is not there meant This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. He who is the First-born of every Creature is the same who shed his Blood ver 14. for the Redemption of Men as I noted before Now he who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men can be no other but Jesus Christ Man but this very Jesus Christ Man is there stiled the First-born of every Creature by whom all things were created c. as we translate the Words Therefore this cannot be meant of the Creation of the World which is the Work of God not of a Man Yes you 'l say for He is God as well as Man and therefore may be said to have created the World I answer Where have you found in Scripture that Christ is God as well as Man I know He is called Man in the Writings of the New Testament but I could never find him there stiled God-Man as He should have often been if He was both Does the Apostle make a distinction between his two Natures does he say we have Redemption thrô his Blood as He is a Man and that He is the First-born of every Creature and has created all Things as He is God Not at all but only tells us That the same Jesus Christ in whom we have redemption thrô his Blood is the First-born of every Creature and by whom all Things were created c. Why should we contrive a distinction of our own when the Apostle makes none But 2. I cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ since we have no Warrant from Scripture for it I mean that the Scripture does never say in express Words that Christ has created Heaven and Earth which is the proper Description of the Old Creation or of the Creation strictly and properly so called and the Description usual in Scripture when it speaks of that Creation as it is said that God the Father of Christ has I do observe so great a difference between the Expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning the Creation of the World by God and those Expressions which are supposed to import the same Creation by Christ that I cannot forbear alledging some places concerning both I omit those of the Old Testament which are so many and will insist only upon some taken out of the New God saith St. Paul Acts 17. 24. that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands And Acts 4. 11. Lord thou art God which hast made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all that in them is Acts 14. 15. We preach unto you that ye should turn from these Vanities unto the Living God which made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all things that are therein And Rev. 14. 7. Fear God and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Water This is the true and proper Description of the Creation of the World Were it ascribed to Christ in such express Terms we could not doubt that Christ had created the World which if the Apostles had believed they would undoubtedly have taught us so great a Truth and that both in express and plain Terms and often No Christ is never said to have created Heaven and Earth the Sea and all that is therein In this very place the Apostle does not say that the First-born created Heaven and Earth but All things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and the All Things of which he speaketh he limiteth to all Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers visible and invisible which shall be explained hereafter This second Reflection that this Text contains not the proper Description of the Creation of the World used in Scripture being added to the foregoing that this Context speaks of Christ as Man ought to perswade any unprejudiced Man that the Creation of the World is not here attributed to Christ The Primitive Christians were so far from believing that Christ created the World that as the Father only is called God in the Apostles Creed so He only is stiled Maker of Heaven and Earth 3. As the Epistle to the Galatians is an excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans so the Epistle to the Ephesians must be made use of for the right understanding of the Epistle to the Colossians The Design and Scope of those two Epistles is the same so that we must look into the Epistle to the Ephesians to find out the true Sense of this controverted Text in the Colossians Now he that seriously compares these two Epistles with one another will find that Coloss 1. 15 16 17 18. must be interpreted by Ephes 1. 20 21 22. and Ephes 1. 10. is a true Commentary on Coloss 1. 20. Coloss 1. 18. runs thus And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence To which answers part of the 22d verse in the Ephesians in these Words And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Col. 1. 15 16 17. runs thus Who is the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature for by him were all things created as we translate the Word that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all things and by him all things consist To these Verses do answer the 20 21 and part of the 22d verse of Chap. 1. to the Ephesians in these Words He God raised him from the dead and set him at his own right Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and Might and Dominion and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come and hath put all things under his Feet Now in the Epistle to the Ephesians we see there is not the least intimation of the Creation ascribed to Christ but only of his exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and all earthly Powers which plainly shows that the Apostle meant not the Creation of the World in the forecited Verses of the Epistle to the Colossians Nay were it so he would speak Non-sense In the Epistle to the Colossians he would tell us that Christ has created all the Orders of Angels the visible and invisible Thrones c. which plainly shows that He is thereby as far above them as the Creator is above his Creatures but in the Epistle to the Ephesians he would tell us that Christ has been exalted far above all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Thrones and Powers which undeniably proves that He was not so before Now what is a Contradiction if this be not to say that Christ created them and that the Father set him far above them We must therefore of necessity explain
chief of the Orthodox Interpreters have thus explained this Context of the Colossians Among the Ancients St. Cyril Fulgentius Procopius Gazeus and even Athanasius himself Of the Moderns Salmero Montanus Grotius and many more Before I put an end to this I must observe that our Author is greatly mistaken in his Explication of Col. 1. 18. The Apostle says he proceeds from Christ's Creation of the natural World to his Mediatory Kingdom Which proves that He did not speak of that before I see the Author does not observe his own rule p. 146. To consider in expounding Scripture what goes before and what follows It was no hard matter to see that the Apostle at Ver. 16. speaks First in the general of Things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth Visible and Invisible but then afterwards he explains what he meant by the Things that are in Heaven viz. all the Orders of Angels this he doth in the latter part of the same Verse and what he means by Things that are on Earth He tells us fully at Ver. 18. viz. the Church The 18th Verse being an Explication of some part of Ver. 16. it appears not to have been Paul's Design to proceed from Christ's Creation of the World to his Mediatory Kingdom Thus I have done with the famous Context of Col. 1. 15 16 c. The Author of the Brief History had proved that Christ was God's Minister and Servant because He was appointed or made by God the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession To this the Author I am now considering Answers But here is a Restriction to his being High-Priest and therefore no danger of Blasphemy tho He be God For we may observe that thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet he was a type of an High-Priest who is more than Man even the eternal Son or Word of God as some of the Learned Jews acknowledge This is indeed an admirable Answer Christ has been appointed by God an High-Priest which seems to prove that Himself is not God No says the Doctor you are mistaken for thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet He was a Type of an High-Priest more than Man of an High-Priest who is the eternal Son of God How does he prove it As some says he of the Learned Jews acknowledge And what then if some Learned Jews have spoken non-sense must we speak non-sense too One would expect the Author should prove by Scripture and not by Jewish Writers that the Jewish High-Priest was a type of an High Priest who is the eternal Son and Word of God The Jewish High-Priest being a Type of Christ was a Type of an High-Priest more eminent and greater than Himself in all respects thô he were not God He goes on For the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father If you ask him why he will answer Philo Judaeus who often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest says so and shows that the Garments of the High-Priest were Figures of Heaven and Earth Which seems to signify that the eternal Word which made the World is the true High-Priest Here comes upon the stage one of his Learned Jews Philo by whose Testimony he proves that the second Person of the Trinity is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father But Philo being Plato's Follower did not believe such a Trinity as the Doctor teaches Sure there is a great difference between Plato's three Principles and the Doctor 's Trinity But if there were not must we believe Philo Judaeus rather than St. Paul who plainly tells us in direct opposition to Philo that as there is One God so there is One Mediator between God and Men the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. As for the Garments of the High-Priest which Philo will have to be a Figure of Heaven and Earth and our Author's Story about Jaddus both which our Author alledges as Arguments at least as Congruities whereby to prove the Divinity of Christ I shall so far trust the Judgment of the meanest Reader as to take no notice of them That which follows is no less ridiculous I am sure says the Author the Apostle distinguishes Christ from High-Priests taken from among Men and makes his Sonship the Foundation of his Priesthood Heb. 5. 1 6. The contrary to both these is true and evident also in the Text he cites The Priesthood is the Foundation of the Sonship and Aaron and Christ are there made Instances of High-Priests taken from among Men. The Objection therefore remains still that Christ being an High-Priest appointed and made by God cannot Himself be God He goes on As for his next Objection from 1 Cor. 3. 23. Christ is God's I know not what he means by it for there is no doubt but Christ is God's Son God's Christ God's High-Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory and what then Therefore he is not God by no means he may conclude that He is not God the Father because He acta subordinately not that therefore He is not God the Son The Author of the Brief History meant I suppose this that as you are Christ's in that Text signifies Men are subject to Christ so Christ is God's must signify Christ is subjected to God and therefore not Himself God This I think is good Sonse and a good Argument But can it be said that the second Person of the Trinity who is the supream God nay One God with the First is God's Son God's Christ God's High Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory All these Titles denote a dependance upon the Father and a real subjection to Him which cannot agree to any Person who is indeed Himself a Supream God Here is another sensless Answer to a good and strong Objection P. 158. His next proof is That God calls Christ his Servant in the Prophet Isaiah But it is his Servant in whom his Soul was pleased which is the peculiar Character of his Son and is that very Testimony which God gave to Christ at his Baptism This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased I desire here the Reader to observe the Doctor 's accurate way of reasoning This is the Objection Christ is called God's Servant therefore He is not God No this is a mistake says He for Christ is God's beloved Servant P. 159. He says in answer to the Objection from Phil. 2. 8 9. Because He voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature does He forfeit the Dignity of his Nature But I ask can it be said of the Supream God with whom is no Variableness neither Shadow of turning that He has condescended below the Dignity of his Nature P. 159 160. He goes on in a florid way of Speech to show how inconsistent it is that Christ were He a meer Creature should be advanced to that Power and Authority whereunto He has been promoted Hereupon I observe
the Context of the Colossians by that of the Ephesians and put such a Sense upon it as imports no true and proper Creation 4. Coloss 1. 19 20. being interpreted by Ephes 1. 10. is a Confirmation of what I have said hitherto The former Coloss 1. 19 20. runs thus For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made Peace through the Blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Earth or things in Heaven To which answers the other Text Eph. 2. 10. in these Words That in the Dispensation of the fulness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in Heaven and which are in Earth even in him No Man I hope will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistle to the Colossians which we render to Reconcile ought to be interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text of the Ephesians which signifies to gather together in one or to sum up So that the meaning of both places is this that it pleased God in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head even Christ whom he set up Lord and King over them Now this does perfectly agree with what St. Paul says to the Ephesians concerning Christ's exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and his being Head of the Church for his Argument runs thus God has exalted Christ above all the Orders of Angels and made him Head of the Church for he had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ But if the Text of the Epistle to the Colossians is meant of the Creation of the World this will be perfect Non-sense for thus it ought to run Christ has created all Orders of Angels and all Powers on Earth and was made Head of the Church for God had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ. No Man in the World can speak greater Non-sense than this would be were the Creation of the World ascribed to Christ in the controverted Text. I desire the Author to reconcile his explication of these Words that in all things he might have the preeminence with what follows That is says he at p. 157. that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the dead So the whole Argument according to the Author must run thus Christ was the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the Dead for God was pleased in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under Christ as their Head Could any thing be said more absurd and ridiculous The Author's Skill in Scripture and Reason is I think alike 2. Having thus proved that the Old Creation or the Creation properly so called is not ascribed to Christ in this Context of the Colossians I come now to explain its true Sense as clearly as possibly I can Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature The meaning of these last Words is not that Christ was begotten before all Creatures as this Author would have it but that He is the Lord and King of every Intelligent Creature in Allusion to the First-born of a Family who is Heir of all Things This I prove by the 17 and 18th Verses Ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And He is before all things is the Explication of the First-born of every Creature and signifies not that He is before all Creatures in order of time but of Dignity and Power being by God set over all the Orders of Angels and over the Church as their Head and King But if you don't rest satisfied with this parallel Place the 18th Verse will afford an undeniable proof of what I say There you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rightly rendred in our Bibles That in all things He might have the Preeminence both in Heaven and in Earth among Angels and in the Church I say now these last Words ought to be the Explication of the two before-mentioned Expressions to be the First-born of every Creature and to be before all Things ought to be interpreted by his having the Praeeminence in all Things so that He is the First-born of every Creature is this He hath the Preeminence over every Creature Thus by the Context it self we find out the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the English we translate First-born of every Creature And thus too are these Words interpreted by the principal Critics among the Orthodox as they are called Gomarus Camero Piscator Drusius Vorstius Davenant Dally Grotius for they will have him also to be Orthodox Hammond I come now to the next Verse For by him were all Things created I have fully proved they cannot be understood of the Old Creation the Creation of Heaven and Earth and the Sea and of the Things in them which is the Creation properly so called therefore to reconcile this Verse with the foregoing and with the Words before cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians He God set Him at his own Right-Hand far above all Principality and Power and every Name that is named The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Created ought to be rendred Modelled Disposed or Reformed into a new Order So that the Sense will run thus Christ is the Lord of every Creature for by him are all both Visible and Invisible Creatures even all Men and Angels Modelled or Disposed into a new Order being subjected to Him and His Commands As for Angels all the Orders of them whether they be Thrones or Dominions none of them are exempted from his Power and Authority he rules over them which is the meaning of Ver. 17. and they are all as it were compacted in one Body under his Conduct as for Men as He is the Beginning and the First-born from the Dead so He was also made Head of the Church his Body so that in all things He has the Preeminence He rules in Heaven and on Earth over Angels and over the Church which is the Sense of Ver. 18. This I hope makes a clear Sense agreeable to the whole Context and to the Text in the Ephesians I observe that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or He is before all Things is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Or He is the First-born of every Creature So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and by him all Things consist or are compacted into one Body ought to be the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by him were all Things not created as 't is rendred in the English but Modelled or Reformed I know not why Dr. Sherlock has called this a Socinian Explication as if it were devised by them to serve their Hypothesis the truth is the
Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but one Person But here he takes for granted that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity contrary to the Apostle who speaks only of the Person of God not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son If the Person of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image is only the Person of the Father then the Person of the Father only at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets Ver. 1. for Ver. 2. the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only is not the true God in the Author's Hypothesis therefore he must conclude that the true God spake not to the Fathers which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle who says that God undoubtedly the true God spake to the Fathers Farther by God who spake to the Fathers we must understand either Father Son and Holy Ghost or the Father only If Father Son and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers it could not be here said that Christ is the Image of that God's Person for he is Three Persons If the Father only spake to the Fathers then the Father only is the true God for the true God spake to the Fathers also then God is but one Person Which are the things we contend for He goes on As for his Singular Pronouns I Thou c. They prove indeed that there is but one God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons in all Languages When therefore they are applied to God they show that he is a Singular that is but one Person unless they will say that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others but this is false for being written to Men the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them are the same as in all other Languages and otherways the Scripture would not be given us to instruct us but to pervert and deceive us 5. The fifth Argument Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed He answers Had not the Son been God and also the Holy Ghost they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than the Form of Baptism which is the Original of the Apostles Creed But why not Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God since the Gospel was preached by the One and confirmed by the Other why may not they be put into the Creed as well as the Catholic Church by whom the Gospel is to be believed If our Creed only mentioned God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian therefore a Christian Creed as such must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thô they are not Gods or God A Christian as such must profess in his Creed that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty but also in his Son Jesus Christ who was sent by him to preach the Gospel and in the Holy Ghost by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man He adds That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church 'T is plain our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks And whereas he says there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed 't is very marvellous to me that there should be no reason to express an Article which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed but I say had the Article been necessary or so much as true the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed to make room for a necessary Article an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church and other Articles there expressed Besides what Inlargement would it have been what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory to have added twice this single and short Word God And in God the Son Jesus Christ our Lord c. I believe in God the Holy Ghost c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days It is plain therefore that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost no other but that they believed it not But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 23 24. was it too hot or to heavy for him Lastly he says It needed not to be added because the Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man But must he that is the Son of God be also by Nature God St. Luke says of Adam who was the Son of God Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God in the Language of Scripture Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying that the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man If one had leisure there might be Answers enow made to it all that I say is I pray prove it 6. The Historian concludes That The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible On the contrary our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge 1. It ridicules the Scriptures 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion 4. It justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries If it be so my Masters the Socinians are ill Men indeed but let us do them this Common Right to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment CHAP. VII 1. THE First pretence is That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired He instances in some Expositions of Scripture which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians For Example The Historian in answer to Psal 45. 6 7. which the Apostle at Heb. 1. 8. applies to Christ says In the Hebrew and in the Greek