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
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
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
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
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
They presently accuse him of Blasphemy and that upon a known and undoubted principle that none can forgive sins but God He does not at all excuse the thing or make himself a deputed God or a God by deputation a sort of God of these Gentlemens making He grants that none but God can forgive sins Then he convinces them by a Miracle and leaves them the conclusion to draw Which is easier to cure or to forgive He that does the one must be God with an Article too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he that does the other must be absolute Master of nature and that is God The Jews were so far perswaded that Christ by calling God his Father spoke of himself not as of a Son by adoption or any other title but as a Son by nature co-equal and co-eternal that they never understood him otherwise This is as clear as the Sun from Joh. 5. Christ cures a Man of an infirmity of 38. Years standing v. 9. But it being on the Sabbath day v. 16. The Jews presecuted him and sought to slay him He answers v. 17. My Father works hitherto and I work They take from these words a new occasion to accuse him At first they were only angry for his healing on the Sabbath but now v. 18. they sought the more to kill him ... because he said also that God was his Father His own Father says the Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making himself equal with God That Equality could not arise simply from calling God his Father This was the privilege of the Jews as it is now of Christians But they made it to consist in this assertion that as the Father was above the Sabbath the Divine nature not being confin'd to those rules which it prescribes to us mortals Christ saying the same of himself He made himself the Son of God equal to his Father Which equality of the Son with the Father the Jews suppose and acknowledge But seek to kill him because he pretended to assume it to himself This the Fathers urg'd against the Arrians Now Christ replies without any variation equivocation or subterfuge He is plain and proves all along the Unity and sameness of nature with the Father He says v. 19. that he can do nothing of himself which does not imply weakness and insufficiency as the Author of the Breif Hist has abus'd that Text pag. 6. but shews only that he can act from no other principle but that by which he exists That he has his operation from him from whom he has his being and as an infallible proof that this is the true sence of that place he shews an extent of operation as great as the Father What things soever the Father does these does the Son likewise This is the Divinity of Theodoret or rather of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria inserted in the first Book of his History It is that of St. Basil or the Author of the first Book contr Eunom and of the Generality of the Greek Fathers It is that of St. Hilary lib. 7. de Trin. It is that of St. Austin who tract 20. in Joann has these admirable words Whatsover the Son has to do he has from the Father the power to do it Why does he receive from the Father the power to act because he has receiv'd of the Father to be his Son He has his power from the Father because from the Father he has his Essence Christ prosecutes the Argument and shews how God has communicated all things to him even as a reward of his profound humiliation in taking our nature upon him v. 27. because he is the Son of Man But that notwithstanding his outward appearance in infirmity and weakness he has an Original and Eternal Being with the Father v. 26. As the Father has life in himself so has he given the Son to have life in himself St. Austin lib. 3. contra Maxim c. 14. He has given him the same life that he has Such as he has it himself he has given it him He has given it as Infinite as he has it in himself He concludes that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father the same honour being due to the same Divine Essence The sum of all is this Christ does not at all grant that he is an inferior or a representative God as these Gentlemen would have it by the concession that some Men are call'd Gods but concludes on the contrary that if Men are not guilty of Blasphemy by taking that name How much less is he who is and on every occasion asserts himself to be the true God This takes off at once the Objections from all those Texts which the Author of the Brief Hist thought unanswerable That he was faithful to him that made him that we are Christ's and Christ is God's That he humbl'd himself and became obedient That the Son shall be subject to him who put all things under him That his doctrine is not his doctrine That he intercedes with God for us and a great many more This Author lays a great weight on all those Texts which prove the Humanity of Christ His first Letter contains whatsoever the Evangelists have said of the passions and infirmities of our Nature We are so far from denying any part of this that we think it the greatest comfort Religion can give that Christ was truly Man We own it and Glory in it that Jesus Christ the Righteous our Advocate with the Father was in all things like us Sin only excepted But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament speaking so fully to his Divinity with the Father in the communication of the same Nature and Eternal Being lead us not to say that he is not God because he is Man or that he is not Man because he is God This is not to interpret but to destory one Scripture by another They lead us to take both the parts of the Mystery as the spirit of God proposes it and to believe that he is truly God and truly Man In short these Gentlemen can never satisify any Man's conscience in this point nor can they justifie themselves to the Christian Church from whose Faith they have departed All that Wit and Eloquence which they are so much Masters of and all those Arguments which they have treated with so much accuracy being of no force against the proof◠alledg'd I will conclude this Letter of Christ's Pre-Eternity with this place of Origen contr Cels lib. 6. This Father speaks of the knowledge of God and how difficult it is to know him who has made darkness his Pavilion round about him He says that the Father is known truly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by the Word He proves this by Matt. 11.27 Neither knows any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him For none says he can know him truly and as he deserves to be known who is begotten from all Eternity
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
Omniscience and Omnipotence It is incomprehensible that the generality of Socinians should contend that Christ is to be pray'd to which is the assertion of the Author of one Brief History pag. 33 and worship'd with divine worship and yet deny him to be God To give Divine worship to a creature is a plain and inexcusable Idolatry Strange that the force of truth should extort from them that he is to be ador'd and yet that he is not God the only being whom we ought to adore The English Socinians see the force of this consequence therefore they deny that Christ is to be pray'd to But one cannot read without indignation this assertion of the Author in their defence pag. 33. It appears says he by St. Austin and Photius that Origen deny'd that the Son was to be ador'd or pray'd to He cites Origen lib. 8. contr Cels who says he expresly deny'd that Christ is to be invocated he adds that it cannot be doubted that Origen spoke the sence of the Catholick Church of his time This Author then is positive that neither Origen nor the Church in his time believ'd it lawful to pray to Christ But he should have taken the pains to read the place which he has cited He must have been convinc't that he has cited at random and that Origen has no such thing The 8th Book alledg'd with so much assurance by the Author has not a single line which seems to have a tendency to this On the contrary it has invincible proofs that Origen and consequently the Catholick Church of his time did think it not only lawful but even necessary to pray to Christ The Father begins that very Book by imploring the help of God and of the word the only begotten of God on himself who having finish'd the 7th was now writing the 8th Book against the lyes and slanders of Celsus Having asserted the Pre-Existence and Eternity of Christ his most intimate Union with the Father he says pag. 386. Edit Cantab. We adore one God and his only Son his word and his image with our supplications offering our prayers to God through his only Son to whom first we address them beseeching him that as he is a propitiation for our sins he would like our High-Priest offer to the most bâ—â—â— God our prayers intercessions sacrifices c. pag. 3 5. None is to be pray'd to but the most High God and to only begotten the first born of every Creature the word of God pag. 422. We sing Hymns only to God who is above all things and to God the word his only begotten Son This shews the practice and belief of the Church oâ— that time and of the very Primitive Church before to adore Christ in those Hymns made in his praise Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem says Pliny to the Emperor lib. 10 Epis 97. to sing an Hymn amongst themselves to Christ as God An authority brought by Tertullian Apol. c. 2. which teaches us that all that Pliny could know of their Religious rites was that they met before day ad canendum Christo ut Deo to sing Hymns to Christ as to their God I know that these Gentlemen who under pretence of Critising will alter any writings have pretended to read Christo Deo to Christ and to God But I know this to be a willful mistake the ancient and genuine reading being Christo ut Deo Thus Eusebius citing this very place of Tertullian Chron. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by St. Jerom in Terâ—ullian's own words to sing to Christ as God A practice which the same Eusebius Hist lib. 5. c. 28. says to have been of Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatianus Clemens Melito Jrence The earliest and best times of Christianity having given this testimony to Christ's Divinity and to the Prayers offer'd him But how could it ever enter into these Gentlemen's heads to deny praying to Christ upon such unconcluding Argâ—ments as the Answerer to Mr. Milbourn and the Author of the Brief Hist have us'd when they cannot but see it practis'd in Scripture Luk. 17.5 Lord increase our haith Mark 9.24 Lord I believe help thou my unbelief Nor will the mean evasion serve that it is no more than recommending our selves to one another's Prayers What Creature dares to say to another Creature without Blasphemy or Idolatry increase my Faith help my unbelief Acts 7.59 They ston'd Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my Spirit If this be not praying adoring and exercising the highest act of trust imaginable there is no such thing in the World Compare this place with 1 Pet. 4.19 commit the keeping of their Souls to him ..... as unto a faithful Creator and tell me the difference between committing our Souls and offering our Spirit to be receiv'd The answer of the Author of the Hist to this pag. 32. is so strange that had I seen it in any Book but his own I wou'd have said that it is a Satyr upon him and a gross slander 1st Says he the name God is not in any Greek Copy True But does not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray to implore or as the Latin Interpreter to invocate imply the word God since the very action has God for its object The Prebendaries of Westminster are gone to pray therefore they do not pray to God because the word God is not nam'd in the Proposition This is all foolish since the very nature of the thing imports that it is to God to whom they make their addresses 2ly He says that the Greek render'd Grammatically makes this sence O Lord of Jesus receive my spirit which is false trifling ridiculous and not worth a reply 3ly He pretends the meaning to be only this Stephen call'd upon God and say'd Lord Jesus because at the same time he saw Jesus in a Prophetick Vision standing at the right hand of God This is sillily and falsly alledged Stephen call'd upon God and said He who he spoke to was he whom he call'd upon Whether he saw him or no is not the question But the offering his departing Soul into his hands and praying that he would receive it into his mercy is the stress of the Argument and is praying adoring relying upon him acts of such a nature as cannot without Blasphemy and Idolatry be offer'd to any but God 9thly Can any thing more visibly infer the Omnipresence and Omniscience of Christ than Matt. 18.20 Where two or three are gather'd together in my name there am I in the midst of them Matt. 28.20 and lo I am with you always even to the end of the World Mark 2.8 When Jesus perceiv'd in his spirit that they so reason'd within themselves he say'd unto them why reason ye these things in your hearts Joh. 2.29 he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man for he knew what was in man 1 Cor. 4.5 who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and