believed otherwise Pope Leo III assented to the definition of the Council of Aquisgrane An. 809. concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and yet would by no means allow that it should be added to the Creed nor would he deny Salvation to those who believed otherwise but when that Question was asked him returned this Answer That whosoever has subtilty enough to attain to the Knowledge of this or knowing it will not believe it cannot be saved but there are many and this among the rest deep Misteries of the Holy Faith which all cannot reach to some by reason of Age others for want of understanding and therefore as we said before he that can and won't cannot be saved And therefore at the same time he commanded the Constantinopolitan Creed to be hung up at Rome in a Silver Table without the addition of the Filioque nor can any man tell when this was added to the Creed however we never read the Greeks were Anathematized upon this account till Pope Vrban II. 1097. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV. 1438 9. Ioseph the Patriarch of Constantinople thought this Controversie between the two Churches might be reconciled and the Filioque added in a sense very consistent with the belief of the Greek Church As for what he adds that the Greek Church condemned this addition as Heretical I desire to know what Greek Council did this Vossius a very diligent Observer gives no account of it the quarrel of the Greeks with the Latins was That they undertook without the Authority of a General Council to add to the Creed of a General Council when the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon had Anathematized those who did so and therefore for this reason the Greeks Anathematized the Latin Church without declaring the Filioque to be Heretical and as that Learned Man observes this was the true cause of the Schism that the Greeks thought the Pope of Rome and a Western Synod took too much upon themselves to add to the Creed of a General Council by their own Authority without consulting the Eastern Church which was equally concerned in matters of Faith But the Comical part is still behind for he says The Greeks laugh at Athanasius 's menace and say he was drunk when he made the Creed and for this he refers us to Georgius Scholarius or Gennadius who was made Patriarch of Constantinople by Mahomet when he had taken that City I confess I have not read all that Gennadius has Writ and know not where to find this place and he has not thought fit to direct us but this I know that whether Gennadius says this himself or only reports it as the saying of some foolish Greeks for I cannot guess by our Author which it is whoever said it said more then is true for Athanasius neither made the Creed drunk nor sober for as most Learned Men agree he never made it at all though it bears his name but I wish I could see this place in Gennadius for I greatly suspect our Author Gennadius being a very unlikely Man to say any ill thing of Athanasius upon account of the Filioque who himself took the side of the Latin Church in this dispute and as Vossius relates gives Athanasius a very different and more honourable Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Athanasius the Preacher and Confessor of Truth But there is nothing smites me more than to hear this Arian or Socinian or whatever he is affirm That the Greeks have clearly and demonstratively proved that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only For that which is proved clearly and demonstratively I hope is true and then this alone is a confutation of his brief Notes for the Greeks taught and proved demonstratively as he says that the Holy Spirit so proceeds from the Father only as to be of the same Substance and One God with the Father And the Catholick Faith is this Catholick Faith is as much as to say in plain English the Faith of the whole Church now in what Age was this which here follows the Faith of the whole Church The Catholick Faith I grant is so called with relation to the Catholick Church whose Faith it is and the Catholick Church is the Universal Church or all the true Churches in the World which are all but one whole Church united in Christ their Head the Profession of the true Faith and Worship of Christ makes a true Church and all true Churches are the One Catholick Church whether they be spread over all the World or shut up in any one corner of it as at the first Preaching of the Gospel the Catholick Church was no where but in Iudaea Now as no Church is the Catholick Church of Christ how far soever it has spread it self over the World unless it profess the true Faith of Christ no more is any Faith the Catholick Faith how universally soever it be professed unless it be the true Faith of Christ nor does the true Christian Faith cease to be Catholick how few soever there be who sincerely profess it It is down-right Popery to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitudes or large extent or to judge of the Catholick Faith by the vast Numbers of its Professors were there but one true Church in the World that were the Catholick Church because it would be the whole Church of Christ on Earth and were the true Christian Faith professed but in one such Church it would be the Catholick Faith still for it is the Faith of the whole true Church of Christ the sincere belief and profession of which makes a Catholick Church Not in the Age of Athanasius himself who for this Faith and for Seditious Practices was banished from Alexandria in AEgypt where he was Bishop no less than four times whereof the first was by Constantine the Great What shall be done unto Thee thou lying Tongue What impudence is this to think to sham the World at this time a day with such stories as these when the Case of Athanasius is so well known or may be even to English Readers who will take the pains to read his Life written with great exactness and fidelity by the learned Dr. Cave But when he thinks a second time of it will he say that the Church of God in Athanasius's Age was not of the same Faith with him What thinks he of the Nicene Fathers who condemned Arius In which Council Athanasius himself was present and bore a considerable part and so provoked the Arian Faction by his Zeal for the Catholick Faith and his great skill and dexterity in managing that Cause as laid the Foundation of all his future Troubles Will he say that Constantine the Great who called the Council at Nice in the Cause of Arius and was so zealous an Asserter of the Nicene Faith banished Athanasius for this Faith No his greatest Enemies durst not make
when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his Words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me authority to Expound the Words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every mans private Conceits and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such Matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any Sense of it much less to give such a Sense of it as the Words will not bear This shows that men may pretend to Expound Scripture according to Reason when the Dispute is nothing else but a Clash of Reason with Scripture as this Author phrases it for so it is when the usual signification of the Words and the Scope and Circumstances of the Place require one Sense and men force another Sense on it upon pretence of Expounding Scripture by Reason that is to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words signifie that is the Sense of Scripture and when they will not admit this Sense because they apprehend it contrary to Reason though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place that is nothing else but a Controversie between Scripture and Reason My present Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity or by others for it this is a voluminous Work and has often been done by others and if there were any just Occasion of doing it again it deserves a Treatise by it self but indeed it is the Doctrine it self which the Socinians dislike more then our Expositions which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough were the Doctrine so but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason and therefore must never allow that the Scripture teaches such a Doctrine which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind reconcile men to the Doctrine and the Scripture is plain without any farther Comment this I have now endeavoured and I believe our Adversaries will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expositions of Scripture but yet I am unwilling to dismiss this Argument without some few Observations about the Sense of Scripture This Author refers us to the History of the Vnitarians which though it be but a little Book in all Senses is too large to be particularly examined now but however I shall give some taste of it In the first Letter the Author marshals those Texts which he thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful Readers I shall more particularly examine that He reduces the Scriptures under several Topicks or Heads of Arguments 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than he none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious for though Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the Godhead the equality and sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of Persons a Son is equal to his Father by Nature but inferiour to him as his Son if the Father as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wisdom the Son a personal subsisting but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is superior to the Image the Father to the Son and therefore though I know such Texts as he alleadges My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's Human Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to his Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and the Son is God of God and therefore the Father may be called his God As for Christ's receiving Commands from the Father though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office and so concerns him as God Incarnate as by the Dispensation of the Gospel he is the Minister of God's Will and Pleasure yet I grant even as God he receives Commands from his Father but it is no otherwise than as he receives his Nature from him by Nature he is the Word the Wisdom the Command of the Father his reflex Image whereby he produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and Counsel into act Thus St. Austin answered the Arrian Objection That Christ was but God's Instrument and made the World by God's Command Let them consider with what other words the Father commanded his only Word But they frame to themselves an Imagination of two near one another but separated by their distinct Places one commanding another obeying Nor do they understand that the Fathers Command it self that all things should be made is no other Word of the Father but that by which all things are made that is the substantial Word and Wisdom and Command of the Father his only begotten Son 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that he is the Creature the Possession the Servant and Subject of God It is well he added absolutely and without restriction but he had done better if he had remembred it in his Proofs that Christ is called a Creature he proves because he is the first-born of every Creature but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction for he is so to the first-born of every Creature that he is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies That by him were all things created 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 which is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten before the whole Creation and therefore no part of the Creation himself and by him all things consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things were not only made by him but have their Subsistence in him as the Apostle tells us in God we live and move and have our being that this does not relate to the new Creation as the Socinians would have it is very plain For 1. in this Sense Christ if he were meer Man was not the first-born of every new Creature for I hope there were a great many new Creatures that is truly good and pious men before Christ was born of his Virgin Mother 2. Nor in this sense were all things in Heaven and Earth visible and invisible Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers that is all the Orders of Angels created by him For the greatest part of visible things especially in the Apostles days when so little part of the World was converted to the Christian Faith were not new made by him and none of the invisible things were new made by him good Angels did not need it and he came not to convert fallen Angels but to destroy the visible Kingdom of the Devil in this World and to judge them in the next 3. Nor in this sense were all things made for him for he is a Mediator for God to reduce Mankind to their Obedience and Subjection to him and therefore when he has accomplished his Work of Mediation and destroyed all Enemies in the final Judgment of the World he shall deliver up his Kingdom to his Father that God may be all in all of which more presently 4. And therefore the Apostle proceeds from his Creation of the Natural World to his Mediatory Kingdom which proves that he did not speak of that before 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 preheminence as the Maker of all things visible and invisible he is said to be before all things begotten of his Father before the Creation of the World as Head of the Church he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the beginning the first who rose from the dead that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first upon all Accounts before the Worlds and the first-born from the dead That he was God's Minister and Servant he proves by several Texts as that he was appointed or made which has the same sense by God the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession but here is a restriction to his being High-Priest and therefore no danger of Blasphemy though he be God for we may observe that though the Jewish High-Priest were but a man yet he was a Type of a High-Priest who is more than man even the Eternal Son and Word of God as some of the Learned Jews acknowledge for the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father as Philo Iudoeus often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest and shows that the Garments of the High-Priest were Figures of Heaven and Earth which seems to signifie that the Eternal Word which made the world is the true High-Priest And the Story Iosephus tells of Alexander looks this way that when Iaddus the High-Priest went out to meet him dressed in all his Pontifical Attire he approached him with great Reverence and Veneration and his Captains wondering at it he told them That that God who appeared to him and sent him upon that Expedition and promised him Victory and Success appeared to him in that very Habit. I am sure the Apostle distinguishes Christ from High-Priests taken from among men and makes his Sonship the Foundation of his Priesthood Christ glorified not himself to be made an High-Priest which shows that it is no Servile Ministry but he that said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten Thee As he saith also in another place Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec And what the Mystery of this Melchizedecian Priesthood was he explains 7 Hebrews that Melchizedec was first by Interpretation King of Righteousness and after that also King of Salem which is King of Peace Without Father without Mother without Descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life but made like unto the Son of God which is a Priest continually As for his next Quotation that Christ is Gods 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 therefore he is not God the Father because he acts subordinately not that therefore he is not God the Son His next Proof is that God calls him his Servant by the Prophet Isaiah but it is his Servant in whom his Soul is well-pleased which is the peculiar Character of his Son and is that very testimony which God gave to Christ at his Baptism by a voice from Heaven This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased His next Proof is that he humbled himself and became obedient which is all he cites but what does he prove from this that Obedience is part of his Humiliation And what then therefore he is not God because he voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature does he forfeit the Dignity of his Nature and yet this is the plain Case as the Apostle tells us in that place that He being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross. And this is a wonderful Proof that he is not God because being in the form of God that is being God he voluntarily condescended to the meanest and most servile state of Human Nature for the Salvation of sinners But the sting of all is behind that for this submission and obedience he was rewarded and exalted by God and a God is not capable of a reward or exaltation being Supreme himself and yet as it follows for this God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name above every Name Now it seems very strange to me that Christ's advancement to the supreme Government of the World should be made an Argument against his being God or the Eternal Son of God for is it fitting and congruous for God to make a meer Creature the Universal Lord and Soveraign of the World to advance a meer man above the most glorious Angels to be the Head of all Principalities and Powers which would be an Indignity to the Angelical
Antitype and therefore whatever is said of God must belong to his Person and cannot belong to any other What God did under the typical State of the Law may be a Type and Figure of those more glorious things which we would do in Human Nature and thus his Triumphs and Victories over the Enemies of his Church which is by a Metaphor called his ascending on high since God who fills all places neither locally ascends nor descends was a Type and Figure of his real Ascension into Heaven after he had first descended into the lowermost parts of the Earth as the Apostle argues but if what the Psalmist says that God ascended on high c. received its accomplishment in the Ascension of Christ into Heaven Christ must be the God of whom the Psalmist speaks Thus what the Psalmist says of God Worship him all ye Gods or Angels the Apostle Attributes to Christ when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world he saith and let all the Angels of God worship him To this our Author answers 'T is uncertain whether St. Paul had any respect to the words in the Psalm What when he cites the very words as a Prophesie of Christ How shall we then know when the Apostle has respect to the words he quotes But if he had he doth not quote the words of the Psalmist as if they were spoken of Christ but only declareth the Decree of God known to him by the Spirit for subjecting the Angels to Christ in the same words that the Psalmist had used upon another occasion But he proves this Decree of God by no other Revelation but the words of the Psalmist nor pretends any other and if that do'nt prove it we have no other But his Reason for this is admirable because they are words most proper to express that Decree for the Writers of the New Testament generally affect to speak in Scripture language which is an effectual Answer to all the Texts of Scripture quoted out of the Old Testament that the Apostles did not intend to prove any thing by them but only affected to speak in Scripture language but when the Apostle says this was spoken of Christ if it were not spoken of him I doubt he affected something worse than speaking in Scripture Language this is either to ridicule Scripture or give the lie to it let him choose which he likes best St. Paul applies that of the Prophet Isaiah I have sworn by my self which all acknowledge to be spoken by God unto me every knee shall bow to Christ. This our Historian says is Because Christ then and there at the last Iudgment holdeth the place of God representeth him and acteth by his Commission So men are said to appear before our Soveraign Lord the King when they appear at the Bar of his Iudges because the Iudges act in the King's stead and by his Commission But why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the last Iudgment St. Paul indeed gives this as one Instance of it but does not confine it to this but in the Epistle to the Philippians makes it as large as the Exaltation of our Saviour Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Iesus every knee should bow and that every Tongue should confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father This is what God says by the Prophet Every Tongue shall swear to me and St. Paul to the Romans Every Tongue shall confess to God And this shows that it is the Person of Christ to whom we must bow the knee it is the Name of Iesus at which every knee must bow and every Tongue must confess that Iesus Christ is the Lord. Now I suppose he will not say That we must confess the Judges to be the King or that we must bow to their Persons but to their Commission or that they represent the King wherever they are but only in the King 's Court. If then we must bow to the Person of Christ and confess him to be the Lord and this be an accomplishment of God's Oath unto me every Knee shall bow and every Tongue shall swear then Christ is that God who in the Prophet Isaiah swore that every Knee should bow to him And the Prophet plainly describes who this God is to whom every Knee shall bow Surely shall one say in the Lord have I righteousness and strength even to him shall men come and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed in the Lord shall the Seed of Israel be justified and shall glory And I suppose all Christians know who that Lord is who is made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption by whom we are justified through Faith in his Blood And this is that God to whom every Knee must bow But he is a little mistaken also in his Law we are not said to appear before our Soveraign Lord the King because we appear before the Judges who act by the King's Commission for this is true only of the Court of King's Bench which is peculiarly the King's Court though other Judges act by the King's Commission also in the Kings Court we are said to appear before the King But now though Christ receive his Kingdom and Power from God and God is said to judge the World by him yet it is properly Christ's Iudgment Seat So St. Paul here calls it We shall all stand before the Iudgment-Seat of Christ and we must all appear before the Iudgment-Seat of Christ for the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all Iudgment to the Son that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father which I explained before And therefore this being Christ's Court of which he is the Supream and Soveraign Judge to him we must bow our Knee that is he is that Lord of whom the Prophet Isaiah speaks The same Prophet tells us Sanctifie the Lord of Hosts himself and let him be your fear and let him be your dread And he shall be for a Sanctuary but for a Stone of stumbling and for a Rock of Offence to both the Houses of Israel for a gin and for a snare to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem This is evidently spoken of the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel And this St. Paul applies to Christ that the Jews did stumble and fall and were broken as the Prophet foretold at this stumbling Stone Israel which followed after the Law of Righteousness hath not attained to the Law of Righteousness Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith the Faith of Christ but as it were by the Works of the Law for they stumbled at the stumbling-stone as it is written Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed Where the Apostle joyns two Prophesies together the first that which I have already quoted
Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication might well say But will God indeed dwell on the Earth Behold the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Thee how much less this House that I have built The Temple then was a Figure and we must enquire what it was a Figure of Now a typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signifie nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of something that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence Now our Saviour calls his Body the Temple Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which St. Iohn tells us He spake of the Temple of his Body The Temple then which was God's House where he dwelt was but a Figure of Christ's Body Christ's Body then was that in truth and reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's visible Presence on Earth But God was not visibly present on Earth unless he were personally united to Human Nature that the Body of Christ was the Body of God or of the Divine Word by as true and real an Union as any man's Body is his Thus God may be personally and visibly present among men as a man though his Soul be as invisible as the Deity is yet visibly present by his Union to a visible Body But if Christ be not God incarnate if the Divine Word be not personally united to Human Nature the Body of Christ is but as figurative a Temple as the Temple at Ierusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor is in Speech God was as really present in the Temple as he was in Christ without a personal Union for God fills all places and is really present every where but yet was peculiarly present in the Temple to peculiar ends and purposes to hear Prayers to accept their Sacrifices and Oblations to give forth his Oracles and Responses and if Christ be but a meer Man he dwells no otherwise in him but by Inspiration and though Christ was more perfectly inspired than the Jewish Oracle this does not alter the Nature of God's Presence does not make one a typical and figurative the other a real Presence for God is really present in both but not personally united to either The typical Presence of God in the Tabernacle and Temple is not opposed to a real Presence by real and sensible Effects but to a visible Presence God is present every where but he is invisibly present but as he had chosen Israel for his peculiar People and Inheritance so he would dwell visibly among them but this could be done no other way but either by taking a visible Body or by some instituted signs of his visible Presence the first he would not do yet but intended to do in the fulness of time which his own infinite wisdom had appointed for it and in the mean time did praefigure this visible appearance of God on Earth in Human Nature by some visible Symbols of his Presence by a visible House wherein he dwelt by a visible Throne or Mercy-Seat and by placing a visible Oracle among them So that the Temple as a Type was a Type and Figure of God's visible Appearance and dwelling upon Earth and therefore if it was a Type of Christ's Body as Christ himself tells us it was God did visibly dwell in Christ by a Personal Union for nothing else can make God visible but a Personal Union to a visible Nature To this St. Iohn plainly alludes when he tells us The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacled among us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Ierusalem by his dwelling personally in Human Nature and we beheld his Glory that is says our Historian the glory of the man on whom the Word did abide and inhabit in him But St. Iohn says it is the glory of the Word made Flesh the glory of the Word as of the only begotten of the Father did shine in Human Nature there were visible signs of the Glory of the Incarnate Word This glory he says was beheld in his Miracles and in his Transfiguration and on many other occasions very many indeed in his Life and Doctrine especially for how would they have the glory of the Incarnate Word seen but by the visible Operations of it in Human Nature How does a Human Soul discover its glory but by visible Actions Thus our Saviour tells us that he is greater than the Temple I say unto you in this place is one greater than the Temple Now the Temple was God's House and figurative Presence and if he were greater than the Temple God dwelt in a more perfect manner in him that is he was not a symbolical visible Presence of God which was all he could be had he been no more than a man but a visible God even the Lord of the Temple as the Prophet Malachi assures us Behold I will send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come into his Temple even the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye delight in behold he shall come saith the Lord of Hosts This Messenger all men own was Iohn the Baptist The voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths straight Now our Historian confesses he prepared the way for Christ and God says he shall prepare the way before Me which proves that Christ is this Lord of Hosts for whom Iohn was to prepare the way but that I at present intend is that he for whom Iohn was to prepare the way is the Lord of the Temple for it is called his Temple Now we know the Lord Jehovah was the Lord of the Temple for the Temple was God's House dedicated to his Name and Worship he dwelt in his Temple before by Types and Figures but now he was to come visibly and personally into his Temple and therefore he might well say he was greater than the Temple since he was the Lord of it that Incarnate God of whom God's dwelling in the Temple was a Figure and which had been a very empty and insignificant Figure unworthy of the Wisdom and Majesty of God had it not praefigured the mysterious Incarnation of the Son of God Thus as God had a Typical House so he had a typical High Priest and typical Sacrifices That the High Priest who once a year entred into the typical Holy of Holies was a Type of Christ who entred into Heaven The Apostle teaches us 9 Hebr. that the Jewish Sacrifices were typical of
to God as our Historian will have it by a communication of power over Diseases Devils the Grave the Winds the Seas c. which dwindles the form of God into just nothing for according to them he had no inherent Power to do this but God did it at his word as he did for other Prophets and therefore this is no form no likeness of God at all for he did not work Miracles as God does by an inherent Power but God wrought Miracles for him yet suppose this how is it an Argument of his humility that he committed not robbery by equalling himself to God as he renders the words which our Translators render and which the ancient Fathers expound to the same sense he thought it not robbery to be equal to God that is says he did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God or equal to God though if this were robbery both Christ and his Apostles were guilty of it for Christ declared I and my Father are One which the Jews understood and they did not mistake him in it was to make himself God and the Apostles do this frequently in express terms as I have already shown but to allow his Interpretation I only ask whether Christ if he would could have committed this Robbery whether upon their supposition of his being a meer Man if he had arrogated to himself to be God God would have permitted this and suffered him to have wrought Miracles to cheat the world into this belief if he could not it is ridiculous to talk of his humility in not doing it and I am sure it is ridiculous upon their Hypothesis to say that he could But he took upon him the form of a Servant i. e. became like a Servant possessing nothing of his own and suffering injuries and reproaches c. But how did he take this form upon him which must signifie his own free and voluntary choice when he did not take it but was made so This was the Condition which he did not choose but was made for and what humility was this for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God and so great a Minister as to be in the form of God as he says to be glorious for Miracles and admired as the great power of God especially when he was to be exalted into Heaven for it and advanced above all Principalites and Powers This is such Humility as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most glorious Angel But he was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man humbled himself c. that is says this Historian being made like other men in the common similitude of man and I pray how should a man be made but like a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death i. e. notwithstanding that he could have delivered himself from them yet was he obedient even to evil Magistrates and without resistance under-went that death which their wickedness and malice prepared for him or rather which God had decred for him which his hand and counsel determined before to be done and therefore which he could not which he ought not to avoid The plain Case is this All the Circumstances of our Saviour's Birth and Life and Death were so punctually foretold by the Prophets and so peremtorily decreed by God that after he was come into the world there was no place for his choice and election he could not shew either his love or his humility in choosing Poverty or Death and therefore if it were matter of his free choice and a demonstration of his great Humility and Love as the Apostles says it was he chose it before he came into the world He was in the form of God equal to God rich before and chose to become Man a Minister a Servant and to submit to a mean Life and an infamous Death for our sakes and this indeed was a mighty Love and stupendious Humility in the Son of God This we can all understand it is a venerable Mystery and a powerful Argument of our Religion but Socinianism makes Nonsense of it The Faith and Worship of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion and if Christ be no more than a Man as the Socinians teach it is a direct Contradiction both to Natural and to the Mosaical Religion which condemn the worship of any Creature and all Religious Trust and Affiance in them It is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice or which is much the same retains the Name of a Priest and a Sacrifice without any proper Atonement or Expiation which is a very unfit Religion for sinners But that which is most to my present purpose is that it makes a God of a meer Creature and makes a Mediator and King without any inherent Power to save Sinners to protect his Church to govern or to judge the World which is a meer Pageant and Shadow of a King To make a Mediator or Mediatory King who shall be a fit Object of Religious Hope and Trust and Worship as I have already explained it at large he must have a Personal Knowledge of all our particular Wants and an Inherent Power to help us and though his Humane Nature is confined to Heaven his Knowledge and Power must extend to all the world as he himself tells us after his Resurrection All Power is given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth particularly he must have Power to protect his Church on Earth from all her Enemies to restrain and govern the malice of Men and Devils to forgive sins to give the fresh Supplies of Grace to raise the Dead to judge the World to condemn bad men to Hell and to bestow Heaven upon his sincere Disciples Let us then consider what account our Socinian Historian gives of this matter and what a kind of Mediator and King he makes of Christ. Sometimes to abuse the World he tells us the Socinians generally not only grant but earnestly contend that Christ is to be worshipped and prayed to because God hath they say by his inhabiting Word or Power given to the Lord Christ a faculty of knowing all things and an ability to relieve all our wants Now if they mean honestly that Christ has an inherent Personal Knowledge and Power whereby he knows and can do all things this is to ascribe true Divine Perfections to him for such are infinite Knowledge and infinite Power and that is to make him a true and real God and I think there is not greater Nonsense in the World than a Made-God than a Creature-God as I showed before But it is plain our Historian is none of these Socinians for all his Expositions lean another way and in the same place he disputes earnestly against praying to Christ and says that those Gentlemen he must mean the Socinian Gentlemen who are for praying to Christ especially the Polonian Zealots say that Christ's Mediation
and Intercession for us is not to be understood of a Verbal or Personal Mediation proceeding from a particular Knowledge of our Wants and Prayers and thus we have already lost this Faculty in Christ of knowing all things but he Mediates by his Merits that is not by his Expiation and Sacrifice but by the perfect Obedience and most acceptable Services that he has performed to God So that these Socinians are all of a mind as to this matter that whatever they seem to talk of Christ's Faculty of knowing all things and Ability to relieve all our Wants his Knowledge is only by Inspiration as the Knowledge of other Prophets is not an abiding inherent Faculty and does not extend to all things not to the present and particular Wants and Necessities of his Church much less of every particular Christian nay not to the prayers that are made to him and then I confess I see no reason to pray to him and his Ability to help is not an inherent Power to do those things for us which we need and which we pray for but only to intercede for us with God and that not particularly neither but only in general for he does not always know our particular Wants Christian Ears know not how to bear such talk as this which makes a Mediator and Mediatory Kingdom an empty insignificant Name and Title without any other Power but Prayers And that this is the Mind and Belief of our Historian I shall now briefly show and will leave all Men to judge whether this be not to ridicule the Scriptures and Christianity together 1. First then let us consider what the Knowledge of our Saviour is and two or three places will suffice for this purpose for they are very full and express St. Iohn tells of Christ He knew what was in man To which he answers The Knowledge which the Lord Christ had or now in his state of Exaltation hath of the secrets of mens hearts is the pure gift of God and revelation from God and the Divine Word abiding on him that is Divine Inspiration for he means no more by the Divine Word abiding on him this is a plain abuse of the Text and the Reason of it He knew what was in Man is the Reason assigned why he needed no External Information or Testimony of Man needed not that any one should testifie of man for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he himself knew what was in man and knew all men which according to the propriety of words signifies an inherent Personal Knowledge in opposition to any External Manifestation and therefore to Revelation it self for he always knew all men which cannot be done by Revelation which is particular and occasional But this is not our Dispute at present but only to show what this Socinian thinks of it The same he tells us with reference to the last Judgment when Christ shall judge the secrets of men the knowledge Christ hath or at the last Iudgment shall have of the secrets of hearts is purely by Revelation from God and the Divine Word communicated to him This he repeats again in answer to what Christ saith in the Revelations I am he which searcheth the reins and heart The knowledge which the Lord Christ had or hath of any ones secret thoughts is a Revelation made to him by God as it was also sometimes to former Prophets Prophets search the heart which was never said of any Prophet for to search the heart is to look into the heart and see the secrets there not to know them by Revelation that is know the thoughts and propensions of the heart by the Spirit or Inspiration of God in them But the Lord Christ hath a far greater measure of that Spirit than any of the former Prophets ever had that is God reveals more to Christ than ever he did to any former Prophets but it is only Revelation still not an inherent Knowledge In all these places to prove that Christ's knowing what is in man judging the secrets of men searching the reins and heart can signifie no more then that Christ has this Knowledge by Inspiration he proves from the first words of St. Iohn's Revelations The Revelation of Iesus Christ which God gave to him to shew unto his Servants things which must shortly come to pass Which does not signifie that this was a Revelation made to Christ but that Revelation which Christ made for though God is said to give it to him it is to shew unto his Servants that is by the appointment of God Christ shewed this Revelation to Iohn Thus when St. Iohn saw a Lamb having seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the Earth he says This Text confirms what has been often said namely that the Knowledge which our Lord Christ now hath of Affairs on Earth is partly by means of those ministring Spirits which are sent forth into all the Earth as his eyes to see and relate the state of things for what other reason can they be here called his eyes I shall â—ot now dispute what the meaning of this is it is enough that we know his Opinion that Christ now in Heaven knows nothing of the Affairs on Earth but either by the Revelation of God or the Ministry of Angels and it seems notwithstanding the Divine Word abiding on him God does not reveal all things to him but he is fain to use the Ministry of Angels to be more perfectly acquanted with the Affairs of his Church And thus much for his Knowledge and I confess I desire a Mediator who knows more and in a more perfect manner 2. Let us now consider his Power which the Scripture speaks so magnificently of and which Christ himself calls all Power both in Heaven and Earth and yet our Socinian tells us that this all Power is no other Power but Intercession that Christ has no inherent Power in himself can do nothing at all but intercedes with God to do it He expresly tells us and lays it down as a Principle that Christ's Intercession is inconsistent with an inherent Power in him to hear and help us himself For if he doth hear our Prayers and can and doth by a Power constantly resident in him relieve our Wants to what purpose is he our Mediator with God What can be more evident then that here 7 Hebr. 25. Christ's saving us from the evils we either fear or labour under is ascribed not to his own inherent Power but to his Intercession with the Almighty Thus Christ promises to be always with his Church and a very comfortable Promise it is for we may expect a constant protection from him but our Historian tells us that Christ is neither present with us nor can help us himself bâ—t Christ is in the midst of and is with his People not by an immediate presence as God is but by his most powerful aid and help which