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
the one it is also to the other and not the Branch the Prince is here describ'd 4ly It is against the true reading of the Septuagint and the old Latin Translation To the 3d that is Jer. 33.15.16 granting the reading of the Text as it is in our Bible which indeed the Hebrew favours It is so far parallel to this as to be a renewing of the promise made by God in the place already cited The sence of the Prophet is that Jerusalem shall be call'd the Lord our righteousness by containing him that is being fill'd with his glorious presence who is really the Lord our righteousness As Jacob Gen. 33.20 erected an Altar and call'd it Et-elohe-Israel God the God of Israel And Ezek. 48.35 and the name of the City from that day shall be Jehovah shammah the Lord is there But what can be more positive and home to the question than the testimony of Baruch chap. 3. the 3. last verses This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him He has found out all the way of Knowledge and has given it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved Afterwards did he shew himself upon earth and converst with Men. To offer an enlargment on this Text is to do it an injury The 1st of these verses asserts the unity of God The 2d his great wisdom and goodness to his people The 3d his visible appearing to us in our nature and this not by a sudden apparition vanishing as soon as it is offer'd and leaving the Soul in suspence about the truth of the object but by a continu'd living on the Earth If there be but one Person in God as these Gentlemen so stiffly maintain and that is the Father there must have been an Incarnation of that Person since he has appear'd upon Earth and convers'd with men which they and with a great deal of Reason will by no means admit But the whole Scripture says That God has sent his Son into the World That he has appear'd to put away Sin and we all agree that the Holy Jesus is that Son How then can we deny his Divinity since it is said of him who has thus appear'd This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him This is so express that we must not expect to be put off with Grotius or Christ being call'd God as Moses or Solomon or the rare Notion of God coming to us in his Ambassadour Jesus Nothing of this will do and therefore the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. answers first That the Book is Apocryphal Secondly That those who admit the Book reject those verses as suppositious Thirdly That the Original Greek may be render'd Afterwards this Book of the Commandments of God and the Law which endures for ever was seen upon Earth and turn'd over by men First That the Book is Apocryphal is an Answer cannot be made by these Gentlemen because it is cited against them by the whole Societies of Christians who believe it to be Canonical But freely granting that the Book is such I must beg leave to say That it is nothing to the purpose Any man of ordinary reading knows that Apocryphal signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncanonical or out of the Canon of the Sacred Books That sort of Writings though not kept in Armario as Tertullian expresses it cap. 3. de hab muli yet were look'd upon with much reverence by them and particularly by the Hellenists They were daily in their hands and the greatest Authority in the World next to the uncontested Scriptures There is a vast difference between being uncanonical and rejected and the saying That this Passage is taken out of an uncanonical though a Sacred Book takes nothing off the force of the Objection These Gentlemen who are so pleas'd with Criticisms that it will with them bear down the plainest Authority in the World must give me leave to Criticize for once I say then That of all the Apocryphal Books none was so like to become Canonical as that of Baruch It is somewhat more than a probable Conjecture that this Book was once read with that of Jeremy whose Disciple Baruch was The ninth of Daniel has lead several Learned men into that Opinion For after he has cited Jeremy v. 2. and began that fervent Prayer for the preservation of Jerusalem He seems to transcribe Baruch Compare Baruch 1.15 16 17. with Daniel 7 8 c. Baruch 2.7 8 9. with Daniel 9.13 c. Baruch 2.11 c. with Daniel 9.15 Baruch 2.15 with Daniel 9.18 I will add to confirm this That several of the most ancient and Primitive Fathers have often cited Jeremy and yet the Texts us'd by them were taken out of Baruch which gives some ground to believe that the Works of these two Prophets were once joyn'd together To the second Objection we must be forc'd to say That no part of it is true First it is not true that ever those Verses were look'd upon as supposititious by them who either admitted or rejected the Book Secondly it is not true that ever these words were a marginal Note no ancient Copy being without them and the rest being only Conjecture instead of Reason The third Objection is the highest Unsincerity imaginable Their Translation is forc'd unnatural and what is worse notoriously false There is nothing in the Text of a Book of Commands or of a Law which endures for ever There is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viam disciplinae as the Vulgar translates it To say not what they have pretended to impose without either Reason or Truth but what can be strain'd from this That the way of Knowledge has shew'd Himself to men and convers'd with them is a bold and ridiculous way of Translating The fifth Chapter of Micah is an eminent Prophecy of Christ The first part of the second Verse gives an account of his Birth and of the place to which God had promis'd so great a Blessing But thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be little amongst the thousands of Judah yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel The second part soars higher and tells us That though he is born as a man yet he has that which no man can pretend to and though he has such a visible Being yet he has another which is invisible and eternal whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting or From the days of Eternity This Text has a double advantage First that the Chaldee Paraphrast the Thalmud and the generality of the ancient Jews have follow'd in this the sence of their Forefathers and understood this Text of the Messiah Secondly that from Mat. 2.6 and Joh. 7.42 this invincibly appears to have been the Tradition of the Jews one of the great Obstacles to their Belief that he was the Messias having no other ground than that contrary to the received Opinion That the
true and genuine If I may be allow'd a digression I would willingly know where these Gentlemen found that Constantine dy'd an Unitarian If by an Unitarian they mean that he own'd the Unity of the Godhead I hope we shall all dye in that faith But if by it they mean a Socinian a denyer of the Divinity of Christ It is a gross and a palpable untruth I would also be satisfi'd whether Eusebius of Caesarea whom they so truly call'd the Admirable did not subscribe the Nicene faith To return In an answer to a loving Cosen pag. 3. We hear of nothing but Fathers Tradition Councils c. pag. 8. This general Observation concerning the Fathers is sufficient to make me refuse their testimony and look upon them as no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition We are then in a very sad case Our Translations are dishonest and the Holy Fathers are no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition Our Translations and the Fathers should have spoke as these Gentlemen and then all had been right Where will of necessity such wild notions lead Men and when will the dispute end if they are admitted For my part I am of Mr. Chillingworth's mind and think that it is both the safety and honour of the Protestant Religion to cry out The Bible The Bible a place of that eminent Man so often and so justly commended by these Gentlemen I am perswaded that the word of God ought to be the rule But then I am satisfi'd that no Scripture is of private interpretation That this Bible must be well understood and that Tradition is the greatest human Authority in the World I take this point to be so clear particularly to Men of learning that if any Society of Christians could produce for what they have to say for themselves such a Tradition as Vine â—ius Liâ—inensis has establisht and is the true notion of Tradition we must all come over to it This is so just in it self that these very Gentlemen cannot forbear expressing their joy when what they produce is not altogether their own and has some great names to introduce it They speak then with a certain sort of assurance which they have not at other times I do not know whether I am as other Men or wheit is a singularity in me but if I have never so pretty a notion and find it contradicted by the concurrent testimonies of Men who have united a profound Piety to an admirable Learning such as are the Basil's The Chrysostom's The Theodoret's The two Gregorie's The Eusebius's The Cyrill's The Jerom's The Austin's and many more If I sind primitive and General Councils exclaiming against me If I meet in my way almost all that has been valuable in the last and this present Age in the Common-wealth of learning Though I might perhaps maintain the notion and spin it into a Letter or a small Book not perhaps without some Admirers yet I presently strike and think it both most honourable and conscientious to call the pretty thing in 5ly I have a just value for Criticks though whether a Critick is Master of any one sort of Learning is a great Question to me But to make Criticks the Judges and Criticisms the Touchstone of Faith is insufferable Like Anatomists they dissect till they leave neither Form nor Figure A Criticism is much different from a good reason Allowing one to be good a hundred amount generally to no more than a probability They are a sort of Arrows shot at random which sometimes hit the mark and generally go above or below it I insist the more on this because it is the Palladium of these Gentlemen When a Text is plain and stares in the face then comes out the Criticism This is the dissecting Instrument which runs through the Text till wrangling arises about a Particle or a Punctuation and makes the substantial part of the dispute to vanish When Reason is oppos'd to Reason and Argument to Argument the stander by may in a very short time feel the impressions of truth But when a plain Authority is evaded by a Criticism and this Criticism perhaps answer'd by another For these Gentlemen are great but not the only Criticks There is jarring and clashing and not one step made towards the truth In the Letter of Resolut concern the Doctr. of the Trin. and Incar p. 10. the Author says and he is very much in the right that we pretend That the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions deriv'd down to our times through all the intermediate Ages and by all the Churches professing Christianity The rational way to prove the vanity of the pretence is to shew that there was a time and some Church or other where these Doctrines were not believ'd Instead of this he spends three pages to prove how we have differ'd and do differ amongst our selves in the explication of these Doctrines which rather supports then weakens the Argument It does evince that we agree in the thing though not in the manner of explaining it which is that that I insist on with the rest of my Brethren the Divines of the mob as these Gentlemen call us But this is only to criticise at large All the Criticks says this same Author in the same Letter without excepting one who have made a judgment of the writings of the Fathers for the first 300 Years and particularly which of those writings are genuine and uncorrupted which wholly feign'd or otherwise corrupted I say All the Criticks constantly make this a Note of forgery or corruption if those writings speak any what expressly or evidently of these Doctrines If the Criticks mean that the writings of the Primitive Fathers which speak of those Mysteries in the Terms us'd by the Schools long since the Nicene Council are supposs'd They are in the right But this Criticism is against those Gentlemen themselves It regards only the manner of the expression not the thing express'd But if the Criticks mean that the Trinity or Incarnation were unknown to and were not the Doctrine of the Fathers before the Council of Nice which is that which these Gentlemen must make the Criticks to say or else they say nothing I beg leave of these Gentlemen and of all the Criticks not one excepted to tell them that they are invincibly mistaken I have no criticism to offer here nor will I sill this small writing with citations of these Fathers it being the thing in question Though I conceive with submission to the high and mighty Criticks that most of these citations may be prov'd genuine I have only two plain Reasons to offer 1st With what equity and assurance did the Nicene Fathers declare their decrees to be according to the Doctrine taught by the Fathers who had preceeded them if the Trinity and Incarnation was not the Doctrine of those Fathers The Council was an August Meeting of the most learned and Religious Persons in the World even by
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
it is not so replies the Author Grotius affirms that Hincmarus a Prelate so famous in his time is positive that the word God was thrust into the Text by the Nestorians and in particular by Macedonius who corrupted the sincere reading of that very place I never saw either Mr. Milbourn or his Book but he might have told his Answerer that Grotius is strangely mistaken and so must the Learned Prelate be whom he has cited All the World cannot make me apprehend how the Nestorians should thrust the word God into a Text by which they ruin'd themselves and their Doctrines to all intents and purposes Nestorius says this very Author in his Answer to the late Archbishop pag. 61. said That God was not Hypostatically united or after the manner of a Person to the Man Christ Jesus But only dwelt in him by a more plentiful effusion or exertion of the Divine Presence and Attributes than in former Prophets This led him to say that our Saviour ought to be call'd Christ and not God He deny'd that he could call him God c. I ask then How it can be conceiv'd that it should come into the head of the Nestorians to change the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the only thing that could favour their Doctrine into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the only word that could ruine it Is it rational to think that a Sect of men who are professedly bent against the Incarnation of Christ shall alter a plain Text to put in a word which will make it undisputable Will it be believ'd in the next Age if Socinianism is so long liv'd that the Socinians would alter a Text which does not prove the Divinity of Christ and add words to it by which it may clearly be prov'd It is a great mistake to say that Macedonius was turn'd out of the Sea of Constantinople for falsifying this Text. It is true that Anastasius turn'd him out but it does not appear that it was upon any such account That that makes this to be undeniable is that this Text is read by the Fathers with the word God before Macedonius was born and even long before the Heresy of Nestorius St. Chrysostom Patriarch himself of Constantinople long before Nestorius reads in this place God was manifested c. So does Theodoret so does St. Cyril even against this very Nestorius so do several other Fathers too tedious to insert I will add that whoever reads attentively the place of Hincmarus which these Gentlemen have not cited but is Opusc 55. cap. 18. Liberatus cap. 19. and he will find even in their own account the addition of the word God to have been impossible Another Objection is that of the Council of Nice of next Authority with us says the Author and with a great deal of truth to the sacred Scriptures One having repeated this Text with the word God taken probably out of some Marginal note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word which in the Text was answer'd by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading the words being which was manifested in the flesh This makes nothing against us It proves that this reading was ancienter than the Council of Nice It proves if the Author 's wild conjecture may be admitted that if there was even any Copy where the word God was not that the which by the force of the following parts of the Verse and the sence of that age having put to it that marginal note was to be understood of God It proves that the Arrians had begun early to corrupt those Texts which were plainest for the Divinity of Christ Had this Author shew'd that upon this allegation of Macarius the sacred Council had rejected this Text it would have been of some weight but the mistake of that Bishop appears by the unanimous consent of the Greek Fathers using this Text with the word God in the time of and after the Council But even in the Latin Church where the Interpreter reads which The Fathers understood that Mystery which the Apostle calls confessedly so great of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Nor is the assumptum est in gloria of the vulgar Latin taken up into Glory capable of any other sence These Gentlemen have a great disadvantage that when they have never so finely shap't an interpretation and put it in never so pretty a dress not only the new but also the old Christian World rises against it It was the wish no doubt of a good Man that his Soul might rest with the Philosophers Let mine rest with the Primitive Fathers and Councils of the Church In all Arts and Sciences the further we go the greater are our improvements But in the case of Religion the nearer we return to the Spring the more purity and truth we meet with Rom. 9.5 is another staring Text. Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen That the title of blessed over all for ever is only due and was only given to the Almighty is evident from the Old and New Testament and the constant practices of Jews and Christians If the word God was not in this Text it would lose nothing of its force The blessed over all implying with all the Jewish Doctors that Essential Happiness that Absolute Dominion that Incomprehensible Greatness which belong to none but him who is God by nature But since all this is said of Christ in plain and express words the consequence is easy he must be that God Should all Mankind conspire to find words clear and positive to represent the two natures and God made Man they must come short of this Apostle who shews the one in this part of the Text of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came and the other in that who is over all God blessed for ever Proclus in his Book de fid looks on this Text alone as a confutation of all the Heresies concerning Christ Athanasius and the Catholick Fathers urg'd it with vehemence against the Arrians Theophilact the great Admirer and even the Transcriber of St. Chrysostom says in this place that St. Paul by Proclaiming Christ God over all has publisht the shame of Arrius who deny'd it to all the World The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 35. says to this 1st That it is very probable by the Syriack and some passages in Ignatius and other Fathers that the word God was not originally in this Text. For they read it without 2ly Admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek Erasmus and Curcellaeus observe that it should have been thus translated Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came God who is over all be blessed for ever 3ly That these words according to the Flesh or concerning the Flesh never signify according to his human nature as if he had also a Divine Nature Rom. 9.3 My Kinsman according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham
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
Text has the advantage that it is uncontested and come down to us without the least alteration All is plain and clear in it The resurection of Christ was deny'd by Thomas His incredulity says elegantly St. Austin was more useful to the Church than the Faith of the other Apostles He protested that except he saw in his hands the prints of the nails c. he would not believe The merciful Saviour condescends to let him make the Experiment which draws presently that noble confession of his Faith My Lord and My God Which is the same as if he had say'd I believe that thou art my Lord and my God This interpretation is evident 1st By the words of Christ in the next Verse where the Saviour takes no kind of notice of any Admiration or Exclamation as these Gentlemen would have it but only replies to that profession of his Faith Because thou hast seen Me thou hast believ'd and lays down this Maxim the comfort of Christians in all succeeding Ages Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believ'd 2ly The last Verse of this Chapter intimates that this History is written that by that Zealous confession of his Faith we might also be induc'd to believe v. 31. But these things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 3ly The resurrection of Christ was to be a proof of his Divinity Rom 1.4 declar'd to be the Son of God with power .... by the resurrection from the dead It was not by being risen from the dead that Jesus was the Son of God But his resurrection was a Declaration to all Mankind that he was so and therefore Thomas being satisfy'd of his Resurrection owns him for His Lord and his God The Fancy then of a deputed God has nothing to do here nor indeed any where else The Notion it self is contradictory and impossible I easily apprehend how a Man may be sent from God and intrusted with his commands to the rest of his Fellow Creatures But the very name of God excludes office and deputation A made God is that which cannot be made A deputed God is that which cannot be deputed The office of God is God himself When the Lord says to Moses Exod. 7.1 See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh he explains what that is in the next Verse Thou shalt speak all that I command thee This is no deputed Divinity There is not a God in Heaven and a deputed God upon Earth If the expression signifies no more than to speak or act from God not only Moses and the Prophets but every Father of a Family is a deputed God If it imports no more the notion is silly and if it does it is rash and unintelligible Socinus seeing Christ call'd God and the Son of God so very often in Scripture thought it a very easy way to rid himself of so many pregnant places gave him by this imaginary or deputed God which he thought to have found in this mistaken place of Exod. and in Ps 45. As if these two solitary Expressions could ballance or equal those repeated ones which assure us that Christ is truly God In one single place of Scripture Moses is say'd to be a God to Pharaoh In innumerable places of Scripture Christ is call'd God the Son of God has the Names the Attributes the Nature of God given him Therefore Moses is God as Christ and Christ God as Moses both deputed Gods A wild and irregular way of reasoning Nor do I wonder that Socinus should be guilty of this Though a Man of learning and parts and the unhappy restorer of an Heresy long since bury'd in a deep Oblivion and the first of a Sect to which he has left his name It happen'd to him as to many who have not time to refine their Arguments and do not so well understand their own system as they that come after But I admire that Gentlemen who have receded from so many inadvertencies of Socinus and of his outlandish followers and have really given a turn and a force to great many of their Arguments which they themselves did not nor could ever have done have not yet parted from this poor mean empty and if I am not too rude ridiculous notion of a deputed God But admitting that Moses is such and that his personal qualifications the diginity of his Office his commerce with God and his distinction from a people which it self was distinguish'd from all the Nations in the Earth give him a title to it St. Paul has clearly stated the difference and shews that if Moses in these Gentlemen's Principles is a God by Office Christ must be a God by Nature Heb. 3.2 3 4. The Author of the Epistle compares Christ with Moses He says that Christ our High-Priest was faithful to him that appointed him as also Moses was faithful in all his house then v. 3. he shews how much Christ excells Moses even as much as an Architect excell his own work in as much as he that built the house has more honour than the house In as much as the maker of Moses is more excellent than Moses himself He concludes v. 4. every house is built by some man but he that builds all these things not all things as our translation reads is God Every building has some Man for its Architect but these things which are built by Christ do far excel because the builder is God If Moses then in these Gentlemen's supposition is a God by Office what sort of God is Christ who is the Maker of the God by Office And how much of their assurance must these Gentlemen abate who when any pressing place is cited of Christ being call'd God send us dogmatically to Moses The Author of the Brief History pag. 41. has cited indeed both this Chapter and these Verses but has been very careful to avoid the objection by overlooking the 4. v. and indeed I commend him for it The difficulty is real and solid He plays at cross purposes and after his Laconick way of speaking he tells us that the House here is not mens bodies but the Church of Christ which he under God is said to build and so he dismisses us whereas the Text does not say he builds under God but that he is God who builds all these things Many other places might be alledg'd to that purpose but these are so clear and the pretended Answers to them so insufficient that the assertion of the Author of the Consider on the Sermon of the Bishop of Worcester pag. 11. will appear strangely confident That it cannot be satisfactorily prov'd that any Authentick Copies of the Bible do give Christ the title of God as he says the Author of the Brief Hist has abundantly shewn The Author of the History has not and none of these Gentlemen will ever be able to do it But it is the character of this Author in this Book in the Answer to Mr. Milbourn
in that to Mr. la Motté to venture upon any thing that comes first to hand and to want that candor and modesty that cool temper which the Author of the History has and would be a great Ornament to his Parts and Learning One thing more I have to say before I conclude this and it is that besides those Arguments which have been lay'd before you no Man can seriously read the sacred writings but he will find those things say'd of Christ and to Christ which no meer Creature is capable of 1st He is represented to us in such a height as transcends all Created Beings Phil. 2.9 10. That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth 1 Pet. 3.22 Angels and authorities and powers are made subject to him Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and Earth Joh. 15.16 All things that the Father has are mine Joh. 15.5 without me you can do nothing He commands the Sea the Winds the Devils c. He gives to others the power that he has Mark 16.17 18. In my name shall they cast out Devils c. All this looks like Omnipotency If he is not God men are naturally lead to Idolatry by seeing in a Man all that we adore in God and by which he is known to us 2ly Some men are call'd the Sons of God as Adam the Angels and just men who are all God's adopted Sons But Christ is call'd the Son of God so very often so very Emphatically with so great a solemnity that it is unconceivable how this can be say'd of one who has no other relation to God but to be the work of his hands or the object of his favour Act. 8.37 And Philip say'd if thou believ'st with all thy heart thou may'st and he Answer'd and say'd I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God In the great uncertainty who that miraculous Person was whether Elias or John the Baptist or any of the Prophets St. Peter makes this confession Matt. 16.16 thou art Christ the Son of the living God Christ himself replies that on this confession the Church is buil't on this the salvation of men depends v. 17. That this is not the result of natural inquiry and that Flesh and blood has not reveal'd it to him but my Father which is in Heaven A declaration made not only by poor men here below but come down from above once at his Baptism Matt. 3.17 a second time in the glory of his transfiguration Matt. 17.5 This is my beloved Son An homage which the very unclean spirits the Devils themselves pay'd him Mark 3.11 and the unclean spirits when they saw him fell before him .... thou art the Son of God and Mark 5.7 the Son of the most High God If to be the Son of God is no more than to be remarkable by the examples of a holy life though in as great a measure as our nature is capable of Is it not unaccountable that revelation should be necessary that Heaven should inform us that the very Devils should proclaim it that our Faith and Eternal Salvation should be built upon it Does not this naturally incline men to believe that this very Jesus in that despicable nature by which he appears as a Man has another which none but the Father could reveal and is far beyond the discoveries of Flesh and Blood 3ly None but God could descend to the incredible humiliation of Christ Jesus No Man can properly be say'd to humble himself no not to the death of the Cross None humbles himself in dying who is form'd to dye No Creature humbles it self in suffering who is born to suffer and is subject to vanity I understand how God humbles himself in becoming Man This is easy to apprehend But how the best of men can humble himself in becoming Man when it is not at all his choice and in suffering for his Fellow Creatures which even in the sence of bad men is the most glorious thing in the World is past my apprehension None but he can humble himself in whom is found between the state that he is in and that which he assumes an infinite disproportion Nothing shews more evidently what Christ was before his humiliation than that series and order of stupendous Miracles which attend that very state To be figur'd by the Patriarchs announc't by the Prophets to be born of a Virgin to be declar'd by the Angels Immanuel God with us to exercise a despotick power over the whole Creation to rise from the dead to ascond to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God are convincing Arguments that he is more than a Creature 3ly The name of Lord is given him which all the Interpreters agree is the Jehovah of the Hebrews These Gentlemen must own this themselves I know that the Author of the Considerat on the Bishop of Sarum's Fourth Discourse pag. 22. has quarrell'd with his Lordship because he says that it is the peculiar name of God He tells him that the Socinians deny it and pretend to prove that the name Jehovah is given to particular Persons and communities and pag. 23 24. that we are like to have great many Jehovahs since if the word Lord is Jehovah that Pontius Pilate is call'd so Matt. 27.63 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord is no more than Master and Sir Joh. 20.15 But I know also that all this is a quibble and that such things as these are should not drop from the Pen of a Learned Man as this Author is nor to such a knowing Person as the Bishop For who is he that has the least tincture of Hebrew but knows that the facred name Jehovah signifies Essence Existence and nothing else As God himself has express'd it Exod. 3.14 I am that I am which if it is not peculiar to God a Primitive and Self Existent being I know nothing that is peculiar to him This is so true that Chrellius himself has own'd that it follows the nature of proper names It is undenyable that the Translators of the Old Testament have constantly render'd Jehovah by the word Lord and it is from thence that the sacred writers of the New Testament who as the Bishop observes were Jews spoke like Jews and understood the full importance of their own language have Attributed it to Christ And though the word Lord sometimes signifies no more than Sir or Master as in the instances produc't by this Author yet the stream of the Scriptures is against this mean shift Act. 10.36 he is Lord of all Act. 2.36 God has made him Lord and Christ Rom. 14.9 The Lord both of the dead and living 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory Revel 19.16 Lord of Lords But particularly 1 Cor. 8.5 6. For though there be that are call'd Gods whether in Heaven and in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many To us there is but one God the Father of whom