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-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
thy Father's House so shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty Instead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all the Earth or rather in all this Land q. d. Thou mayst make them Governours of Tribes in all the Land of Canaan Our Opposers catch at the word God thy Torone O God is for ever and ever as if because of that word it were necessary to suppose that both the Psalmist and the Author to the Hebrews do speak of such a Person as is really and truly God But why have they not noted what our Saviour tells them that those also are called Gods in Scripture To whom the Word of God comes Joh. 10.35 that is to say Judges Magistrates and especially Princes are called Gods because they hold the Place of God and act by his general Commission granted to them in his Word For Proof of which Observation he alledges the words of Psal 82.6 concerning the Magistracy and Princes of Israel I have said Ye are Gods In a word Solomon is in this Psalm saluted by the Name of God according to the known Language of those Times and Countries to Magistrates and Princes and what had been said to Solomon is by St. Paul to the Hebrews applied or accommodated to the Great Spiritual King the Messias or Christ because it might even more properly be said of him than of Solomon even this saying Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Nay we may allow that he more than applies the words we may say he interprets them of Christ because the Psalm being composed by a Prophetical Poet at the same time that he courted and praised Solomon he might prophesy of the Lord Christ This account of these words Thy Throne O God is for ever being so generally approved by the more learned Criticks of the Trinitarians I cannot but wonder that this Text should be urged by any at this time of the day as a Proof that the Lord Christ is true God equal to the Eternal and Almighty Father of all the dread Creator of Heaven and Earth If it prooves the Lord Christ to be such it proves the same of Solomon even in the Opinion of the most judicious of our Opposers A fourth Proof of our Author is Heb. 1.6 When he God bringeth his First-begotten into the World he saith or he commandeth Let all the Angels of God worship him His Argument from hence is this the Charge so often repeated in Scripture of worshipping God only obliges Angels as well as Men seeing therefore they are required to worship our Lord Christ it follows that he is true God But our Author is greatly mistaken when he saith that the words Let all the Angels of God worship him are taken from Psal 97.7 they are taken from the LXX Translation of Deut. 32.43 where the LXX whose Translation is followed generally by the Writers of the New Testament and more especially by the Author of this Epistle throughout read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all the Angels of God worship him the very words of the Author to the Hebrews But at Psal 97.7 from whence Mr. Milbourn would fetch this Quotation 't is only said Worship him all ye Gods and the words are by Interpreters commonly understood of the Gods or Demons worshipp'd by the Heathen Nations Furthermore it has been observed by some Trinitarian Criticks that Justin Martyr Theodoret Epiphanius and St. Austin all very ancient quote these words Let all the Angels of God worship him as taken from the LXX Translation of Deut. 32.43 tho the words are wanting in the present Hebrew Copies of the Bible and therefore also in our English Bibles as are divers other Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Writers of the New The words in that Text of Deuteronomy are spoken of the Nation of Israel the Nations are there bid to rejoice with and the Angels to worship Israel that is to guard serve and watch over him But these words intended originally of Israel are by the Author to the Hebrews accommodated and applied likewise to the Lord Christ because the Angels had in charge to succour and minister to him also Yet not to him only but to all his Brethren Heb. 1.14 They are all Ministring Spirits sent forth to minister to such as shall be Heirs of Salvation We have just such another Accommodation or Application of a Text to our Saviour which was originally meant of the Nation of Israel at Matth. 2.15 there the Evangelish saith that Jesus was brought by Joseph his Foster-Father out of Egypt into Judea and so saith he was fulfilled the Word of God by the Prophet Out of Egypt I have called my Son But any one that looks into the Context of the Prophet will plainly see that those words were originally meant and designed of the People of Israel whom God there vouchsafes to call his Son The words of the Prophet are these Hosea 11.1 When Israel was a Child i. e. in the first Ages of that People then I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt Therefore when such Texts are either interpreted of Christ or accommodated and applied to him we are to understand it after this manner that those Texts were again fulfilled or had a second Completion in the Person of our Lord Christ But our Author urges that the Precept of worshipping only God obliges Angels and Men therefore how could the Angels be required to worship Christ if he were not true God It seems then he has not observed what is said at 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers and bowing the Head they worshipped the Lord and the King Nor has he noted how often divers Persons worshipp'd our Saviour while he was upon Earth The meaning is not that they worshipp'd either David or our Saviour with Divine Worship but with a Civil and Religious Worship such as is due to Kings and to Prophets on the account of him that sent them The Lord Christ has an Office that of King and Head of the Church higher than any Angel nay so high that he may make use of the Ministry of Angels in the Execution of his Office therefore they are bid to worship him not with Divine Worship no more than they were to worship Israel with such Worship but with the Worship or Respect that is due to him in regard of his Office as the Congregation worshipp'd David in the Text last quoted in regard of his Kingdom or Royal Dignity But as I observed before the Worship principally meant in the words Let all the Angels of God worship him is to be understood of succouring and ministring to him while he was upon Earth as they were to worship Israel CHAP. III. Continuation of the Examination of the Texts objected from the Old Testament OUR Author's fifth Objection is from Heb. 1.10 11 12. words taken from Psal 102.25 26 27. And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation
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
designedly misreport it and besides his Epistles are supposed to be forged by most learned Men because they make mention of Rites and Persons that were not in Being in Innocent's time Lastly Whereas the Unitarians at Alba said that this Text has been added to St. Matthew since the first Nicene Council tho Cardinal Bellarmine has only denied this he might most easily have proved the contrary For Tertullian who flourish'd above 120 Years before the Nicene Council often quotes this Text. In his Book concerning Baptism Chap. 13. he saith The Law of baptizing is imposed and the Form prescribed Go saith he teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And again in his Book against Praxeas Chap. 26. After his Resurrection he commanded that they should baptize to the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to one of them only It is true none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do ever alledg this Form of Baptism to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Spirit but the reason of that was because tho they allowed that the Son might be called God on account of his perfect Conjunction by Love Unity of Will and Subjection with the Father who only is true God yet they thought otherwise of the Holy Ghost some of them understanding him to be only the Energy or Power of God others that he was a Creature of the Son and only the chief of the ministring Spirits or Angels But to return to our Opposer He saith We are baptized alike and equally to the Father Son and Spirit therefore the two latter are equal in all respects to the former or are God no less than he they are mentioned together in this Text without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another which were of dangerous Consequence and apt to lead Men into Error if only one of these is true God But 1. 'T is not true that here is no Note of Distinction or Superiority for the words at length are these All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit I would know of our Opposer what greater Distinction could be made than our Saviour here makes between God and himself doth he not here expresly profess and own that his Power is given to him that he hath received it from the Liberality of another and not from himself Can any one be said to give Power to himself And the Apostle hath told us how we are to understand it that all Power is given to the Lord Christ in these words to the Ephesians God gave to him to be Head over all things to the Church Ephes 1.22 As who should say He is over all things and hath all Power with respect to the Church 't is He and He only that must prescribe her standing Laws and Rites and appoint by what Persons and what Means the Church shall be first gathered and then preserved 2. But supposing now there had been no Note of Superiority here made or Distinction of Dignity and Power I see not what could be truly inferred from thence to the advantage of our Author's Cause For when God is joined in the same form of Speech with any others sure that needs not to be expressed which all Men know and acknowledg even God's Superiority above all others 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Elect Angels Rev. 22.17 The Spirit and the Bride say Come Will our Author say upon these Texts and upon that other parallel Text 1 Sam. 12.18 All the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Will he say that Samuel and David the Angels and the Bride i. e. the Church are equal with God or with the Spirit because they are mentioned together without any Note of Distinction or of Dignity and Superiority in one more than in the other The Acts of Religion mentioned in those Texts are no less solemn or important than Baptism is fearing the Lord worshipping the Lord adjuring by the Lord are the very highest Acts of Devotion and Religion yet even in them God is joined with Creatures without any Mark of Distinction or Superiority because as I said when God is joined with any others there is no need of such Note or Mark. Therefore the more learned of our Opposers especially the Ancients of the first 400 Years do not insist on this Text of St. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit by these words In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit they understand only to the Profession and to the Obedience of the Father Son and Spirit According to these Criticks the Sense of the objected Text is only this Baptize the Nations into the Profession and Obedience of the Father or God and of Jesus Christ whom the Father hath commanded us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us and of the other Teacher even the Spirit or Inspiration of God by which he advises and comforts the Faithful in all extraordinary Exigences Our Author may please to consult Mr. Pool's Collections on this Text where he will see divers such Interpretations as this all of them by the Criticks of his own Party and all of them consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is held by the Socinians Therefore all those Interpreters and Criticks must be understood as giving up to us this Text. CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel OUR Author's next Effort is from that well-known Context even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel The Clauses by him urged are these In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him namely by the WORD and without Him was not any thing made that was made He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Others have added to these And the WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us Also that Testimony of the Baptist He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses by Misrepresenting it and by concealing the remarkable and probable Proofs which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond which he saith is a full Explication and the Sense of the Catholic Church Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church so called and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John but that 's the very thing in question whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel
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
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
it in such sense as the Jews and other Eastern Nations used it for a Person of Eminent Dignity or worth The Woman said of Samuel then rising out of the Earth I see Elohim God Thomas says of our Saviour newly also risen Eloi Eloi my God my God they both use the same word and one no more than the other intended to call the Person of whom he spake the true God but only a venerable or dignified Person To be short the Hebrew words El and Elohim the Syriac and Chaldaic Elohi Eloi and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which we render by the English God are words of just such a Latitude in Holy Scripture and among the Jews and other Oriental Nations as the word LORD is with us for we use that word indifferently sometimes of God sometimes of Persons in Dignity and leave our meaning to be judged by the true and known Quality of the Person to whom we speak We do not think or fear we shall be understood as making a Man to be God because we call him by a Name by which also we call God This is the very case before us Thomas says to our Saviour Eloi a Name used of God and of Persons in Dignity and he expected not to be mistaken because the Person to whom he spoke was known to be a Man and not God 'T is likely the before-mentioned is the true Interpretation of the objected Texts and 't is certainly so if Thomas meant those words to our Saviour But divers Learned Persons even among our Opposers have been of Opinion that My Lord and my God or O my Lord O my God! are only words of Admiration and Thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God they are an Exclamation expressing the Apostle's Wonder and Amazement to find that his Master was indeed risen Of this Opinion was Nestorius Archbishop of Constantinople and that most Learned Person Theodorus of Mopsuest 'T is true the Evangelist saith Thomas answered and said unto him unto Christ My Lord and my God! or O my Lord O my God! but this hinders not but that the Exclamation was addressed to God as its Object tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour and to what he had said at ver 27. See the Brief History of the Vnitarians on John 20.28 CHAP. VII On the Texts out of the Epistles HE thinks much weight may be laid on Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Like to which Text is Rom. 1.3 Jesus Christ our Lord who was made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh He saith hereupon that these words According to the Flesh and as concerning the Flesh intimate plainly that according to something else the Lord Christ had another Original and was not wholly of the Jews This something else is the supposed Divine Nature of our Saviour according to which say they he is derived from God as according to the Flesh he is from the Jews Our present Author notes farther that the Lord Christ in the former of the before-quoted Texts is not only expresly called God but God over all blessed for evermore so all the Original Greek Copies read And as for Translations if there are any which favour the Socinians they are not however much to be regarded I answer 1. As to the words As concerning the Flesh and According to the Flesh they never signify as Trinitarians would here interpret according to the Human Nature as if Christ had also a Divine Nature We shall easily find the meaning of those Phrases by some other Texts of Scripture in which there is no Ambiguity Rom. 9.3 My Kinsmen according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham our Father as pertaining to the Flesh Col. 3.22 Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh Will our Opposers say here that Abraham or Paul's Kinsmen or Masters must be supposed to have a Divine Nature because of these words According to the Flesh and As concerning the Flesh 'T is easy to see that these Expressions are only as much as to say According to the Body and that they signify to us that Abraham is the Father of the Jews according to their Bodies as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits and the Jews were Paul's Kinsmen according to the Body but not of Kin to him in respect of Likeness in Faith or Manners also that Masters are Masters over our Bodies not of our Spirits and Minds Therefore in the other Texts also where Christ is said to be the Seed of Abraham of Israel and of David according to the Flesh the real and whole meaning is this That according to his Body or outward Man he descended of the House of David and of the Stock of Israel and Abraham as had been promised concerning him in the Prophets but his Spirit or Soul was from God Here again we interpret Scripture by it self let our Opposers shew a Reason why they decline an Interpretation which the Scripture it self affords to us and how it comes to be Heresy to understand the meaning of one Text by the help of such other Texts as are confest to be clear and evident 2. He saith the former of these Texts expresly calls the Lord Christ God and God over all blessed for ever and that all Greek Copies agree in this reading But he might have taken notice out of Grotius that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac had not the word God they only say of our Saviour here the Blessed over all The same illustrious Interpreter observes that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of St. Cyprian St. Hilary and St. Chrysostom had only the Blessed over all or above all without the word God These are Observations which destroy our Author's Argument from this Text but because he knew not what to say to them he took no notice of them But it is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such Questions as these When it appears by so great Authorities that the Antient Reading was other ways than we read in our present Copies or that the reading was then various and uncertain how can such Texts or such Expressions be admitted as Proofs in so great a Question as this before us Is it advisable or safe to argue against the Unity of God or to build Articles of Faith on suspected Texts the Reading ought to be indubitable else the Inference drawn from it will also be uncertain An Article of Faith must have a sure Foundation else 't is not Faith but a precarious Conjecture 3. But allowing now that the Word God is rightly read in this Text two of the most eminent Critics and principal Masters in the Greek Tongue have observed that St. Paul's words should have been pointed and read after this manner Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ is come The God over all be blessed for ever Amen So Curcellaeus
was not He himself but He by the Gift of God that shed forth the Spirit on them Let us hear the whole Verse Acts 2.23 Therefore He Christ being by the right Hand of God exalted and having received or obtained of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Here indeed the Spirit is said to be shed forth by the Lord Christ on the Apostles but not by Him himself but He shed it forth having saith the Text received it of the Father As who should say having received this Power from the Father which afterwards the Apostles also received of the Father even the Power of conferring the Spirit He now shed it forth on them not He himself by his own Authority or Power but by the Warrant Order Grant or Commission of the Father If our Saviour had conferred the Spirit on his Disciples by his own Power or Authority it would not have been said that having received of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost he shed it abroad on his Followers Let our Opposers show that the Lord Christ was more than the Instrument Minister and Mediator by Whom and at whose Instance God shed forth the Spirit neither this nor any other Context ascribes more to him and as much as is elsewhere ascribed to the Apostles Acts 10.44 Acts 19.6 They are words which our Saviour speaks to his Disciples As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But it follows not from hence that the Authority and Power of Christ was equal to the Power and Authority of the Father nay the contrary rather follows for the Messenger is but the Minister and Servant of the Sender After Jesus was ascended into Heaven his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name and by Faith in him Acts 3.6 In the Name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk Ver. 16. His Name through Faith in his Name hath made this Man strong We confess hereupon that Miracles were done by the Name or in the Name of the Lord Jesus and through Faith in his Name But how does this prove that he was God Such Miracles prove indeed that the Person in whose Name they are done is a most Powerful and Effectual Mediator with God but not that He himself is God they prove that he is acceptable to God and that what he desireth that also God willeth but not that he is the true proper Author of those Miracles 'T is a particular Honour that God is pleased to do to the Lord Christ that in his Name Wonders should be done and that some who believed in his Name should on that account be enabled to do Miracles But when our Opposers infer from hence therefore Christ is God this is no Necessary or Natural Consequence because nothing hinders but that God may confer the same Honour on any other Person or Thing Nor secondly is it a true Consequence because we are assured by innumerable express and clear Testimonies that the Lord Christ is not God As 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Jesus Christ Finally Our Lord promis'd that he would deliver his Apostle from the People and from the Gentiles and declares that we are sanctified by Faith in his Name or by believing in him Acts 26.17 18 c. He delivered indeed that Apostle from very many Machinations of the Jews and Conspiracies of the Gentiles but all this as Mediator not as God by his Intercession which as this Apostle saith he ever liveth to make on behalf of all the Faithful and more especially of such as are extraordinarily commissioned to the Work of propagating the Gospel in Heathen Nations as St. Paul was As to our being sanctified i. e. made Holy by Faith in Christ or by believing in him it was never questioned I think by any but the meaning of the Expression is only this that such as sincerely believe the Lord Christ and the Gospel or Doctrine by him delivered do sanctify themselves they refrain from every Evil Work and Word their Faith does dispose and incline them of its own Nature and Tendency to Sanctification and Holiness this is the only meaning of our being sanctified by Faith in Christ CHAP. IX On what is alledged from the Fathers OUR Author passes from sacred Authorities to Ecclesiastical and Profane for proving the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour He quotes the Account which Pliny gives to the Emperor Trajan concerning the Christians that they were wont to meet before Day Et Carmen Christo canere ut Deo To sing Psalms to Christ as if he were a God He cites also a Dialogue supposed to be Lucian's in which that Author jeers the God who is Three and One These two Authors were very Ancient within about 100 Years after Christ and their words before quoted show How early the belief of the Trinity and of the Divinity of our Saviour was found among Christians For Ecclesiastical Writers he brings some Fragments out of Justin Ignatius Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyprian Lactantius Gregory Thaumaturgus Faelix also out of the Councils of Nice Antioch and Constantinople He saith the Socinians are apt to appeal in these Questions to the Ante-Nicen Fathers before-named and that several great Men such as Erasmus Grotius Petavius and others yield this Point to Us. I will make no Advantage of our Author's Ignorance in this Matter I will freely own to you Sir that the Socinians never Appeal in these Questions to the Fathers whether Ante-Nicen or others who are now extant We grant they were in Sentiments very different from ours all the Ante-Nicen Fathers I mean whose works have been suffer'd to come down to our Times were in the Opinion concerning God and the Lord Christ afterwards called Arrianism except perhaps Clemens Alexandrinus who seems to have held the same with Savellius Nor do Erasmus Petavius Grotius and other Criticks grant to us as he supposes that the Ante-Nicen Fathers were of our Opinion they have granted those Fathers not to us but to the Arrians They grant those Fathers did not hold the Doctrine of the Trinity or of the Divinity of our Saviour in such manner as 't is now held by the Church for the Church holds a Trinity of Three Coequal and Coeternal Persons all of them jointly and equally Creators none of them Creatures but those Fathers held a Trinity in which only the First Person is truly God or the most high God the Second and Third are Creatures though also they were the Creators according to these Fathets of the other Creatures They say inded sometimes that the Son is Coeternal and a Creator but by Coeternal they mean only that he was not made in Time but in that Eternity which did precede Time and the Creation of the World They call that Duration Time which began with the World and which is both