in the Father or God by their Obedlinet and Love and God is in them by his mutual Love to them This is the Interpretation which the Scripture gives of it self we ought not to heed the Dreams or Fancies of Mystical Divines who think nothing is Religion but what no body understands and what contradicts Reason and good Sense Last of all our Saviour also said I am the Son of God Every one confesses that he was so because he was generated by the Divine Power on a Virgin without the Concurrence of any other Father but God yet even this as great a matter as it is is not so great a Glory to him as that he was the Son of God in such sense as all the Faithful are called God's Children Sons and Daughters of God begotten of God namely because of their Similitude and Likeness to God in Holiness or Purity to which they have been begotten by him by his Word and other Means sutable and adapted to their Rational Natures Mat. 5.45 That ye may be the Children of your Father which is in Heaven 1 John 5.18 Whosoever is born of God sinneth not he that is begotten of God keepeth himself Whereas therefore the Lord Christ is sometimes called the only begotten of the Father it is to be understood as when Isaac is called the only Son and the only begotten Son of Abraham at Gen. 22.2 12. Heb. 11.17 Abraham had other Sons begotten by himself yet Isaac is called his only begotten in regard of his Father's particular and especial Love to him even such as Parents ususually have for an only Child And in this sense the Greek word used concerning our Saviour which we render only begotten is frequently used in Greek Authors and not only of such Person or Persons as are strictly and in proper speaking only begotten In these Interpretations of the objected Clauses I and the Father are one I am the Son of God the Father is in me and I in him we have the concurring Judgment of the principal Criticks and Interpreters among the Trinitarians some of them do blame the Fathers for urging such Scripture-Expressions as these against the Arians and Photinians and they call the Interpretations of the Fathers and of some Modern Writers of Controversies Violent Glosses Our present Opposer was aware of this and therefore is forced to say at P. 354. We are not bound to regard what some Men of great Names say or boldly assert It is true but the Authority of such Men whose Names are deservedly great in Critical Learning and especially in the sacred Criticism doth at least evince thus much that the Texts which They give up to their Opposers ought to be placed in a Class by themselves they ought to be reckoned among the Proofs that are brought for show and Ostentation of Number or to fill up the spare Pages of a Book or in a popular Sermon not in such a Book wherein the Author professes to deal only with the Learned and to urge no other Text but what is indeed an Argument on his behalf The short is our Opposers litigate with us concerning the sense of these Expressions I and the Father are one God is my Father I am in the Father and the Father in me We show hereupon from express Scriptures that all these things are true of all the Faithful and are said of them no less than of our Saviour We show farther that they are interpreted in Holy Scripture to be an Oneness of Design and Love an In-Being by Obedience and Love on the part of the Lord Christ and Believers and of Protection and Love on the part of God and that the Lord Christ may be so the Son of God and his only Begotten as that still he is but a Man and not God We show that all this is confest tho not by the wrangling Pulpit and trifling Systematicks and Catechists yet by the chief Interpreters and Criticks and first Reformers even among our Opposers themselves On the contrary those that interpret the before-mentioned Expressions of our Saviour as if in them he meant to say that he is God such do advance an Interpretation that destroys the Unity of God contradicts manifest Reason and has no Vouchers but the Jews I say none but the Jews for Trinitarians can produce no Text of Scripture nor any Profane Author that can possibly be understood to mean by such Expressions what they mean namely a numerical Oneness of Nature an In-being by Mixture of Persons and a Natural Generation out of the very Essence of God Upon these Texts therefore we have as much advantage against them as possibly we can have even Reason the Current of Scripture the Authority of their own Criticks and of all Profane Writers The next Trouble he gives us out of the New Testament is from John 20.28 Thomas answered and said unto him unto Jesus My Lord and my God Socinus himself Wolzogenius and Slichtingius learned Unitarians do not only grant but they contend that it was indeed the Intention of Thomas to call our Saviour his Lord and his God but 't is in no other sense than the Author of the 45th Psalm calls Solomon God Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever To which he adds speaking to the Queen concerning her Husband Solomon Hearken O Daughter forget thy own People and thy Father's House So shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty for he is thy Lord God and worship thou him So 't is in the Version of the Psalms in the Book of Common-Prayer which Translation I judg our Author will not disclaim And so also St. Jerome translates Ipse est Dominus Deus taus adorabunt eum but the Translators imployed by King James have left out the word God from those words to the Queen He is the Lord thy God But seeing Solomon had before been called God Thy Throne O God is for ever 't is undeniable that in this Psalm he is called both Lord and God and his Queen is bid to worship him that is to honour him for such was the Language of the Eastern Nations to their Kings and Persons in Eminent Dignity The Prophets Moses and Samuel are called Elobim or God Exod. 7.1 1 Sam. 28.11 13 14. In that last Context King Saul ordered the Woman to call up Samuel and Samuel appearing she called to Saul and told him that now she saw Elohim God ascending up Saul thereupon asks her What form is he of the Woman replies He is an old Man It appears by this that besides their Kings and Magistrates the Jews gave also the Name Elohim to the Prophets But that was the very word used by the Apostle Thomas to our Saviour the Greeks translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the English by the word God Therefore when 't is used of a Man we are not to suppose that the Speaker intends to call such Man God or that he owns him for a Person who is true God but he uses
this the Goings forth of the Lord Christ have been Decreed by God from the Days of Eternity But Grotius instead of From Everlasting or from the Days of Eternity hath Translated here from ancient Days and so All know the words may be rendred therefore he maketh the Sense to be this Whose Goings forth i. e. whose Descent Original or Pedigree is of Old from Ancient Times For Christ is come of that most Ancient Stock of David of the Town of Bethlehem Our Author may please in his next to try his Skill on these Solutions in the mean time I pass to what He hath objected from the New Testament CHAP. IV. On his Texts out of the Gospels THEY are not many Texts Sir on which our Author has insisted to prove his Proposition that our Lord Christ is true God but He assures us at P. 309. they are Choice Ones We have considered those He alledges from the Old Testament let us now examine what He hath urged out of the New On the Texts of St. Matthew He begins with Matth. 1.22 23. This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord by the Prophet saying A Virgin shall Conceive and shall bring forth a Son and they shall call his Name Immanuel which being interpreted is God with us He notes that these words are spoken of the Lord Christ and that the Name Immanuel or God with us has been appropriated to him by God for we no where find that He hath given this Name to any other But where God giveth a Name and the Spirit of God interprets it it cannot be insignificant from whence it follows that the Lord Christ is indeed God Eternal and God with us To this I say thô the Consonants of the Hebrew Name Immanuel may be so Pointed that the Name may be Interpreted God with Him which would turn the Objection from this Text upon our Opposers yet that is not here to be insisted on because we shall see presently that in giving that Name it was really intended the Child should be called or named God with Vs The Text here objected out of St. Matthew is taken from Isa 7. where that Prophet tells Ahaz King of Judah who was at that time invaded by the Confederate Kings of Syria and Israel that the Confederacy of these two Kings against Judah should in the end come to nothing and that Israel should be destroyed from being any longer a Nation within the term of 65 Years And for a Sign to you says the Prophet that God will bring this to pass a Virgin one who at present is a Virgin shall forthwith Conceive by her Husband and bring forth a Son whom God will have to be called Immanuel or God with Vs because before this Child is of Years of Discretion to know Good and Evil God will indeed appear to be on our Side He will withdraw by Death the two Kings who are Confederate against us There is no Learned Critic that doubts that the Child here promised by the Prophet to be a Sign of the Truth of what He had said about the Confederacy of the Two Kings and the final Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel is Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz Son of this Prophet by the Wise whom it should seem He had lately taken And They observe that this is the Reason why he saith in the next Chapter I and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for Signs in Israel from the Lord Isa 8.18 But whether the Child Immanuel was the Son of the Prophet or of some other this is certain that He was to be a Sign to King Ahaz and to the People of Israel and Judah This Child being to be such a Sign the Sign of so favourable a Providence to Judah and Ahaz had an Answerable Name given to him by order from God even Immanuel or God with Vs Therefore our Author's First Observation is certainly false that the Name Immanuel was Appropriated to the Lord Christ and no where given by God to any other Person And so too is his other Note that because God gave to him the Name Immanuel He must needs be true God for God gave the same Name to the Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah that God would be with them or for them by destroying their Enemies the Syrians and Israelites We see that the words of the Prophet were originally intended of a Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah and that there was a good reason why that Name should be given to him But St. Matthew accommodates and applies both the Prophecy and the Name to our Lord Christ because in him they had another and a second Completion we may say a more perfect Completion For the Lord Christ was our Immanuel or God with us not only as he was a Sign that God would be on our side which was the only reason of the Name of the first Immanuel but because he did really conciliate God to us and us to God and because God was with him and in him by an extraordinary Effusion of his Spirit upon him No one can be so blind or obstinate as not to acknowledg that this Interpretation which indeed is not ours but advanced by divers of the principal Trinitarian Interpreters is easy and rational perfectly agreeable to the scope of the Prophet and also to the manner of writing observed by this and the other Evangelists who very usually apply divers Texts of the Old Testament intended originally of other Persons to the Lord Christ because in him they had a second and very often a more perfect fulfilling Therefore let our Opposers show cause why we should depart from an Interpretation every way reasonable to imbrace and adhere to theirs which implies a Doctrine contrary to the first Commandment and to the whole Current of Scripture even this that there is more than one Divine Person or more than one who is true God His second Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost He observes here that the Son and Spirit are set equally with the Father as Objects of our Baptismal Faith which either proves their real Equality or is of dangerous Import for 't is apt to impress upon us false Notions of the Deity and to make us think those to be really equal who are not so He saith moreover that in other Texts where God is joined with his Creatures a distinction is made whereby to discern that one is God and the other but Creatures but not so in this Text we are bid here to be baptized equally and alike to the Father Son and Spirit without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another of them therefore they must be understood to be equal It may be our Author knows not that some Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe that these words of
on the Gospel it self I know not Sir what stronger or clearer Proofs any Man can require that this Text was anciently read by WHICH which Mystery of Godliness was manifested by Flesh i. e. by Man as the Law had been by Angels For you see we have for this reading first all the ancient Translations the Latin Armenian and Syriac then the Council of Nice so much extolled and reverenced by our Opposers besides these the Testimony of Trinitarian Historians Men of Learning and Dignity and contemporary to the Corruption of this Text also a vast number of the best and oldest Copies of the Original Greek and the Judgment of the ablest Criticks upon them If all this does not amount to a Demonstration on our side in the Judgment of indifferent Persons yet there is no Man of common Prudence and Caution but will allow that the reading for which our Adversaries contend GOD was manifested in Flesh is too uncertain doubtful and precarious to build on it as the Trinitarians do an Article of Faith or to innovate in the Doctrine of the Unity of God dictated to us by Natural Light and the principal Design of both the Testaments 2. But supposing now this Point were yielded to them that we are to read here GOD was manifested in or by Flesh it will nothing avail the Trinitarian Cause For by GOD here we may understand as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themselves do not the Person but the Will and Mind of God this was manifested to us by Flesh that is by Men by Jesus Christ and his Apostles 'T is true our Translators render the words by was manifested IN Flesh but they will not deny that they might have been rendred Manifested BY Flesh for themselves so interpret the Greek Particle in the very next Clause of this Verse was justified IN the Spirit that is say They was Justified or Proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit of God That the word God may be sometimes interpreted not of the Person but of the Will or Mind of God is not denied by the Trinitarian Interpreters nay themselves as I said before so interpret Thus for Example when St. Paul saith Gal. 1.10 Do I now perswade Men or God Our Opposers interpret it thus Do I seek to perswade Human Inventions the Devices and Figments of Men or the very Will and Commands of God The like on divers other Texts Therefore Sir if Mr. Milb has prevailed with you to read this first Clause by God was manifested you may for all that abide in your Sentiment about the Unity of God and interpret to him the whole Verse after this manner Without Controversy Great and Glorious is the Mystery of Godliness even the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus for 't is no less or other than the Will and Nature of God manifested to us by the Agreeable and sutable Ministry of Men of Flesh and Blood like to our selves not as the Law was by the Amazing and Terrible appearance of Flaming Ministers even the Spirits and Angels of Heaven This Will of God or this Revelation of his Nature and Will has been justified i. e. proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit Energy or Power of God it has been seen and admired by Angels who desire to look more accurately into this New Revelation which in part supersedes the Revelation of the Divine Will that was delivered by them it has been Preached to the Gentiles and Believed on in the World Did I say it has been Believed on it has not been Barely Believed but received generally speaking with great Honour and Glory From P. 82. where our Author takes leave of this famous Text to P. 309. He mortifies his Reader with a long Impertinence concerning the Reasonableness and Vsefulness of Mysteries in Religion and that 't was Necessary the Messias should be the Son of God We are not concerned in the Truth or Falshood of either of these Affirmations of our Author be it as He says thô his Allegations or any He can bring prove neither of them What are they to his Purpose If Mysteries are indeed so useful in Religion as he contends they are it will not follow from thence that we must admit as parts of our Religion all the Mysteries that fanciful or ignorant Men have devised much less that we are obliged to let all the Nonsense and Contradictions that Any may seek to impose on our Faith pass for Holy and Divine Mysteries That 't was Necessary that the Messias should be the Son of God I doubt very much and I think our Author has offer'd nothing in proof of it that is Considerable or Material but that de Facto it was so that our Lord Christ was indeed the Son of God the Socinians have always Granted and Affirmed because he was begotten by the Divine Power on a pure Virgin Therefore overpassing so much useless Scrible of this Author I come to his second Particular as He calls it at P. 309. That the Blessed Jesus was so the Son of God as to be God equal with his Father or was really and truly God as well as real Man CHAP. II. THAT our Lord Jesus Christ was true God Equal with his Father our Author undertakes to prove 1. From Texts of the Old Testament 2. From Texts of the New Testament 3. By the Actions and Miracles done by the said our Lord Jesus 4. From the Consent of the Primitive Church 5. From the Common and as he saith on every hand Approved practice of worshipping and praying to him His Proofs from the Old Testament accurately examined He alledges First the History of the Three Angels who at Gen. 18. appeared to Abraham One of these Angels is called Jehovah both by Abraham and by the Historian but the Name Jehovah which our Translators render LORD is saith our Author communicable only to God and that this Angel was indeed God appears fâ—rther by Abraham's calling him at V. 18. the Judg of the whole Earth He saith hereupon that by this History we gain the Certainty that our Saviour had a Being before he was born of the Virgin and that the Title Power and Acknowledgments belonging to the True God are given to Christ But all this while Mr. Milb you forget the one thing Necessary even to prove to us that this Angel or this Jehovah is the same Person that afterwards in Gospel-times is called the Lord Jesus When you evince that your Allegation of this History will indeed be a Proof of the Pre-existence of our Saviour till then we remain in that seemingly rational Belief that his Mother was Older than He. But neither can we grant to you that this Angel was indeed God because the Name Jehovah is given to him for that Name is bestowed in Holy Scripture on Angels when they are appointed to represent the Person of God as we shall presently see is confessed by some of the principal Critics of the Trinitarians themselves and
of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands They shall perish but thou remainest they shall wax old as does a Garment And as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy Years fail not Let us add the next words at ver 13. But to which of the Angels said he at any time Sit at my Right-hand until I make thine enemies the Foot-stool He saith these words here cited to v. 13. are intended of the Son our Lord Christ and that by ascribing to him the Creation of the Heavens and Earth they assure us both of the Pre-eternity and the Divinity of the said our Lord Christ We have seen before that the Writers of the New Testament do accommodate divers Passages and Expressions of the Old Testament to our Saviour tho originally and in their primary Intention they were meant of other Persons because such Passages and Expressions had another and a second Completion in the Person of the Lord Christ Thus what was said of Solomon Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever is applied to our Saviour because he also has an everlasting Throne and what was said of Israel Out of Egypt I have called my Son is too accommodated to Christ because he likewise was called out of Egypt after the Death of Herod In like sort in this Context to the Hebrews what had been said by the Psalmist of God and of the old or first Creation Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands c. is accommodated to the Lord Christ and to the new Creation which he hath made even the new Heavens and the new Earth in which as St. Peter says of them dwelleth Righteousness The Gospel-state and Times or the Church in opposition to the Synagogue and Jewish Oeconomy is described very often in Scripture under the Names of the New Heavens and New Earth Isa 65.17 Behold I create new Heavens and a new Earth and the former shall be remembred no more Isa 66.22 As the new Heavens and the new Earth which I will make shall remain before me so shall your Seed and your Name remain St. Peter after he had described the fearful Dissolution of the Jewish Oeconomy and State in terms much like those used by our Saviour on the same occasion and Subject at Mat. 24. adds 2 Pet. 3.13 Nevertheless according to his Promise we look for new Heavens and a new Earth wherein dwelleth Righteousness That is a new Oeconomy and State in which not so much a Ceremonial as a Moral and true Righteousness shall be taught and practised Rev. 21.1 I saw a new Heaven and a new Earth for the first Heaven and the first Earth were passed away i. e. He saw the Church or Christian Oeconomy begin the Jewish or old Oeconomy or Law was abolished All the Trinitarian Interpreters do thus understand these Texts namely that by the New Heavens and New Earth is meant the Gospel-state of things in opposition to the Jewish which is antiquated and done away This is the Earth and these the Heavens of which the Lord Christ is the Maker under God partly by Himself partly by his Apostles and other true Ministers of the Gospel and these the Author to the Hebrews meaneth when he says here of our Lord Christ Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands they shall be changed from their state of Probation and Trial to a state of Perfection and Enjoyment but thou remainest for ever the same The most Learned Grotius whose Interpretation this is rightly observes that the Hebrews to whom this Epistle was written did commonly speak of the Times of the Messias or Christ in these very terms here used namely that He should make another World New Heavens and Earth meaning thereby a Total change of the face of things in the Church and Religion And those Forms of speaking they borrowed from the Prophet Isaiah whose words I have before quoted Therefore in writing to them it was no surprize to them that this Epistle should accommodate the words of the Prophetical Psalmist used by him concerning God and the first Creation to the Messias and the New Creation because in him they had Another and Second Completion Others of our Party give other Accounts of this Text this for one that the words Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth c. are not at all in any sense intended of our Saviour but are a devout Apostrophe Conversion or Address to God that is to the Father so as to make this sense And truly thou Lord who hast thus anointed and exalted thy Son art the God who hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands But to which of his Angels hath this Glorious and Vnchangeable Creator at any time said as He doth by the Inspired and Prophetical Psalmist to the Son our Lord Christ Sit on my right Hand till I make thy Enemies thy Foot-stool Here we ought to note that the words Sit at my right Hand till I make thy Enemies thy Footstool are originally and primarily intended of David as is owned by the Trinitarian Interpreters but they are applied to Christ in this Context to the Hebrews because they are also a Prophecy of him and of what God would do for him In a word their meaning with respect to the Lord Christ is this God hath in his Decree said concerning the Messias or Christ who shall in due time be manifested Sit on my right hand till I make thy Enemies thy Footstool This is the Sense of the words as they stand in the Psalm See the Learned Dr. Patrick's Paraphrase and Notes on Psal 110.1 I do not wonder Sir that our Opposer took no notice of these two Interpretations of these words Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth c. they were too Rational and Probable to be set in the same Light and View with the Wild Construction that He and his Party make of this Context For they make this Author to the Hebrews to say that the Lord Christ is the Creator of the Visible Earth and Heavens and yet that 't is Another Person that must subdue to him the Enemies of his Kingdom and make them his Foot-stool I had almost forgot Sir to tell you that as Grotius is the Author of the first Interpretation which I have given of this Context so 't is Thomas Aquinas sirnamed the Angelical Doctor thus has observed and suggested the other He alledgeth next thô not out of the Old Testament according to his proposed Method Heb. 1.1 2. God who at sundry times spake to the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son by whom also He made the Worlds Our Author is not pleased
to take notice that Grotius renders the last Clause by For whom also He made the Worlds i. e. the World was at first made with intention to subject it in the fulness of Time to the Messias and his Law And the Author to the Hebrews rather chose to say here The World was made for the Messias because it was a common Saying among the Jews a part of their Doctrine and Belief concerning the Messias there is nothing more common in their Books than this Saying The World was made for the Messih who shall be Nor has our Opposer thought fit to observe that some of the best Critics of his own Party have thus rendred the objected Text By whom also he made the AGES and that they interpret the AGES to be the Gospel-Ages which were made by the Ministry of our Lord Christ No these were Interpretations which 't was better for him to overlook than to attempt in vain to refute them His seventh Proof is from Isa 9.6 Vnto us a Child is born unto us a Son is given his Name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace He saith this Text is universally applied to the Blessed Jesus and that 't is strange that he should be called the Mighty God if He is not God at all He saith farther that Everlasting Father could not without Absurdity be applied to the Lord Christ if as the Socinians say of him there was a time when He was not To this the Author of the Brief History hath Answered that this Text of the Prophet is Never applied to our Saviour by any Writer of the New Testament thô Mr. Milb is pleased here to say 't is universally applied to him The Historian shows the Reason why the Writers of the New Testament have not applied this Text to the Lord Christ because it apparently speaks of one actually born at that time when the Prophet wrote Vnto us a Child IS born unto us a Son IS given but the Prophet wrote about 700 Years before the Birth of our Saviour He adds that Grotius and divers others Christian and Orthodox as well as Jewish Interpreters understand the Text of Hezekiah afterwards King of Judah and that it hath been Translated very extravagantly into English The truth is there are almost as many Translations of this Verse as there are Interpreters Instead of the words Counsellor the Mighty God the LXX Interpreters say the Angel or Messenger of Great Counsel i. e. the Wise Messenger they wholly omit the following words even these the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace c. those words it should seem have been added since their time to the Hebrew Copies of the Bible The Fathers generally follow this Translation of the LXX M. Luther who understood the Hebrew very well instead of Mighty God saith the Mighty Heroe or Warriour Grotius saith the Consulter of the Mighty God and interprets thus Hezekiah shall consult with God not with the Idols of his Father Ahaz both in his Enterprises and his Troubles For Everlasting Father St. Hierom and other Critics read the Father of the Age and for the Prince of Peace they read the Peaceable Prince because Hezekiah would not enterprize Needless Wars but seek to maintain the Peace Property and Plenty of his People When the words in the Original Hebrew or Greek are of such doubtful and ambiguous Construction 't is the manner of our Opposers to take that Occasion to set up their Wonders We on the contrary affect not Monstrosities but are governed by the obvious Reason and Possibilities of things We think 't is enough to determine us to some or other of the Reasonable and Possible Senses before-mentioned that the Writers of the New Testament never apply this Text to our Saviour and because the Prophet so plainly speaks of a Child then born Vnto us a Child IS born unto us a Son IS given His eighth Text from the Old Testament is Jerem. 23.5 6. The days come saith the Lord that I will raise up to David a Righteous Branch in his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely and this is the Name whereby He shall be called The LORD our Righteousness This BRANCH saith our Author is by Rabbins and Fathers interpreted to be the Messias or Christ and that He is God appears by the Name here given to him Jehovah Tsidkenn or the Lord our Righteousness And agreeable to this Interpretation the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 1.30 The Lord Christ is of God made to us Wisdom and Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption Our Author's first and great Mistake here is this that on Supposition that 't is the Lord Christ who is here called the Lord our Righteousness He must needs be true God For let us hear another Text of this Prophet Jerem. 33.16 In those days Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely and this is the Name wherewith SHE Jerusalem shall be called The Lord our Righteousness We see by this last Text that the Lord our Righteousness in the other Text is not meant of the Branch whether that Branch be the Lord Christ as our Author thinks or Zorobabel as Grotius has proved but Israel the Nation of Israel So that we ought to understand the objected Text after this manner In those days I will raise up to David a Righteous Branch and in his time Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely and this is the Name wherewith He Israel not the Branch shall be called The Lord our Righteousness 'T is promised here in these Texts that Israel and Jerusalem shall be called the Lord our Righteousness in the days of Zorobabel who was their Governour Vice-King for the King of Babylon immediately after the return from the Captivity because it would then please God to pardon all the past Sins of that People and to deal with them as a Righteous People notwithstanding their former Transgressions and National Revolts from him Others have observed that the words in both Contexts may be rendred the Lord our Justifier or the Lord is our Justifier and so they make this Sense In the Days of the Branch in the Government of Zorobabel of the House of David God will justify and deliver us from all our Adversaries and Persecutors His last Old Testament Text is Mich. 5.2 Thou Bethlehem out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from Old from Everlasting or from the Days of Eternity He noteth that this Text is Interpreted of the Lord Christ even by the chief Priests and Scribes of the Jews Matth. 2.4 5 6. Thô our Author had not Designed to take notice what the Heterodox Socinians Answer in defence of their Doctrine of the Vnity of God or how They interpret the Texts objected to that Heresy of theirs yet at least Mr. Calvin was worthy to be heard This famous Reformer owns that the Prophet's meaning is only
the objected Text In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of St. Matthew from the common Form and Practice of the Church in administring Baptism as 't is certain that these words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever have been added to the Lord's-Prayer in the same Gospel of St. Matthew from the Greek Liturgies or Forms of Common-Prayer These Criticks observe that Cardinal Bellarmine is very angry with the Unitarians who maintained the Dispute at Alba because they said those words were added to the Bible but only since the Nicene Council had corrupted the Faith all Antiquity saith the Cardinal is witness against them that those words were always read in the Gospel of St. Matthew But the Learned Cardinal does not produce one Testimony in Confirmation of what he says tho he uses to be very free in his Quotations of Fathers and ancient Ecclesiastical Historians In short we have nothing but Cardinal Bellarmine's word for it that the Ancients did read the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Whereas some pretend to find these words cited by St. Ignatius as spoken by our Saviour in the Epistle of the said Ignatius to the Philippians that Epistle is all of it a meer Forgery by Confession of all the Criticks who have publish'd the Works of Ignatius or have written Notes upon them They observe that Epistle is never quoted by any of the Ancients nor was heard of in the World before Ado Viennensis who flourish'd about the Year 859. Eusebius the famous Ecclesiastical Historian quotes the objected Text nine times in several parts of his Works but never with the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he reads thus Teach all Nations in my Name instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you The constant Practice of the ancient Unitarians was to baptize only in the Name of the Lord Christ and therefore it was ordered by the Councils of Nice and Laodicea that the Paulinists i. e. the Unitarians who came over to the Church should be re-baptized Whether they or the Catholick Church so called are in the right concerning the Form of Baptism is best determined from the Practice of the Apostles for we cannot well suppose that if the Form prescribed by our Saviour himself was In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles would depart from that Form or that 't was lawful for them so to do But where-ever there is mention in Scripture-History of the Administration of Baptism either by the Apostles or by their Order the Form of such Baptism was only In the Name of the Lord Christ or Vnto the Lord Christ Acts 2.38 Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus The same thing is said at Acts 8.16 Acts 10.48 Acts 19.5 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Cor. 1.13 Add to this that besides the School-men and other Moderns St. Basil St. Hilary and St. Ambrose do expresly own that the Apostles administred Baptism only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Finally the other Evangelists mention the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour after his Resurrection but they say not that he appointed it to be administred In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which 't is not likely they would have omitted if our Saviour had injoined that Form of performing the Rite of Baptism Nay it should seem by what St. Luke says that the Form of Baptism appointed by our Saviour was only in his Christ's Name not in the Name of more Persons Luke 24.46 47. Jesus said unto them that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name unto all Nations Here Remission of Sins seems to be no other thing but Baptism administred in Christ's Name as a sign of the Remission of Sins and therefore it is that elsewhere instead of Repentance and Remission of Sins the holy Writers say Repentance and Baptism so St. Peter speaks Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus To this effect speak the forementioned Criticks and from hence they infer that we cannot make use of this Text to warrant the Church's Form of Baptism In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit much less to prove that the two latter are God or Gods equal with the Father I desire and resolve Sir to argue this great Question concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or whether there is more than one Divine Person with all possible sincerity Therefore I will ingenuously own to you that tho the before-mentioned Exceptions to this Text are not without their weight yet I have observed divers things which make me to think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture was spoken by our Saviour and written by St. Matthew First 'T is found in all the Copies of the Bible both Printed and Manuscript and in all the ancient Translations which cannot be said of any other Text which is rejected by us or by our Opposers all the doubtful and suspected Texts are wanting in divers Copies of the Original Greek and of the Ancient Translations I conceive we ought not to argue against the Truth of any Text from only Negative Proofs or from some possible Interpretations of other Texts tho those Texts are perhaps many It ought to be shown that either Church-Historians or Fathers have said that such Text was not read or was otherways read in the Copies of their Times Secondly To the Allegations out of the Acts of the Apostles and some Epistles of St. Paul it may be answered That those Texts mention only the Name of the Lord Jesus and not the other two Names the Father and the Holy Ghost because by the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto the Lord Jesus they mean to the Profession of the Lord Jesus and of the Doctrine by him taught without at all intending to express by those words the Form of Baptism which every one knew to be In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I like this Interpretation because when St. Paul asked some Disciples at Ephesus whethey they had yet received the Holy Ghost and they had answered that they had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost He replies Vnto what then were ye baptized Acts 19.3 This Reply of the Apostle seems to suppose that if they were baptized with Christian Baptism and not only with the Baptism of John they must needs have heard of the Holy Ghost because the Form was in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thirdly The ancient Unitarians baptized only in the Name of the Lord Christ I think 't is grounded only on the Report of Pope Innocent I. who might not understand their Discipline or
heard his Son say that he would die for the Rebels he approved his Son's Extravagance put his Son to Death and pardoned his Rebels Nor does our Author forbear to publish his own proper Folly by telling us that the old King dearly loved his Son tho he put him to Death for other Mens Faults He adds that this is our very case with respect to God Almighty and the Lord. Christ 'T is so I acknowledg in the Hypothesis of our Opposers but let them see to it whether they do not expose themselves to just Scorn while they can no ways defend their Hypothesis of the Satisfaction but by comparing Almighty God and our Lord Christ to two such Prodigies of Folly as never really were or could be in Nature but only in the Fiction and Fancy of the Poetaster of Yarmouth I demand would our Poet himself as odd-conceited as he is put his Son to death or consent that he should be put to Death to save his Maligners and Adversaries from a Punishment highly due to their Crimes He hath been a great Enemy in his time to Rebellion and at this day is writing Books against Rebels who are dead forty Years ago Would he give one of his Children to Death to save any of the surviving Rebels as suppose Friend Ludlow If he is neither so silly nor so wicked to his Child how has he dared to say this is our case with respect to Almighty God and the Lord Christ Why did not the Comparison and Instance that he himself devised open his Eyes to discern the Folly and Inconsistency of his Doctrine The Socinians object to their Opposers in these Questions That if an Equivalent which Trinitarians call a Satisfaction has been given to God's Justice on our behalf by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ then God hath not truly pardoned us which the Scriptures every where affirm but only discharged and acquitted us because our Debt being paid he could do no less Our Author answers Tho God's Justice has been satisfied yet it was who found out the Person who was able and willing to pay our Debt Besides the Sufferings of our Lord Christ tho they were equivalent to the Punishment due to Sinners were a refusable Payment for God might have required that the Sinners should suffer in their own Persons not in the Person of a Redeemer Mediator or Undertaker I will be so liberal as to grant to our Author both these Answers but I must insist upon it that they are no Answers to the Objection proposed For God doth not pardon his Debt or Offence because he finds out a third Person that will pay or suffer for the Debtor or Offender these two differ just as much as Payment and Forgiveness that is to say they are Contraries But our Author adds the Sufferings of the Lord Christ were a refusable Payment 't is well but he saith they were an equivalent Payment how then can God be said to pardon us doth He forgive who receives an Equivalent to the Debt due to him Yes he saith it is Forgiveness with respect to us for we have paid nothing whatever our Friend whom God found out hath paid for us But why doth he not consider that the Scriptures not only say that Sinners are pardoned but they say God hath pardoned them You may call their Discharge a Pardon with respect to them but you can never say God hath pardoned them if they are only discharged upon an Equivalent given for them or paid by another on their behalf To say God hath pardoned us supposes that he has received no Equivalent on our behalf for if he had however we might be said to be pardoned yet it could not be said that God pardoned us for the Pardon must in that case be imputed to the Person or Persons who made the Satisfaction or the Equivalent not to God To avoid this our Opposers say he that made the Satisfaction was God the Son of God who is also himself true God that very true God to whom the Satisfaction was made he made for us the Satisfaction But this is Jargon and we expected Reason from them The one true God they say made for us the Satisfaction to the one true God we deny that 't is Sense or intelligible There is but one true God and he is to receive the Satisfaction for our Sins against his Infinite Majesty and not to give Satisfaction How then can they say but that they are accustomed to say any thing the one true God made for us the Satisfaction And if it could be true what they say that God himself paid for us the Equivalent or Satisfaction this is indeed no other but forgiving us without a Satisfaction which is the very thing they deny For if I pay to my self the Debt of my Debtor or undergo the Punishment of my Offender this is but a mock-Satisfaction and I indeed forgive him without a Satisfaction Which is so plain that I wonder that so many Learned Persons as have written on the one and the other side of this Question have not observed it Another Objection of the Socinians against the pretended Satisfaction is God could not justly or wisely substitute an innocent and well-deserving Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the place and stead of the Unrighteous and Worthless because 't is of the Nature of Justice not to misplace Punishment Our Author's Answers are The Innocent Beast was sacrificed for the Sin of the Owner and the Lord Christ freely offer'd himself to suffer for us though we were Worthless and Wicked His instance of Beasts offer'd in Sacrifice on occasion of the Sin of their Owners is not a whit to the purpose for the Owners having an absolute Dominion over and a compleat Right to the Service Use and very Life of their Beasts therefore it was no Unjustice when the Life of the Beast was given for the Offence of the Master or Owner The Owner might kill his Beast for Food therefore much more might he offer him to God in lieu and exchange of his own Life forfeited to God by Sin And in this case the Worthless was offer'd to the Mercy and gracious Acceptance of God for the Worthy so that there was no Offence committed either against Justice or Wisdom But all things are contrary in the Lord Christ and Us especially in the Hypothesis of our Opposers for he was a Person according to them of Infinite Dignity and Merit and we had no right in him or dominion over him as the Sacrificer had over his Beast that we should offer his Life or his Sufferings to God instead of our own As to that the Lord Christ freely offer'd himself for Vs to undergo Punishment due to us Neither could he do it nor could God accept of it or allow it An Innocent and Righteous Person may not an Holy and Just Judg must not pervert the due Course of Justice A just Governor may pardon Offenders of his Mercy