Truth they tell us in the Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication pag. 12. One may easily see how convenient the Machine of probable Senses is which our Divines bring into their Disputes what an easy thing it is for them to free themselves from pressing difficulties and make new Overtures with these famous Keys of Transpositions of words or Clauses errours of Copies c. When from the Authority of Scripture we pass to that of the Fathers and they find themselves pressed with a Cloud of Witnesses they reply Answ to Mr. Milbourn pag. 44. That indeed their System is unknown to the Fathers whose Writings are now extant But had not their Opposers supprest the Works of Aquila Symmachus Theodotion Lucian Artemas Theodorus Paul of Antioch Photinus of Syrmium Marcellus of Ancyra we had known their Sense better When we are even willing to do more than the nature of the thing in question will bear that is explain that incomprehensible Mystery and bring that as much as we can within the compass of our Reason which indeed is above it This they call Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindic. pap 8 9. To have our Faith depend upon Plato's Idea's Aristotle's Subtilties Cartesius his Self and mutual Consciousness and metaphysical Abstractions more unintelligible to poor Mortals than the Tongue of Angels They exclaim against those Expressions which Antiquity has consecrated and the common
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
has been us'd by all the Fathers is the only method to come to the Knowledge of the truth This will be prov'd by the reading of both Testaments For if those things are spoken of Christ which can relate to none but Man and at the same time those things are spoken of him which belong to none but to God shall we presume to separate what God has united shall we run to the extreams of the Old Hereticks who would not admit of a real humane nature in Christ and offer'd an incredible violence to all those texts which represent him as a Man Or as the Socinians who denying his Divinity put to the torture all those places which speak of him as God To take off at once the authority of the Old Testament and make ineffectual those glorious predictions of Christ which tell us what he was before he was in the World They confidently assert in the brief History pag. 22. That the more learned and Judicious Trinitarians confess that the â—rinity and the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit are not indeed taught in the Scriptures of the Old Testament but are a revelation made in the new Nay 't is the more general opinion of the Divines of all sects and perswasions They cite for this some Authors and amongst them Tertulian adversus Prax. Which I would beg of them to read more exactly It is the fault of these Gentlemen to be vastly large in their citations and to pretend to have Authors of their side who are really against them The mistakes I hope are not willful but they are somewhat frequent Neither the ancient or modern Doctors ever said that the Old Testament had nothing in it by which Men might be induc'd to the notice of a Trinity of persons in God and of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit They have said indeed that the Jews had no explicite or clear Knowledge nor no explicite or direct belief of those mysteries Which is true The revelation of the Trinity in Vnity being the previledge of the Gospel and a considerable part of that Grace and truth which came by Christ Jesus Joh. 1.18 No Man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him How could the Old Testament be the form of and the introduction to the new if those truths were not adumbrated in the one which are clearly reveal'd and explain'd in the other How comes it to be a maxim receiv'd amongst the Old Jewish Doctors that whatsoever is recorded in the Law in the Prophets and in the sacred Books Indicant sapientiam point at Christ the ineffable Wisdom or Word How does St. Paul lay this as an Aphorism Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes How comes he before Agrippa and Festus solemnly to declare that he says nothing but what Moses and the Prophets have assur'd should be How come the Apostles and Evangelists to take most of their arguments from the Writings of the Prophets St. Austin treats this at large against Faustus lib. 12. c. 46. Eusebius Praep. Evang. l. c. 3. St. Cyprian Praefat. ad Quirin tells him that the sacred Writings of the Old Testament are of great use ad prima fidei lineamenta formanda To form the first lineaments of our Faith Origen against Celsus lib. 2. calls this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most strong demonstration and Lactantius Instit lib. 5. c. 3. Disce igitur si quid tibi cordis est non solum idcirco à nobis Christum creditum Deum quia mirabilia fecit sed quia vidimus in eo facta esse omnia quae nobis annunciata sunt vaticinio Prophetarum Be sensible then if thou hast any honesty or conscience left that Christ is believ'd by us to be God not olny because he has done miraculous things but because we have seen all the things fulfill'd in him which have been announc'd to us by the Prophets Non igitur suo Testimonio cui enim de se dicenti potest credi sed Prophetarum Testimonio qui omnia quae fecit passus est multo ante cecinerunt fidem Divinitatis accepit It is not then by the Testimony which he has given of himself for who can be believ'd who Witnesses for himself but by the Testimony of the Prophets who have Prophesi'd long before all that he has done and suffer'd He has receiv'd that Men should believe his Divinity The first proof which offers it self out of the Old Testament is that expression of the Almighty Gen. 1.26 Let us make Man in our image after our likeness It is undenyable that in the text as well as in the translation God is pleas'd to speak in the plural number And as we cannot admitt a multiplicity of Gods in a nature which is so entirely one so we cannot but see a kind of consultation in the Divine Persons It is visible that God does not speak to himself or to any created being who cannot concurr in any manner to the creation of Man It being an incommunicable property of the Divine nature And it is an impiety to think that God should speak in the air and to no purpose What is meant then by the Vs but that Son by whom he made all things and without whom nothing was made that was made Joh. 1.3 and that Holy Spirit which moved upon the Jaâ—e of the Waters Gen. 1.2 This the Fathers urg'd agâ—iâ—st the Arrians Thâ—se Gentlemen answer Brief History pag. 8. 1st That this is done according to the customs of Princes and great persons in all languages that is in an oratory and figurative way 2ly pag. 15. that God speaks to the Angels who were present not as adjutants but spectators of his work The presence of Angels is prov'd out of Job 38.7 This second reason is singular and the verse to prove the presence of Angels strangely dragg'd in But it ruins it self For if the Angels are not adjutants to the work How comes God to say Let us make Man This does not at all reach the difficulty The first is as bad that thiâ— is done according to the Custom of Princes It is strange that God should have laid the Custom aside in the formation of all the rest of the Creatures and us'd it only 〈◊〉 â—hat of Man For to say that it is the same as v. 3. let there be light v. 6. let there be a firmameâ—â— c. it is only a gloss and a comment against which the sence of the words stands unmoveable It is stranger 〈…〉 and Custom which in its 〈…〉 the Majesty of any divine 〈…〉 in a way which to these 〈…〉 to the unity of his nature I farely ask whether it was custom which caus'd God to alter the manner of his expression in all the Verses before or else a design to speak somewhat in this mysterious to us The first is
a litteral sence yet several are capable of none and in those that do the mystical is alwayes principally intended Secondly The Apostolical Writers are by all sides suppos'd to be inspir'd and could not by chance apply to Christ those places of the Old Testament which discover him to us When the spirit of God applies positively this or that text to Christ It shews that this or that text whatsoever litteral sence might appear in it was the principal sence and only design of the Prophecy Thirdly The Apostles and Evangelists never pretended to prove Jesus to be Messias the Son of God by way of allusion and allegory or by an occasional fulfilling of Prophecies But by a real palpable entire and noble way of accomplishing in him what had been Prophesi'd of Old Fourthly It had been a strange undertaking in the Apostles to pretend to shew Prophecies fulfill'd in Christ if these Prophecies had not been known and publick to the World and principally directed to be fulfill'd in him If all is occasional what makes St. Paul to tell the Ephesians ch 2. v 20. That they are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone and Origen against Cels lib. 1. lay this as a principle that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The greatest of all the arguments by which the faith of Christ can be prov'd If people durst allow themselves not to be serious in so grave a dispute How would the Notion be expos'd of Men suppos'd and granted to be divinely inspir'd Who should write after the Thalmud and the Rabbinical Writers The first proof then of another Person in the Trinity and understood of Christ by the Apostles is Psal 2.7 The Lord has said to me Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And as a consequence of this Ask of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession The Author of the brief Hist pag. 15. understands this only of Christ being begotten to a new life the day of his resurrection and by it acquiring the title of the Son of God He pretends to prove it by Act. 13.33 God has fullfill'd the same in that he has rais'd up Jesus again as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And Indeed that sence would appear very plain if there were not a double objection against it 1st If there were no place in the Scripture that did assert a Generation of Christ before his resurrection 2ly If the Apostle himself did not cite this very place in another sence For the first These Gentlemen themselves agree that Christ was the Son of God and begotten of him from the Moment of his Incarnation That he was declar'd to be so Matt. 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleas'd and that the name is given him every where in Scripture before his sufferings This mightily blunts the answer For if this day I have begotten thee be no more in the sence of the Apostle than this day I have made thee my Son by raising thee to a new life Christ receives nothing new by it since he was and was declar'd even in their opinion to be so before But it will be quite overthrown if we consider that the same Prophet Ps 110. appli'd by the Jews to the Messias and by the sacred Writers to Christ and so positively urg'd by Christ himself that Matt. 22.46 No man was able to answer him a word nor durst any man from that time forth ask him any more questions I say that the Prophet speaks thus v. 3. in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the Morning thou hast the dew of thy youth Which is not only before the resurrection but even before the World But if it is read according to the old Latin Translation which the learned World and these very Gentlemen reverence so much Ante Luciferum genui te I have begotten thee before the Morning star was which place was so read by Justin Martyr against Trypho and by Tertullian lib. 5. contr Marcion The sence of the Apostle cannot be that he was the Son of God and begotten by him by rising to a new life For the second The Apostle cites the same Scripture in another sence and this twice 1st Heb. 1.5 2ly Heb. 5.5 The one to prove that he was much better than the Angels and had a far more glorious name The other to evince that he glorifi'd not himself to be made a High Priest Treating of the one without any relation to his resurrection and as for the other it is agreed from all hands to have preceeded it Christ being made our High Priest not by rising from the dead but by offering on the Cross the Sacrifice of himself The sence then of the Apostle can be no other than this That Christ in his resurrection did eminently appear to be the Son of God That his resurrection is a splendid declaration of the Divinity of his Nature And that as his sufferings spoke him to be really Man loaden with our infirmities and dying for our Sins so his resurrection from the dead declar'd him to be God This Tertullian expresses elegantly in these words advers Jud. c. 12. Aspice universas nationes de voragine erroris humani exinde emergentes ad Dominum Deum Creatorem ad Deum Christum ejus Et si audes nega Prophetatum statim tibi promissio patris occurrit in Psalmis dicens Filius meus es tu ego bodie genui te Look upon all the Nations of the earth arising out of the Gulph of Men's errors to the Lord God the Creator and to the God his Christ And if thou dar'st deny the Prophecy Immediately the promise presents it self to thee in the Psalms saying thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee The 6 and 7. v. Of the 45 Psalm run thus Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever The Scepter of thy kingdom is a right Scepter or a Scepter of Justice Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity Therefore God Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy Fellows That this is spoken of the Messias is the unanimous assertion of the ancient Jews The Chaldee Paraprhase interprets the second verse Thy beauty O Messias the King exceeds that of the Sons of Men. Their consent is so general in this that they never so much as dream'd of Solomon in this Aquila reads it in the Vocative Case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostle has not accommodated or appli'd it to Christ as these Gentlemen are pleas'd to speak But has cited and understood it as a direct Prophecy of the Holy Jesus Heb. 1.7 8. His design is to shew that Christ is above all that is created and because in created beings we know nothing greater than the Angels He says
Luciferum genui te Before the morning Star was I have begotten thee The fourth his Eternal Priesthood Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck Wherein is impli'd that intercession mediation and sacrifice of himself which had he been no more than a meer Man must have been ineffectual These Gentlemen take no notice of the 2 and 4. verse and in my opinion answer strangely the 1st and the 3d. What they say to the 1st in the brief Hist pag. 18. consists in this 1st That the words of our Saviour are David in Spirit calls him Lord saying the Lord said unto c. That is David in the spirit of Prophecy foreseeing Christ calls him his Lord not because Christ is God for then himself could have made his enemies his foot-stool But because not only the spirit of David and of all Saints but even Angels were to be made subject to him as the reward of his most holy life and obsequious and acceptable death 2ly That when the Psalmist says The Lord said unto my Lord it is to be understood thus The Lord has in his decree said or he has decreed it shall be so I appeal to themselves whether this is to answer or only elude an objection For it is notorious that the spirit in which David speaks is the spirit of Prophecy David being a Prophet speaks what God has reveal'd to him It is false that he calls Christ his Lord or that he speaks to Christ He calls Christ Lord sayes our Saviour but not his Lord. This is a real mistake and the reason given for it of the spirit of David of Saints of Angels made subject to him is another He must speak of Christ as God or else the Prophecy says nothing The Lord in one place is of the same importance and signification as the Lord in the other Neither the words nor the sence nor our Saviour give to David any other part in the Prophecy but the relating that the Lord the Father has said to the Lord the Son the Christ Sit thou on my right hand An argument which invincibly proves the Son Coeternal and coequal to the Father Nor does the saying till I make thy Enemies thy foot-stool take any thing off its force since the Apostle 1 Cor. 15.25 Says of the Son himself that He must reign till he has put all Enemies under his feet The second part of the answer that the Lord said to my Lord is to be understood The Lord has said in his decree or has decreed it shall be so is a wild strain'd unnatural and new explication If men will give themselves the liberty thus to comment on the most express and clear Texts of Scripture nothing can be sacred or certain in Religion Our Saviour asks the Pharisees Matt. 2.24 What they think of Christ whose Son is he They answer him plainly The Son of David Christ replies again How then does David call him Lord If he is no more then the Son of David How does David declare him to be Lord and this by the greatest authority in the World even the Lord calling him so If he is the Son of David without running to a decree which indeed should rather be admitted here then he is without a decree the Lord being as much the one by nature as the other These Gentlemen are desir'd to produce any one of the Fathers or ancient Writers who has understood this place of any such imaginary decree The third verse is so pressing that all they have to say to it is that both the place is obscure and the many versions made of it They like that of Castalio best which cuts the Gordian knot and substitutes other words and sence to that of the Prophet I think that the Greek is very clear the old Latin very clear Justin Martyr Tertullian St. Chrysostom St. Jerom St. Austin and most of the Fathers very clear who have read as we have said before and are to prefer'd to a version as new and as inconsiderable as its Author In the ninth Chapter of Isaias v. 6 7. We have these words Vnto us a Child is born unto us a Son is given and the Government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be call'd Wonderful Counsellor The Mighty God The Everlasting Father The Prince of peace That they are a Prophecy of the Messias The Chaldee Paraphrase and several learned Jews have positively asserted From them Eusebius Basil the great Theodoret St. Cyrill Procopius St. Jerom and the generality of the Fathers have prov'd the Divinity of Christ And indeed those Epithets which make up the character of this Son that is given can become no creature They are all the names which belong to God and by them as he reveal'd himself to men Which of the Sons of men can be wonderfull or secret mysterious as the Angel expresses the name of God to Manoah Jud. 13.18 Which can be the Councellor the Director the Guide the light from whence all Wisdom is deriv'd Which can be the mighty God the God of strength and power Which can be the Everlasting Father or as St. Jerom reads the Father of the age to come that is The Author and giver of immortality Which can be the peaceable Prince or the Prince of peace in whose hands is our present or Eternal peace In a word to which of us mortals can any of those Emphatical expressions be attributed without absurdity or Blasphemy To this those Gentlemen answer Brief Hist pag. 20th 1st That this can be no Prophecy since Isaias speaks of a Prince actually born and the Prophet liv'd 700 Years before Christ 2ly That this Text is never appli'd to Christ by the Writers of the New Testament 3ly That the Text is to be understood of Hezekiah 4ly That it is extravagantly render'd into English In the answer to Mr. Milbourn they say almost the same things only add this flourish That they affect no monstrosities but are govern'd by the obvious reason and possibilities of things For the 1st That it can be no Prophecy since it speaks of a Prince actually born is to suppose that which ought to be prov'd and can never be certainly made out But granting that it can have these Gentlemen forgot what they said in their answer to an authority of the 45. Ps 6 7. That the Prophetical Poet at the same time that he prais'd and courted Solomon who was certainly then actually born might also Prophesy of Christ A Prince then may be actually born and what is said of him may also be a Prophecy St. Austin against Faustus lib. 12. cap. 46. pretends and really in a very solid way of reasoning that not only the Prophets did announce Christ But the very Nation of the Jews that very People their very government and administration were all a Prophecy Per Propheticam gentem per Propheticum populum per Propheticum regnum and yet the one actually in being the other actually born before
the one it is also to the other and not the Branch the Prince is here describ'd 4ly It is against the true reading of the Septuagint and the old Latin Translation To the 3d that is Jer. 33.15.16 granting the reading of the Text as it is in our Bible which indeed the Hebrew favours It is so far parallel to this as to be a renewing of the promise made by God in the place already cited The sence of the Prophet is that Jerusalem shall be call'd the Lord our righteousness by containing him that is being fill'd with his glorious presence who is really the Lord our righteousness As Jacob Gen. 33.20 erected an Altar and call'd it Et-elohe-Israel God the God of Israel And Ezek. 48.35 and the name of the City from that day shall be Jehovah shammah the Lord is there But what can be more positive and home to the question than the testimony of Baruch chap. 3. the 3. last verses This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him He has found out all the way of Knowledge and has given it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved Afterwards did he shew himself upon earth and converst with Men. To offer an enlargment on this Text is to do it an injury The 1st of these verses asserts the unity of God The 2d his great wisdom and goodness to his people The 3d his visible appearing to us in our nature and this not by a sudden apparition vanishing as soon as it is offer'd and leaving the Soul in suspence about the truth of the object but by a continu'd living on the Earth If there be but one Person in God as these Gentlemen so stiffly maintain and that is the Father there must have been an Incarnation of that Person since he has appear'd upon Earth and convers'd with men which they and with a great deal of Reason will by no means admit But the whole Scripture says That God has sent his Son into the World That he has appear'd to put away Sin and we all agree that the Holy Jesus is that Son How then can we deny his Divinity since it is said of him who has thus appear'd This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him This is so express that we must not expect to be put off with Grotius or Christ being call'd God as Moses or Solomon or the rare Notion of God coming to us in his Ambassadour Jesus Nothing of this will do and therefore the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. answers first That the Book is Apocryphal Secondly That those who admit the Book reject those verses as suppositious Thirdly That the Original Greek may be render'd Afterwards this Book of the Commandments of God and the Law which endures for ever was seen upon Earth and turn'd over by men First That the Book is Apocryphal is an Answer cannot be made by these Gentlemen because it is cited against them by the whole Societies of Christians who believe it to be Canonical But freely granting that the Book is such I must beg leave to say That it is nothing to the purpose Any man of ordinary reading knows that Apocryphal signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncanonical or out of the Canon of the Sacred Books That sort of Writings though not kept in Armario as Tertullian expresses it cap. 3. de hab muli yet were look'd upon with much reverence by them and particularly by the Hellenists They were daily in their hands and the greatest Authority in the World next to the uncontested Scriptures There is a vast difference between being uncanonical and rejected and the saying That this Passage is taken out of an uncanonical though a Sacred Book takes nothing off the force of the Objection These Gentlemen who are so pleas'd with Criticisms that it will with them bear down the plainest Authority in the World must give me leave to Criticize for once I say then That of all the Apocryphal Books none was so like to become Canonical as that of Baruch It is somewhat more than a probable Conjecture that this Book was once read with that of Jeremy whose Disciple Baruch was The ninth of Daniel has lead several Learned men into that Opinion For after he has cited Jeremy v. 2. and began that fervent Prayer for the preservation of Jerusalem He seems to transcribe Baruch Compare Baruch 1.15 16 17. with Daniel 7 8 c. Baruch 2.7 8 9. with Daniel 9.13 c. Baruch 2.11 c. with Daniel 9.15 Baruch 2.15 with Daniel 9.18 I will add to confirm this That several of the most ancient and Primitive Fathers have often cited Jeremy and yet the Texts us'd by them were taken out of Baruch which gives some ground to believe that the Works of these two Prophets were once joyn'd together To the second Objection we must be forc'd to say That no part of it is true First it is not true that ever those Verses were look'd upon as supposititious by them who either admitted or rejected the Book Secondly it is not true that ever these words were a marginal Note no ancient Copy being without them and the rest being only Conjecture instead of Reason The third Objection is the highest Unsincerity imaginable Their Translation is forc'd unnatural and what is worse notoriously false There is nothing in the Text of a Book of Commands or of a Law which endures for ever There is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viam disciplinae as the Vulgar translates it To say not what they have pretended to impose without either Reason or Truth but what can be strain'd from this That the way of Knowledge has shew'd Himself to men and convers'd with them is a bold and ridiculous way of Translating The fifth Chapter of Micah is an eminent Prophecy of Christ The first part of the second Verse gives an account of his Birth and of the place to which God had promis'd so great a Blessing But thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be little amongst the thousands of Judah yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel The second part soars higher and tells us That though he is born as a man yet he has that which no man can pretend to and though he has such a visible Being yet he has another which is invisible and eternal whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting or From the days of Eternity This Text has a double advantage First that the Chaldee Paraphrast the Thalmud and the generality of the ancient Jews have follow'd in this the sence of their Forefathers and understood this Text of the Messiah Secondly that from Mat. 2.6 and Joh. 7.42 this invincibly appears to have been the Tradition of the Jews one of the great Obstacles to their Belief that he was the Messias having no other ground than that contrary to the received Opinion That the
7. are a repeated assurance that God will put an end to their Captivity The 8. is a solemn Declaration that he is resolv'd to protect them The Lord of Hosts assures them that he is sent to revenge their quarrel and v. 9. that he will certainly do it and that they shall evidently see that he is sent by the Lord of Hosts For thus says the Lord of Hosts After the Glory has he sent me to the Nations which spoil'd you For behold I will shake my hand upon them and they shall be a spoil to their servants and you shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me That the Lord of Hosts is the Almighty That he and none but he assumes that name is granted of all sides It is also granted that God is one and that besides him There is no God And yet this Text represents The Lord of Hosts sending The Lord of Hosts An expression parallel to that of Ps 110.1 The Lord said to my Lord. It must be said then that though a plurality of Gods is inconsistent yet certainly the Divine Nature admits of more than one Divine Person It must be confest that The Lord of Hosts who sends is the Father That The Lord of Hosts who is sent is the Eternal Word the Son and that though there is but one God yet that Revelation which he has made of himself tells us that there is several Persons in that one God The Author of the Brief Hist pag 22. answers 1st That these words as they are in the Latin and English are hardly sense 2ly That neither of these words thus says the Lord of Hosts are words of the Lord of Hosts himself but of the second Angel who at v. 3 4. spoke to the first Angel and to Zechariah 3ly That the verses should have been thus render'd from the Hebrew Thus says the Lord of Hosts afterwards shall be Glory instead of after the Glory i. e. after you are departed out of Babylon v. 7. you shall have honour and peace and you shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me i. e. to punish them and give you peace and glory To the 1st and 3d It is hard to accuse Translations exactly agreeable to the Original of Hardly being sence when they cannot be made to bear with our opinions In this the Author is unhappy that the letter of this Text is plain and has scarce any difficulty What he says afterwards shall be glory may be a sort of a Paraphrase but is certainly no Translation But the weakness of this will be evident by the reply To the 2d He insists that Thus says the Lord Hosts are not the words of the Lord of Hosts himself but of the second Angel who speaks to the first I beg to know whether it is the Lord of Hosts who says v. 10.11 Sing and rejoice O Daughter of Sion for lo I come and I will dwell in the midst of thee says the Lord. Can any one who is not obstinately resolv'd to contradict all mankind say that it is an Angel speaking to another And many Nations shall be join'd to the Lord in that day and shall be my people and I will dwell in the inidst of thee and thou shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me Is it not he who is sent by the Lord of Hosts whose people they shall be who will dwell in the midst of them Once more is it an Angel to whom many Nations shall be join'd and who will take them for his people He that speaks is without any evasion the Lord of Hosts and He plainly and positively declares that the Lord of Hosts has sent him This Author did catch at a kind of a Notion which he thought to find in the Verses before but is so absolutely overthrown by these last that no rational solution can be offer'd to them This is one of the Hammering Texts urg'd by the Fathers against the Arrians and understood by the Jews of the Messiah The 12th of Zechariah not only represents Christ as God but even God suffering for us It supposes his Incarnation and consequently the union of the two natures and the Divinity being impassible it shews palpably that he has assum'd a body to suffer in It is one of those Texts which prove themselves and are plainer than any sort of Explication v. 10. The Almighty speaks thus I will pour upon the House of David and upon the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of Grace and supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierc't That none but the only true God pours the spirit of Grace and supplications is indisputably true It is the act of an infinite power and mercy which can be in none but him and yet that very God says that they have pierc't him To prevent the understanding of this Allegorically piercing him with our sins as the Jews did of old and of late in the person of Christ which is the poor shift of the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. of Grotius before him and of the Blasphemous Theodore of Mopswest before Grotius St. John tells us who is he that has been and shall be seen thus pierc't Rev. 1.7 Behold he comes with Clouds and every eye shall see him and they also which pierc't him A description of Christ coming to judge the World It is to give God the lye to say that he has not been pierc't since he does so positively assure it They shall look on me whom they have pierc't But the Scripture shews this to have been done in Christ Therefore Christ is that God who has been pierc't These Gentlemen will say No Because God may say that he has been pierc'd and Christ too may have been pierc'd and yet be no God But if it can be prov'd that this is a direct Prophecy of Christ that the Me where lyes the stress of the argument is spoken of Christ and of none else it must be litterally true that he has been pierc'd and that he is God The famous passage of Joh. 19.37 is express to this The Evangelist having shew'd all along the accomplishment of Prophecies in Christ fixes to him the sence of this place And again another Scripture says they shall look on him whom they have pierc'd This is so decisive of the question that the Author of the Brief Hist pag 22. reduces himself to this miserable shift that this is appli'd to but not interpreted of Christ These Gentlemen who pretend so much to reason are now and then unreasonable Can any thing be appli'd to Christ and not interpreted of him or interpreted and not appli'd to him They complain that we talk gibbrish and have a jargon of our own Pray what is this Or will they say that it is only to allude at the place of the Prophet and not to interpret who can advance this with any candor that reads the place cited St. John has prov'd all along that Christ is the Messias
the confession of their Adversaries Some of them had preserv'd the gift of miracles which expir'd soon after Such an assertion had it not been true would have better become a pack of Villains than Holy and Reverend Men. 2ly How durst the Nicence Fathers declare this to be the Faith and Anathematise whosoever was against that sacred wise Divine and Catholick Faith had this Faith been new and unknown to the Fathers before nay had a contrary Faith obtain'd then in the Christian World This is a monstruous supposition that within 300 Years after Christ the Nicene Fathers should presume to obtrude the belief of and declare a Doctrine to be Faith which the Primitive Fathers were not so much as acquainted with To give more strength to this and prevent an objection which perhaps may have some colour and occasion another Criticism I freely own that not only the Arrians but even some of the Orthodox complain'd that the words Consubstantial and Consubstantiality were new and unscriptural But this confirms what I have said the newness and unscripturalness of the words but not of the sence being asserted They agreed in the truth and antiquity of the Doctrine but only differ'd about these two words which by being new and unscriptural were not thought so fit to express it I beg your pardon for insisting so long upon this But I was forc't to it 1st Because this very place of that Letter you have often urg'd to me 2ly To shew that how great Criticks soever we are we must be just and equitable and value reasons above Criticisms If these Gentlemen write for the Unlearned they are much out of the way these things are above their reach And if for the Learned they must own that this has not made one Learned Man of their side It is a sort of Chicane which Men of sence abhor 6ly These Gentlemen would have us prove those Terms by Scriptures which we own to be unscriptural They challenge us to find in the New Testament the word Godman Trinity Incarnation nay whole Propositions in Terminis The Author of the Letter now cited pag. 10. pretends it as a great Argument of their side that Tertullian is the first amongst the Latins and Clemens Alexand. amongst the Greeks who first us'd the word Trinity We might as well ask and with as little reason where is the word Vnity in respect of God or Sacrament or Hierarchy and several more which all the World receives and yet are no Scriptural words If we do but find the things exprest by the words as that God is one that there is Baptism and the Lord's Supper that there is an order of Men appointed to administer holy things the words are a natural consequence and founded in the things themselves Is it not highly unjust to ask us where we find a Trinity if we can prove three Divine Persons That besides the Father whom they acknowledge to be God the Son also and the Holy Spirit is God To wonder at the word Eternal Generation since if we prove Christ's Pre-existence and Pre-eternity He cannot be the Son of God but by way of Eternal Generation To stare at the word Incarnation as such an unheard of thing since if Christ is God and yet has taken our nature He must be Incarnate These are poor mean and a sort of Mob difficulties These Grievances being consider'd I beg nothing but what is equitable 1st I beg that if we prove the thing in question that is the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy spirit we may have no quarell about the words Trinity and Incarnation 2ly That no particular Interpretation of any Protestant Author may be brought against us as Interpretation either of our Church or any other considerable body of Protestants 3ly That if a Text is capable of a various reading and of a double sence that sence and reading may be preserv'd which is prov'd to have been the ancient reading and the sence generally receiv'd in the Churches of God A sence new and unknown to all the Ages of the Church cannot be the sence and that possession which we and all Christian Societies are in of those Texts cannot be disturb'd without something more forcible and authoritative than the witty fancy of an Interpreter 4ly I beg that the Fathers may be heard as Witnesses of an unquestionable integrity and that this at least may be a real prejudice against these Gentlemen that they have not only oppos'd the Faith of their Age but also that of times past 5ly That a Criticism alone the doubting of a Book the denying of a place the wrangling about a Particle without some considerable reason to back it may not be look't upon as an Answer 6ly That not only some one particular Text which we alledge be consider'd but that all our Texts be taken together with the weight of the important reasons which inforce the belief of our Mysteries This granted I conceive that it is no difficult matter to convince a candid Opposer that the New Testament is clear for the Divinity of Christ We will begin by that which is the foundation of our Holy Religion Matt. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is the ancient profession of our Faith and ingenuously acknowledg'd to be such by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milb pag. 16. He cites for this Tertullian de bapt c. 13. He might have cited Theodoret lib. 1. c. 12. St. Basil de Spir. sanct and Arrius himself who is a Witness of this in the Confession of his Faith given to Constantine and reported by Socrates lib. 1. c. 26. The Orthodox from this Text conclude three Persons to be spoken of These Gentlemen only two The Father who is God and the Son The Holy Ghost they will have to be no more than the Energy of the Father They are positive in the Brief Hist pag. 25. That neither the more learned of their Opposers nor the Fathers of the first 400 Years insist on this Text to prove the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit The matter of fact is a vast mistake and the very supposition is impossible This place having been cited so often by the Ancients and modern to prove the Persons of the Trinity must of course in their Hypothesis be an Argument for their Divinity They agree with us that the Son spoken of in the Text is Christ Jesus whom they will have to be the Son of God by all other titles but that of Nature and Essence They say of him that he is the Son of God by his miraculous Conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin By his Mission to preach to Men and reclaim them from their Sins by his Glorious Resurrection being begotten to a new Life and his Admission to a Blessed Immortality whence as God's deputy he is to come to judge the quick and the dead
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
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
God and the word was God But the Divine Nature is one and incapable of division It cannot be multipli'd without destruction Therefore if the Father is God as it is confest of all hands and if the word is God as the Evangelist fully and plainly asserts it there must be more than one Person in that one single and indivisible Deity These persons must be Co-eval Coeternal Consubstantial This shews how mean and low how strange and far from the Question is the Answer or rather the Subterfuge of these Gentlemen which they are never weary of obtruding that Christ is call'd God as Moses and Solomon were and as Magistrates and Princes I beg the favour if we do nothing but catch at the word God as they are pleas'd to say we do to shew me in the sacred Writings some such place as this for Solomon and Moses Does any of the Evangelists or Prophets say in the beginning was Moses and Moses was with God and Moses was God In the beginning was Solomon and Solomon was with God and Solomon was God They cannot but be sensible how such reasonings might be expos'd But though what St. John has said is enough to prevent all objections against the Sacred Doctrine and leave no room for Arrianism Sabellianism and Socinianism yet he prosecutes the Argument and gives us sensible proofs of his Divinity whom he asserts so positively to be God The same was in the beginning with God A repetition of great weight which unites all that has been said before to what is to be said after The word who was in the beginning The word who was with God The word who was God is the same who made all things v. 3. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made The Creation of the World that is of all spiritual and material substances and in a word of all that is is a most sensible and convincing Argument of a Deity A work so transcending all finite capacities that the true God is distinguisht by this from them who pretended to be but are really no Gods Isay 45.12 18. The assertion of Heb. 3.4 is true both in Divinity and Philosophy He that built all things is God None but the supream God can do it Now in what more litteral and accurate way of expression than this can this creating power be attributed to the word 1st You have an affirmation of as great an extent as the whole World it self All things were made by him 2ly Even to prevent the least imagination that perhaps something was which might have another Author and be the emanation of some other being there is the most pregnant positive and particular Negation that can be and without him was not any thing made that was made How long shall Men give the lye to their own reason and so far espouse an Opinion as to contradict the clearest truth He that made all things is truly God Therefore since we are assur'd that Christ made all things and that nothing was made without him he is truly and really God V. 4 5. St. John says In him was life and the life was the light of men To live is the prerogative of the most High for whereas all other beings borrow their life from him he lives independently from them In this sence he is call'd eminently the Living God Christ then is the principle of life and of light whatsoever lives lives by him He is original Life in the order of nature because by him Man was made Gen. 1.26 He is truly Life in the order of Grace Joh. 14.6 I am the life He is our Life even when we are dead Joh. 11.25 I am the Resurrection and the Life He is our life in the order of Glory 2 Joh. 5.20 The true God and Eternal Life A place we shall examine further V. 6 7. The Evangelist adds that the greatest amongst the Sons of Men the other John Matt. 11.11 was sent by God to bear witness that he was come into the World and for fear Men should be apt to mistake this Messenger of God for the God himself whose Messenger he was having so many qualifications above other Men He tells us v. 8. that John was not that light But v. 9. that the word of whom he has made such an admirable description was that true light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that original that essential light that was to come which has no beginning suffers no decay and diffuses it self so as in some measure or other to enlighten every Man V. 10. He tells us that he made himself visible to the World He was in the world He repeats again that the World was made by him and to shew the blindness and ingratitude of the World he says that though he was the Maker and Creator of the World yet the world knew him not He aggravates this v. 10. He came into his own amongst those very Men whom he had made who were his by a must undoubted title even that of Creation and yet his own receiv'd him not refusing the adoration and obedince due to him V. 12. To such as receiv'd him even to them that believe in his name gave he power to become the Sons of God He who is the Eternal Son by Nature assum'd them to the dignity of Sons by Adoption From all that the Evangelist has said the Eternity and Divinity of the word are clear That he is the supreme God the Creator of all things the Universal and only good of Man is plain and evident All the difficulty is how he was in the World came into the World is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he who was to come to appear to be seen in the World the title given him both by the Prophets and Apostles This the Evangelist resolves v. 14. And the word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth These Gentlemen who ask us with so much earnestness to shew them in the Scripture the words Godman and Incarnation may Easily satisfie themselves here The word who was in the beginning before the World was who was with God who was God who has made all things The word who is the true light the original life of all that is who was announc't by the Prophets ever since the World began who had for his Messenger the greatest amongst the Sons of Men who is full of Grace and Truth and of whose fullness we have all receiv'd That word was made Flesh assum'd our Nature and became Man I will end the Explication of this place by these two remarks 1st St. John says he dwelt the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Tabernacl'd amongst us A plain allusion to the Tabernacle to which God was pleas'd to be present or according to the Hebrew to inhabit In this sence the new Jerusalem is call'd Rev. 1.3 The Tabernacle of God with
Mr. la Motte has gravely and justly say'd to him pag. 3. That to speak so of the Apostles is ill manners nay 't is Unchristian and Impious But then comes the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn He will not have the Creation spoken of in this Chapter to be understood of the natural but of the spiritual World By the spiritual World he means the State of the Gospel by the other the spiritual World He says pag. 26. That the Socinians commonly suppose that St. John speaks here of the New-Creation even that great change of affairs in the World which has been so considerable that the Scriptures have divers times call'd it the new Heavens and the new Earth He begins the charge pag. 23. with a rule of Criticism That the writers of the New Testament have a particular regard to the notions and Opinions of the Jewish Church as also to the Customs and Forms of Speech in use amongst the Jews This is one of these forms that the Messias the Christ call'd the word by their Chaldee Paraphrases and by Philo the Jew should make a new and a better World and that the World was made for him This the Gentleman has borrow'd from Grotius the only Friend in distress Moreover they us'd the words El and Elohim which in Greek and in English signifie God of Angels Kings Magistrates and all such as are extraordinary Messengers or Ministers of God This he calls Keys to let us into the sence of those Verses without multiplying Gods as we do or Creators as the Arrians have done He tells us That in the beginning is not from the very first from for ever or from all Eternity Moses beginning with the same words does not mean as we do Moses means only in the beginning of the World John means only in the beginning of the Gospel state In the beginning was the word He intends here to say in the beginning was the Messias or Christ whom the Jews call'd the word That it is not easy to determine why the Jews gave the Messias the name of Word But 't is evident why St. John does it for as at v. 7 8 9. He calls him the light because he was the bringer of the Gospel light for the same reason he is content also to call him the word because he was the Messenger of the Gospel word ..... which is indifferently to be call'd the Gospel or the word of God This you have pag. 24. The word was with God and the word was God Here the Author grows somewhat hot not to say rude He tells us that his Opposers will not deny what every petty Grammarian knows that we should have translated thus The word was with The God and The word was A God He claims this Translation as absolutely necessary for clearing the meaning of the Evangelist in that place He says not the word was with God but with the God Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The God is always us'd to signifie the true God or him who is God by way of Excellence and Appropriation as the Grammarians speak But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A God is in Holy Scripture appli'd to Angels to Kings to Prophets ..... Moses is call'd so and so must the Messias who is no less than Moses the Ambassador and Representative of God He was with the God The meaning is That before he enter'd on his Office he was taken up into Heaven to be fully instructed and inform'd in the nature and quality of his Office Pag. 25. He says Their Opposers have nothing to say to this Explication of these words but they deny Christ to be Call'd God as Moses because it is said All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made and because the World was made by him I tell you Sir it is very dangerous to have to do with Criticks The Author says that this is a bold Translation He challenges us to deny that the Greek preposition which is render'd by might have been render'd for Thus the sence should have been All things were made for him The world was made for him That that makes this Translation certain is first that maxim that the world was made for the Messias and 2ly That Irrefragable Argument that there is no other Creator but God and that the word being distinguish't from the God and thereby deny'd to be the God this Translation must hold good You have this pag. 26. The short is says he If St. John speaks of the old Creation and of the visible World then the Translation must run All things are made for him to preserve the allusion to the known saying of all things being made for the Messias If he speaks of the new Creation the World which the Messias should make then the Translation must run all things were made by him The rest says he is easy The word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us The Translation is ill They should have render'd it the word was Flesh They render themselves the Greek word v. 6. not was made but was only All this is put into a pretty Paraphrase At last he puts the case of the unlearned and what they are to do who are not acquainted with those precious Criticisms He resolves it by saying that they must consult their reason which will satisfy them that the Trinitarian Doctrine is impossible pag. 28. He says We do the same in the Case of Transubstantiation That Protestants must either come over to the Socinians or revolt to Rome That the decision of the Church and the mere Letter of Scripture is against us But if no interpretation of Scripture is admitted but what is consistent with reason both Protestants and Papists must be Socinians The Trinity and Incarnation being more inconsistent with reason than Transubstantiation Now one should be apt to think that when an Author undertakes to face all Mankind that they are mistaken in the sence of a Scripture which they look upon to be the foundation of their Faith and has not only the simple and credulous but the learned and understanding part of the World for ' its Defenders He should bring some reason so clear so plain so self evident that the contrary assertion must appear most unreasonable This Answer has two unpardonable faults 1st The Criticisms on which it is grounded are every one of them false 2ly It supposes that which is to be prov'd the pretended impossibility of the thing The sence of the Church says he cannot be admitted because it is impossible This is still the How can it be If a Revelation is plain and express and if all the Criticisms in the World cannot make it otherwise it is to quarrell with the Almighty It is in so many words the assertion of Dr. Wallis which they have exclaim'd against as an injustice done to them and yet remains still true that God say's The word was God and the word was made Flesh and they say Not
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
not in earnest when they bring Sandius with his Catalogue of most Learned and Judicious Trinitarians since they cannot be ignorant that All the Greek Fathers concern'd in this dispute who understood I hope their own language better than any of us It being more than highly probable that the Author of the Brief History and of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn who are really accurate Writers can give a far better account of any English Phrase now in use and better understand the extent and importance of it than a Frenchman or a Dutchman who though never so Learned and Judicious will twelve or thirteen hundred Years hence Criticise Paraphrase and give another sence to that Phrase than what they gave themselves since I say all the Greek Fathers who understood the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought these words an undoubted and clear testimony of Christ's Divinity The natural impossibility of the thing is an old objection made to Lactantius and confuted by that Father Negant Deo dignum ut Homo fieri vellet .... ut passionibus ut doloribus sese ipse subjiceret They deny that it is worthy of God to become man and subject himself to Grief and Sufferings This is the constant mothod of these Gentlemen always to return to the How can it be It is not so because it is impossible We say it is possible because it is so and it is so because it is reveal'd It is dinsingenuous to be ever parting from the point in Question which is the Revelation to the manner of the thing it self which is above our reach All these things consider'd which really are not worth answering may not I have the liberty to tell your Friends what they said to Monsieur la Motté pag. 10. T' is a very thin Sophistry this when an Author leaves off to speak to the vulgar and would needs undertake in this very passage Phil. 2.6 7 8. to speak to the learned he should bring something more substantial to blind such Eyes as theirs In short the stress of the difficulty lies here Whether to be in the form of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifies the nature or only the likeness of God such as Adam and all other Men have And whether the Translation is right thought it not robbery to be equal with God That the form of God is the Divine Essence is evinc't from the Authority of the Greek Fathers Theodoret Basil St. Chrysostom Theophilact who not only spoke their own language but were Men of an admirable Eloquence and purity of speech And indeed if we consider the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting it cannot be otherwise It is against all the rules of Philosophy of sence of Speech if form is no more than an accidental form to use the word subsisting which implies of it self a communication participation or in-being in the same nature To say that a Man subsists in the form of a Man is not to say that he is like other Men or has the figure of a Man but that he is really a Man that he has human nature communicated to him To pretend that the form of God is only a communication of a Divine power of miracles c. If this flows from a communication of Essence as Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and in earth Joh. 14.10 The Father that dwells in me he does the works Act. 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approv'd of God amongst you by miracles .... which God did by him in the midst of you is a notion tolerable though very improper But if it is only a communication of a power foreign to us to which we have no relation and in which we are only instrumental such as was in Moses in the Prophets and Apostles is a ridiculous notion To subsist in a miraculous power that is to be a miraculous power is an irrational and unintelligible way of speaking The Great Erasmus then and the Illustrious Grotius from whom they have borrow'd this Explication are greatly and Illustriously mistaken To deal with candor I humbly beg what sence can be made of this Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God a Man made in the similitude of God as other Men are yet became Man for your sakes To say that Christ making himself of no reputation was the concealing of his Miracles as these Gentlemen interpret it is unreasonable and contrary to the Gospel His miraculous Birth of a Virgin his Star in the East his being reveal'd to the Shepherds by the Angels his being Preach't by the Baptist God owning him for his Son his doing good amongst all Men his miraculous works the raising of Lazarus The prodigious Eclipse at his Death the continual attendance of the multitudes upon him made him the most Famous Person in the World The Gospel wholly contradicts the injurious assertion Matt. 4.24 Matt. 9.31 and 14.1 Luk. 1.15 Mark 1.28 That thought it not robbery to be equal with God is truly translated I have this to Offer 1st That the Generality of the Latin Fathers render'd it thus and that no exception was made against it by the Arrians to whom they produc't this Text. 2ly That all the publick Authentick and receiv'd translations read it as we do 3ly That the It which this sharp-nos'd Countryman smelt to be wanting in the Text adds nothing to its force and that thought no robbery is as home to the question as thought it not robbery since the natural sence of the words the very first impression which they naturally give is that Christ did not think to be a Robber Guilty of Theft and Injustice in equalling himself to God The other being strain'd a sence of yesterday and invented in these latter times to serve a turn 4ly That the first part of the Verse who subsisting in the form of God makes that sence impossible for if he subsisted in the form or nature of God how could he who was God arrogate to himself to be God 5ly That the translation of these Gentlemen committed not robbery by equalling himself with God is a most notorious falsification of a Text. I will not send them to School Boys and Lexicons to know the sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civility and Breeding must never be Banish't from the hottest disputes I will only say en passant that Learned men use to Correct Lexicons and Dictionaries and not to be corrected by them But I appeal to themselves and beg of them to know 1st Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify all the World over Robbery And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought judg'd counted and therefore whether thought not counted not robbery to be equal with God is not an exact Translation 2ly I beg that they would produce any one Greek Author either Sacred or profane who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit robbery I pass by that other strange stroke of rendring to be
equal with God by equalling himself with God Thus you see Sir your Friends are so taken up with their new Creation that they assume to themselves a power to create a new sence to some words a sence which they never had nor can never have Coloss 2.9 The Apostle has asserted this Sacred truth in few words but comprehensive v. 3. In him Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge v. 7. The Colossians are to be rooted and built up in him v. 8. Philosophy will rather deceive than inform them The traditions of men and the Elements of the World whether the weak notices of the Gentiles or the observances of the Jewish Oeconomy are all insufficient None but Christ can supply their wants and make them truly knowing and good St. Paul gives this reason for it For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily Our translation comes short of the energy of the Greek Text which should have been render'd thus For in him dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead Essentially a notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usual in the Scriptures This proves then all that the several sorts of Hereticks have deny'd of Christ A Communication not of power or Vertue as in Moses or the Prophets but of nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine Nature A Communication not Figurative Sacramental or representative but real and substantial A Communication not partial transient or begun in time but the whole nature the whole fullness of the Godhead A Communication supposing a distinction of Persons against the Sabellians him who communicates and him to whom it is communicated Col. 1.19 For it pleas'd the Father that in him the whole fullness should dwell A Communication which clearly shews against Arrians Nestorians Socinians the Hypostatical Union of the two natures in Christ For it is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his adorable Person in Christ the word made Flesh that this Divine Nature dwells with all the Properties Attributes Qualifications which belong to it All human apprehensions and expressions being infinitely short of this inspir'd way of speaking of St. Paul all the fullness of the Godhead bodily To this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 39. answers somewhat confusedly contrary to his Custom He says that the fulness of the Godhead is the fulness of the knowledge of God which he pretends to prove by Eph. 3.19 where the Apostle wishes that they may be fill'd with all the fullness of God This Christ had and he has fill'd us Christians with it He says that this knowledge dwelt in him bodily in opposition to that imperfect umbratile and unsincere knowledge of God which the Apostle affirms v. 8. to be found in the Philosophy and Philosophers of Greece who in St. Paul's time were in great Esteem amongst the Colossians He adds that this is the Interpretation of the most Learned and Orthodox Interpreters It is true that some Interpreters whom these Gentlemen always honour with the Title of most learned if they but speak what pleases them have oppos'd these words not only to the Philosophy of the Greeks but even to the law which was only a shadow of things to come Christ being the Body as the Syriack reads the 17. v. the substance and perfection of knowledge and there being as much difference between their Doctrine and his as there is between the shadow and the body But two things this Author has not taken notice of 1st That these most Learned Interpreters do only deliver this as a secondary interpretation leaving the Primary which I have laid before you in its full force 2ly That this Interpretation really supposes and resolves it self into the first The Apostle desires the Colossians to avoid the vain Philosophy of the Greeks that science falsly so call'd and the rudiments of the World those imperfect ways of men's invention to bring and reconcile them to God even all the Ceremonial Law which though prescrib'd by God himself yet was only in order to somewhat better and that they should stick to Christ be rooted and built up in him in whom and by whom they should be fill'd and compleated He gives the reason of this because in him are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and he is the head of all Principality and Power and all this is true because he is not only a wise and a rational Man according to the World for such were the Philosophers Nor a Man sent from God for such were Moses and the Prophets but he was God himself come down in our Flesh for in him dwells the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily Substantially Essentially I am satisfy'd that this Author does not believe the application of Eph. 3.19 to have any solidity But there is in the disputed Text the fullness of the Godhead and in this the fullness of God These two words are alike and therefore must be made to jump When he cannot but know that all the Interpreters even the beloved Erasmus and Grotius tell us that the Apostle means no more by this than that Christ may dwell in our hearts by Faith and that we may have as much of the favour and grace of God as we can I beg to know with what candor he has translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God by the Deity or The Divine Nature which though sometimes Synonymous yet cannot be so here But what can more effectually prove the communication of the Divine Nature to Christ than that he is the only begotten Son of God Joh. 1.18 No man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him A title peculiar to Christ and expressive of all that can be conceiv'd of him his Consubstantiality his Co-Eternity his Equality with the Father These Gentlemen think it a very strong Argument that Christ is not God because in the Apostolical Creed the unchangeable rule of our Faith the first Article gives the name of God only to the Father I believe in God The Father and the second does not say and in God the Son but and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord not considering that the word only Son the same with only begotten here is a fuller expression of his Divinity than if the name God had been given him in the Article For this would not have satisfy'd these Gentlemen They would have been apt to say still that the first Article is spoken of him who is only and eminently God and the second or third of a God by deputation of one not truly God but only honour'd with the title of God This would not have remov'd the objection nor prevented that of the Tritheists who seeing every Person in the Creed nam'd God would have concluded not a Trinity of Persons in one God but Three real Gods Whereas the All-wise God has effectually obviated this by proposing the Divine Nature
are not pleas'd to observe that there is in the Text an actual comparison of two natures of Christ as Man and of Christ who is God blessed over all of Christ who in the first capacity is descended from the Jews and is a Jew according to the Flesh and of Christ who in the other has a communication of the Divine Nature and is God blessed over all It is easy to see says the Author of the Answer to Mr Milbourn that these expressions in the places cited by him are only as much as to say according to the Body I grant it But I affirm that it is easy to see that the Apostle speaks in those places Absolutely and without relation to any thing else and that here he speaks relatively to another being which Christ has This appears not only from the thing it self where there is an obvious comparison but from the very way of expressing of the Greek which our language cannot reach In all the places cited by these Gentlemen according to the Flesh is express'd without any Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine it to any sence than what really it has But when this is say'd of Christ There the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is compar'd to somewhat else The Apostle has it clearly Rom. 1.2 and 3. made according to the Flesh where the Flesh does not signify the body as the places which they have cited to elude the force of this Text but the humane nature of Christ in opposition to these words according to the Spirit of Holiness by which the Divine is express'd This explication is of St. Chrysostom on this place Theodoret and long before of Tertullian adv Prax. Made of the seed of David according to the Flesh says that Father Here is the man and the Son of man And declar'd to be the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit Hic est Deus sermo Dei filius This is the God and the word the Son of God This was the Divinity of Tertullian's time before the Council of Nice Having done with this Text I pass to Act. 20.28 St. Paul taking his leave of the Asian Bishops exhorts them pathetically to that diligence and care which is the source of all Pastoral Vertues He urges it on these two Motives 1st That they have receiv'd their power from the Holy Ghost 2ly That the Church which he exhorts them to feed is the Church for which God has been pleas'd to dye Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own blood This is spoken of a God by nature since according to the Socinian Rule God is nam'd here with an Article It is not only a God but the God He has purchas'd to himself a Church he has bought us with a price and because without remission of Sin there is no redemption and there is no remission without blood he has purchas'd us with blood But the blood of Goats and Calves the blood of others being of it self ineffectual and only Figurative he has shed his own blood for us This cannot be say'd of the Father who these Gentlemen deny and with a great deal of reason to have suffer'd Nor can it be asserted of the Holy Spirit since they assure him to be only a power and an energy and it is ridiculous to say that an energy shed his own blood In can be say'd of none but the Son who having taken our nature upon him became our Mediator and High-Priest and by his own blood that blood which he shed for the Church obtain'd eternal redemption for us But that High-Priest that Mediator that Christ is say'd to be the God therefore he must be partaker of the Divine Nature and since the Father is the God and he is also the God there must be more persons than one subsisting in the Deity This is deciding and conclusive Yet the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 34. makes these exceptions 1st That in the Armenian Syriack and the most ancient of the Greek Bibles the reading is not the Church of God but of Christ 2ly That admitting the reading God in the vulgar Editions of the Greek yet some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd the Greek words thus Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own Son's blood 3ly That admitting the Translation in our English Bibles some learned men particularly Erasmus have noted that the blood of Christ is here call'd the blood of God because it was the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World so Joh 1.36 This is the lamb of God that is the lamb of Sacrifice which God gives for the sins of the world These Gentlemen have the misfortune to call every thing an Answer 1st It is true that in some Copies these words have been read with some alteration but nothing at all to their purpose some few have read the Churc◠of the Lord others the Church of the Lord and God but none the Church of Christ They will much oblige the Common-wealth of Learning if they will produce any of these best and most ancient Copies A very learned Man of this Age has pretended to prove that the Church of Christ is not the language of the Scripture and that when the Church is spoken of by way of eminence as it is in this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church it is often say'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God but never the Church of Christ And this Criticism they will find true if they give themselves the trouble to examine it The Syriack Interpreter is rather an Expositor than a Translator The Latin who is wholly a Translator and not an Expositor reads Ecclesiam Dei The Church of God The second part of their Answer that some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd his own Son's blood instead of his own blood is a crying notorious and unpardonable falsification of a Text. What will be the end of our disputes if when we are press'd with the undenyable evidence of a Scripture we presume to add words to it and usher in that Sacrilegious attempt upon the word of God with saying some great Masters of the Greek Tongue When these Gentlemen talk of Syriack Arabick Coptick Armenian they may easily impose upon the simple but for Greek which is common to all professions in this Kingdom to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own proper blood is with his Son's blood to make the falsification Authentick by Attributing it to the great Masters of the Greek Tongue and call this an Answer to a solid Objection is a piece of an Incomprehensible Confidence 3ly Socinus and Chrellius were more dexterous who being press'd by this Text very fairly lay'd aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own wherein lyes the stress of the Argument but call'd it as Erasmus has done the blood of God the Father that is the blood which God gave for the
redemption of the World They must forgive me if I say that this is a meer trifle God's own Lamb is the Lamb of God God's own Son is the Son of God And God's own blood is the blood of him who is God Tit. 2.13 was urg'd by the Fathers against the Arrians as a clear proof of the Divinity of Christ Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ The Author of the Brief Histor pag. says to this 1st That nothing hinders that we may believe that not only the Lord Christ but God himself will appear at the last judgment 2ly That the Glory of the Great God is the Pomp Power and Angels that God even the Father will cause to accompany Christ in that day Matt. 16.27 The Son shall appear in the Glory of his Father with his the Father's Angels The first of these two assertions is contrary to the Gospel Joh. 5.22 The Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son The second is as contrary as the first Matt. 25.31 When the Son of man shall come in his Glory .... Then shall he sit upon the Throne of his Glory But all this is nothing to the purpose and diverts instead of resolving the question The only difficulty which can be propos'd the Author of the History has declin'd We prove from this Text that the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ is the same Person That the Great God and Saviour are predicated or say'd of Christ This ought to have been deny'd and reasons given for it and this would have been to the purpose But This Author saw it was not possible and that the Greek dialect excludes in this place all the little Criticisms which come in heaps in other places I wonder that those great Masters of the Greek Tongue who did presume in the Text disputed of before this to put the blood of his own Son in the room of his own blood have not here added an Article and read The Great God and the Saviour J. C. and pretended some ancient Copies that Curcellaeus or some body else had seen This Text then is undoubtedly ours The Great God and Saviour of us is the same way of speaking as The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ The conjunctive Particle which unites God and Father uniting also God and Saviour Nor can they so much as dream here of a deputed God since there is an Article here and the Epithet Great added to it But nothing shews so much how far these Gentlemen are prejudic'd against the plainest evidence than their answers to Joh. 20.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord of me and the God of me Socinus says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 32 and 34. with two more learned Unitarians contend That it was the intention of Thomas to call our Saviour His Lord and his God but it is in no other sense than Solomon Ps 45. Moses and Samuel That God is us'd amongst the Eastern People as the word Lord is us'd amongst us who do not design to make a Man a God because we speak to him with a name which we also use to God Yet though this comes from Socinus this Author is not willing to stand to it He says This interpretation is likely to be true but that divers learned Persons amongst their Opposers and even of old Nestorius and Theodore of Mopswest were of opinion that My Lord and My God are only words of admiration and thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God They are an exclamation expressing the Apostle's amazement to find his Master was risen He sends us to the Brief History The Author of that History is so little taken with the deputed God of Socinus that he has not one Syllable of it He says pag. 32. That Nestorius was of opinion that the words were not design'd to Christ but to God For though the Evangelist says Thomas answer'd and say'd to him yet the exclamation might be adress'd to God as its object and the answer to our Saviour ...... It may be admitted as true what others say O my Lord are words of congratulation to our Saviour O my God words of admiration and praise to God Thus these Gentlemen cut and slash the Scripture and shew how men who depart from the truth are inconsistent with themselves Socinus overcome by the evidence of the thing acknowledges the words to be spoken to Christ but contrary to his own rule though the words are with an Article and so must belong to the true God will have them to be understood of a deputed God or a God by Office Nestorius Theodore and these Gentlemen are convinc't that the God spoken of here is the Almighty But though the Text expressly says and â—homas answer'd and say'd to him My Lord and My God yet it must not be to him but to God himself They separate what the spirit of God has join'd and though it is as clear as the Sun that the word My God is say'd to him to whom the word My Lord is spoken being both join'd by the Particle and yet this will not do one part must be a Compliment to Christ the other a Prayer to God These Gentlemen would fain have new Bibles The Author of the Answer to My Lord of Sarum pag. 30. There will be no need of our Answers or Defences if there were but an honest Edition of the Bible ..... We have no reform'd Bibles none that have been corrected to speak the Doctrines of the Church rather than of the Gospel But 't is above 1200 Years that others have been Modelling the common Bibles by the Doctrines and Articles of our Holy Mother Church I think they do not ask enough I would have them also find out a new Language new ways for men to express themselves by I would have them procure an Act of Parliament by which it shall be Enacted that to Answer and to speak to a Man shall not be to answer and to speak to him but to some body else I would have them take such vulgar notions as these out of men's heads and create in them new methods of thinking and receving impressions from what they hear by being perswaded that though they receive an answer yet it is not to them that it is given Truly had I been in the Fifth General Council where this answer of Theodore was condemn'd by the Fathers syn 5. coll 4. I would not only have Anathematis'd the Impiety but also the folly and impertinence of the Opinion These two answers then invincibly consute one another Sâ—cinus confutes that part which would not have the words to be spoken to the Saviour and these Gentlemen confute that part which makes the God who is spoken to to be a deputed God They lead us to the true sence of this Text that Thomas an Apostle has fully acknowledg'd that Christ is truly and really God This
will make manifest the counsels of the hearts Rev. 2.23 I am he who searches the reins and hearts and I will give to every one of you according to your works Compare these Texts with those by which God discovers his Divine qualifications to us and you will be forc'd to acknowledge that they are not more full and home then these The answers to most of these Texts as most of Socinian answers are all fram'd to elude and not to resolve the difficulty They consist in a bad reason and in a place of Scripture strangely misunderstood and worse apply'd The reason is Brief Hist pag. 44 and 36. that the knowledge of Christ which he has or shall have of any one 's secret thoughts is a revelation made to him by God as it was also and may be to other Prophets The Text which right or wrong they repeat at every turn is Revel 1.1 The revelation of J.C. which God gave to him to shew to his servants The reason is worth nothing For God's revealing of men's thoughts to a Prophet no not the fullest revelation that ever was made can come up to that extent which belongs to none but God I am he who searches the reins and the hearts No instance in Scripture can be produc'd of this Though God has been pleas'd to reveal to a Man the thoughts of another Man 2 King 6.12 yet this was ever particular and declar'd that God did it then None ever assum'd to himself to make manifest the counsels of the hearts of all men It is so much God's Prerogative and Character that by it he is known to us Their Explication of Rev. 1.1 is as bad They make it to suppose ignorance in Christ whom we have prov'd to know all things and is inconsistent with that Omniscience so clearly spoken of before Had these Gentlemen vouchsaf'd to lend one Ear to the Fathers and to the latter Divines of the greatest reputation they would have met with these judicious Observations on this Text. 1st It shews at most that whatsoever Christ knows he knows it from the Father receiving his knowledge as he receives his Essence that is from Everlasting 2ly It proves that God reveals nothing to men but by the intervention of C. J. the Eternal and only mediator between God and Man 1 Tim. 3.5 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him Eph. 3.12 by whom we have access by faith into his Grace Rom. 5.2 who is to us the fountain of all knowledge For no man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son of the Father he has declar'd him Joh. 1.18 and v. 16. and of his fullness we have all receiv'd The sence then of the Text is that God has appointed in this as in all other things that men might come to God by him and be inform'd of the future events lay'd in this Sacred Book That that shews the solidity if this interpretation is that no part of the Sacred Writings has clearer testimonies of the Divinity of our Saviour than this and God will not contradict in the very first Verse what he has so plainly asserted afterwards The very Text it self if seriously consider'd is a proof of Christs equality with God by his being above Angels whose Ministery he so often commands in this Book and above men who are call'd here his Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the servants of him Christ No intelligent substance being above the Angelical or human but the Divine I am afraid I have tir'd you and will therefore draw to a Conclusion If you take together all that has been say'd I doubt not but that you will be satisfy'd that Socinianism is inconsistent with that revelation which God has made of himself I have lay'd before you two sorts of proofs Very many of them are direct and shew invincibly that Christ is God The other are indirect but yet of that force and clearness that they make it evident that all this cannot be say'd of a creature how excellent soever no Creature in the utmost extent of perfection imaginable being capable of what the Scripture attributes to Christ The first reading of the Socinian Writings will impose upon an unwary Reader the second and third will have quite another effect and discover an incredible weakness They oppose a few misunderstood places to the stream of Scripture These they urge with obstinacy and instead of reducing these few Texts to the vast many assertions of the Sacred Writers and giving them that sence which they are really capable of They strain and endeavour to reduce to them the whole body of Divine truths than which nothing is more unjust or unsincere In human disputes such a way of arguing would be laught out of doors How much less is it to be suffer'd in a controversy of so sacred a nature as this is They catch at Moses being say'd to be a God to Pharaoh At the Angels being call'd Elohim At Magistrates having the name of Gods given them And on this they build assertions which give the lye to the constant Doctrines of the Scriptures They have rak't all that the ancient and modern Hereticks have blasphem'd against the Faith and this they boldly oppose to the decrees of the most ancient most universal and most venerable Councils to the unanimous consent of the whole Christian World to the writings of the pious and learned Fathers The holy Jesus is the same yesterday to day and for ever His Church has been in possession above sixteen hundred years of adoring and praying to him His infinite merits are the only comfort and security of dying sinners The Eternal word made Flesh has been all along the great object of our Faith and we have to deal now with a sort of unreasonable men who pretend to unravil all this and lay the Divine Fabrick to the ground by mean shifts poor evasions and by dilapidating plain Texts with endless and groundless Criticisms I hope that you will be just to your self and make all the haste you can to return to the Faith To deny the Lord that has bought us is an execrable piece of ingratitude and it is strange that people who read the Scripture with any share of humility and sincerity should fall into that excess That God would open your Eyes that you may see the glorious Gospel of his Son J C. and give you Grace to subject whatsoever exalts it self in you against his knowledge and Service is the passionate wish of SIR Your humble and Faithful Servant L. FINIS THE Reader is humbly desir'd to excuse the Errors of the Press by reason of my not being in Town BOOKS lately Printed for Thomas Bennet THE Lives of all the Princes of Orange from William the Great Founder of the Common-wealth of the Vnited Provinces Written in French by the Baron Maurier in 1682 whose Father was Twenty Years Ambassador at the Hague And Published at Paris by Order of the French King To which is added the Life of His Present Majesty King William the Third By Mr. Thomas Brown Together with each Prince's Head before his Life Done from Original Draughts by Mr. Robert White Mr. Bossu's Treatise of the Epick Poem containing Curious Reflections very useful and necessary for the right Understanding and Judging of the excellency of Homer and Virgil done into English with some Reflections on Prince Arthur by W. S. To which are added an Essay on Satyr by Mr. Dacier and a Treatise of Pastoral Poetry by Monsieur Fontanelle Monsicur Rapine's Reflections upon Aristotle's Poetry Englished by Mr. Rymer together with some Reflections on our Modern Poets A Sermon Preach'd at Whitehall on Sunday Sept 8. 1695. being the Day of Thanksgiving for the taking of Namur By J. Adams A. M. Rector of St. Alban's Woodstreet Published by Order of the Lords Justices The Foolish Abuse and Wise Use of Riches A Sermon Preach'd in the Parish Church of Bromsgrove in Worcestershire May 1. 1695. By Will. Talbot D. D. and Dean of Worcester Malebranch's Treatise concerning the Search after Truth the whole Work compleat To which is added a Treatise of Nature and Grace by the same Author being a consequence of his Principles contained in the Search Together with F. Malebranch's Defence against Mr. De la Ville and several other Adversaries All Englished by T. Taylor M. A. of Magdalen College and Printed at Oxford In Folio A Voyage to the World of Des Cartes Englished by T. Taylor M. A. of Magdalen-College In the Press Sermons upon several Occasions by R. Meggot D. D. late Dean of Winchester
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
contrary He speaks of the place where the Gospel was written but not a word of the occasion of St. John's writing it The testimony of Origen is resolv'd into that of Eusebius who reports it and that of Eusebius himself is nothing against St. Jerom since the Author of the answer owns that the same Eusebius relates this writing of the Gospel of St. John to assert the Divinity of Christ from the institutions of Clem. Alex. Who is in the right then The Author of the Answer who says that St. Jerom cited an Ecclesiastical History which he never saw or St. Jerom who by the Author 's own confession has taken these words out of Clemens preserv'd by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History The case is very plain The Author of the Answer to Milbourn is mistaken But then he must fall foul upon Clemens Alexand. an ancient Writer and a Learned Man He makes Photius upon whose Characters of Men no Critick ever rely'd to give him a very ill one Not observing that Eusebius accuses him of neither Impiety nor Error and that Clemens Alex. has said nothing in this but what most of the Fathers have said not indeed as to the particular matter of fact of St. John's being desir'd to write but as to the other that the design and principal part of his Gospel is to assert the Divinity of our Saviour Is it not on this that St. Cyprian Lactantius Tertullian Gregory the Nazianzene St. Chrysostom Basil the Great have insisted Was not this very Chapter admir'd both by Christians and Heathens Was it not the Hammer of Arrianism in the Council of Nice as afterwards of Nestorianism of Eutychianism and of all the unhappy Sects which disturb'd the peace of the Church But that cannot be says the Answerer pag. 22. The Gospel it self will best decide the Question If St. John has more overthrown the Divinity of Christ than confirm'd it then certainly he has not writ this Gospel to assert it Right but how will this be prov'd He thinks that it will easily be done by shewing out of this Gospel that Christ is the Messenger of God that the Father taught him and commanded him Joh. 17.1 2 3. Joh. 12.49 and 14.10 c. This I confess proves the humanity but how does it destroy the Divinity of Christ How is it against the design of St. John to delineate him truly God because he has represented him truly Man He is not God because he is Man is an ill way of arguing The Arrians themselves were too sharp to fetch their Arguments against the Divinity of the Saviour from his humanity Prove him only a Man a meer Man without any other nature or else all this reasoning is a begging of the Question But what is all this to the accusation laid on St. Jerom St. John has shew'd in his Gospel the Humanity of Christ Therefore St. Jerom is in the wrong to assure that he was intreated by the Asian Bishops to speak more expresly to his Divinity This is at best a sort of a very slender consequence Thus it is Sir that the Socinians are baffl'd by false and senceless translations supported by fictions and legends exclaims this Author He should have said thus it is Sir that the Socinians are mistaken Their zeal for their opinion transporting them too far Thus it is that two Eminent Fathers are abus'd who were the admiration of their Age and the veneration of ours The truth is this Chapter pinches so hard that these Gentlemen are always uneasy at its least approaches They have done all that Men can do to make it ineffectual having left nothing unattempted no turns of wit no strains of fancy no observations no Criticisms no Shifts no Evasions But all to no purpose For truth is great and irresistible it is plain and evident it comes from God and easily overcomes all the oppositions Men make against it Joh. 1.1 and foll In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God The same was in the beginning with God That this is spoken of Christ and that Christ is the word is agreed of all hands The first assertion then of the Evangelist is that Christ was before all things that he existed before they had a beginning There is a great Emphasis in the word was which does not express here a created a dependent being but a Superior an Eternal and Divine Nature Thus Jehovah render'd by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is gives the true notion of God and thus it is said of the word that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers explain'd it did subsist in a most eminent way and incommunicable to a Creature To make this good St. John says that he was with God He could not exist in any Creature whatever let it be never so great noble or perfect because he existed before any thing was Created before the World was Joh. 17.5 He could not be in time because no time was yet when he was Therefore he was in God and with God from Everlasting Who before all Ages says the great Ignatius a Man of the Apostolick times Epist ad Magnes was with the Father and was manifested in the last times The unchangeable word says St. Austin Epis 49. quest 2. residing unchangeably with the unchangeable Father From thence the Greek Fathers understood the admirable description of wisdom to be of no other then the Eternal word the Son of God Prov. 8.22 and those expressions I was set up from Everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was before his works of old when there were no depths I was brought forth I was by him I was by his sides says the Chaldee Interpreter all these expressions they understood to be no other then this and the word was with God This is so plain that I cannot but wonder at the Stir these Gentlemen make about the words Inexistence Eternal Generation Personality as if they were hard and unknown terms the result of Men's Fancies and a Jargon as they are pleas'd to call them The word or the Son for they own these words to be Synonymous in Scripture is said to be from ever with God Therefore he exists in God and I think this is Inexistence A Father and a Son naturally and of necessity suppose a Generation or else they can be neither Father nor Son This is Generation The Father and the Son are both Eternal therefore the Generation must be so too But the Father is not the Son nor the Son is not the Father therefore there is a foundation for Personality The Evangelist proceeds and lays this 3d Axiom declaring the Divinity as he had done before the Eternity of the word and the word was God What can be more express or positive What consequence can be more natural The word was in the beginning or ever the Earth and the World was He was with God and existed in him Therefore he must be