equal with God by equalling himself with God Thus you see Sir your Friends are so taken up with their new Creation that they assume to themselves a power to create a new sence to some words a sence which they never had nor can never have Coloss 2.9 The Apostle has asserted this Sacred truth in few words but comprehensive v. 3. In him Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge v. 7. The Colossians are to be rooted and built up in him v. 8. Philosophy will rather deceive than inform them The traditions of men and the Elements of the World whether the weak notices of the Gentiles or the observances of the Jewish Oeconomy are all insufficient None but Christ can supply their wants and make them truly knowing and good St. Paul gives this reason for it For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily Our translation comes short of the energy of the Greek Text which should have been render'd thus For in him dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead Essentially a notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usual in the Scriptures This proves then all that the several sorts of Hereticks have deny'd of Christ A Communication not of power or Vertue as in Moses or the Prophets but of nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine Nature A Communication not Figurative Sacramental or representative but real and substantial A Communication not partial transient or begun in time but the whole nature the whole fullness of the Godhead A Communication supposing a distinction of Persons against the Sabellians him who communicates and him to whom it is communicated Col. 1.19 For it pleas'd the Father that in him the whole fullness should dwell A Communication which clearly shews against Arrians Nestorians Socinians the Hypostatical Union of the two natures in Christ For it is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his adorable Person in Christ the word made Flesh that this Divine Nature dwells with all the Properties Attributes Qualifications which belong to it All human apprehensions and expressions being infinitely short of this inspir'd way of speaking of St. Paul all the fullness of the Godhead bodily To this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 39. answers somewhat confusedly contrary to his Custom He says that the fulness of the Godhead is the fulness of the knowledge of God which he pretends to prove by Eph. 3.19 where the Apostle wishes that they may be fill'd with all the fullness of God This Christ had and he has fill'd us Christians with it He says that this knowledge dwelt in him bodily in opposition to that imperfect umbratile and unsincere knowledge of God which the Apostle affirms v. 8. to be found in the Philosophy and Philosophers of Greece who in St. Paul's time were in great Esteem amongst the Colossians He adds that this is the Interpretation of the most Learned and Orthodox Interpreters It is true that some Interpreters whom these Gentlemen always honour with the Title of most learned if they but speak what pleases them have oppos'd these words not only to the Philosophy of the Greeks but even to the law which was only a shadow of things to come Christ being the Body as the Syriack reads the 17. v. the substance and perfection of knowledge and there being as much difference between their Doctrine and his as there is between the shadow and the body But two things this Author has not taken notice of 1st That these most Learned Interpreters do only deliver this as a secondary interpretation leaving the Primary which I have laid before you in its full force 2ly That this Interpretation really supposes and resolves it self into the first The Apostle desires the Colossians to avoid the vain Philosophy of the Greeks that science falsly so call'd and the rudiments of the World those imperfect ways of men's invention to bring and reconcile them to God even all the Ceremonial Law which though prescrib'd by God himself yet was only in order to somewhat better and that they should stick to Christ be rooted and built up in him in whom and by whom they should be fill'd and compleated He gives the reason of this because in him are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and he is the head of all Principality and Power and all this is true because he is not only a wise and a rational Man according to the World for such were the Philosophers Nor a Man sent from God for such were Moses and the Prophets but he was God himself come down in our Flesh for in him dwells the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily Substantially Essentially I am satisfy'd that this Author does not believe the application of Eph. 3.19 to have any solidity But there is in the disputed Text the fullness of the Godhead and in this the fullness of God These two words are alike and therefore must be made to jump When he cannot but know that all the Interpreters even the beloved Erasmus and Grotius tell us that the Apostle means no more by this than that Christ may dwell in our hearts by Faith and that we may have as much of the favour and grace of God as we can I beg to know with what candor he has translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God by the Deity or The Divine Nature which though sometimes Synonymous yet cannot be so here But what can more effectually prove the communication of the Divine Nature to Christ than that he is the only begotten Son of God Joh. 1.18 No man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him A title peculiar to Christ and expressive of all that can be conceiv'd of him his Consubstantiality his Co-Eternity his Equality with the Father These Gentlemen think it a very strong Argument that Christ is not God because in the Apostolical Creed the unchangeable rule of our Faith the first Article gives the name of God only to the Father I believe in God The Father and the second does not say and in God the Son but and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord not considering that the word only Son the same with only begotten here is a fuller expression of his Divinity than if the name God had been given him in the Article For this would not have satisfy'd these Gentlemen They would have been apt to say still that the first Article is spoken of him who is only and eminently God and the second or third of a God by deputation of one not truly God but only honour'd with the title of God This would not have remov'd the objection nor prevented that of the Tritheists who seeing every Person in the Creed nam'd God would have concluded not a Trinity of Persons in one God but Three real Gods Whereas the All-wise God has effectually obviated this by proposing the Divine Nature
of Mark 16.19 He was receiv'd up into Heaven This Text is express for the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures A Mystery truly great and incomprehensible God made Man An admirable instance of the love of God to us and a most powerfull motive of our Obedience to him These Gentlemen have made two sorts of Objections to this The one they have taken from Chrellius and their other profess't Friends the other from Erasmus and Grotius For the 1st the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 40. says That if we will make sence of this Text we must translate Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested by Flesh i. e. God's nature and will was manifested by Flesh that is by Man by Jesus Christ and his Apostles to us Gentiles Was justify'd in the spirit i. e. the same will and nature of God was verify'd by miracles done by the spirit or power of God Was seen of Angels i. e. was known to the Angels who were desirous to understand this new revelation Believ'd on in the world receiv'd with Glory or Gloriously and not receiv'd up into Glory The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says That by Godwe may understand here 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 Christ and his Apostles They have as much reason to translate by instead of in Flesh as we have to translate by the spirit instead of in the spirit It ought not to be translated receiv'd up into Glory but receiv'd gloriously i. e. extoll'd magnify'd lifted up He gives this reason for understanding the word God not of God himself but of his will and mind that we interpret it thus Gal. 1.10 do I now perswade men or God Do I seek to perswade human invention ..... or the very will and commands of God Thus silly and bold Criticisms are made use of to undermine the Christian Faith The poverty of this new translation will be evident from this very observation that God to express the mind and the will of God is a dialect which they may have us'd themselves to but is wholly unknown and unpractis'd in Scripture They are desir'd to give any one single instance of it but clear plain and lyable to no exception Gal. 1.10 is far from being of that nature Men do not signify there human inventions nor God the will and commands of God The Generality of Interpreters and indeed the nature of the thing it self leading us to this sence of the place Do I seek to approve my self to men or to â—od ..... For if yet I pleas'd men I should not be the Servant of Christ Their translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Flesh is contrary to the original to the Faith of all translations and to the sence of Manknd The reason which they give for it that we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the spirit is wholly false But the last part of this Text receiv'd gloriously that is as they say extoll'd magnify'd and not receiv'd up into glory is an insufferable attempt on the Eyes and sence of men They should have imitated Erasmus who having strain'd as much as possible every part of this Text was so struck with the evidence of this last expression that though a great Wit and a great Critick he thought it the best way to let it alone and say nothing to it He saw clearly that the will and mind of God taken up to Heaven is a barbarous way of expression He was sensible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dialect of the Scripture Mark 16.19 Act. 1.11 Act. 1.22 is an actual real personal being taken up of Christ into Heaven He knew that this is the language of both the Testaments and that the same is us'd of Enoch of Moses and of Elias The first part then of their answer is not solid and if they had no more to say than this they must be look't upon as unreasonable and obstinate men Indeed the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn has made a pretty paraphrase and very intelligible It has only that unhappiness that he has given us his sence and not the sence of the Apostle and absolutely departed from the truth and meaning of the Text which a Paraphrast ought not to do It is very diverting to read these Gentlemen's Paraphrases They make what words they will and give them what sence they please Then they muster all up and end in a pretty Speech What they have borrow'd of Grotius consists in this That the word God is not in the Text. Brief Hist pag. 44. This appears by the Syriack Latin Ethiopick Armenian Arabick and most ancient Greek Bibles by great many citations out of the Greek and Latin Fathers who read not God was manifested but which was manifested Macedonius was the first who corrupted this Text by substituting the word God instead of the word which and for this and other matters he was depos'd by the Emperour Anastasius about the Year 512. The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 2 3. says That the Latin Syriack and Armenian Translations the Council of Nice and St. Jerom himself a bigotted Trinitarian read which and not God Erasmus says that Multa vetera exemplaria many but not very many as the answerer has translated it of the ancient Copies read which a reading approv'd by Erasmus himself Grotius cites Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes saying that the Nestorians substituted God in the room of which the better to defend themselves from the Eutychians Liberatus the Archdeacon of Carthage assures us that Macedonius was depos'd for so doing This and some heats against Mr. Milbourn is the sum of what he has to say What Erasmus says of his many or as this Author will have it very many ancient Greek Copies that read which and not God with the leave of that great Man is a real mistake Beza examining himself this very place of Erasmus answers plainly Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci codices But All the Greek Copies with an universal consent give him the lye All the Greek Copies do agree in the word God says one of the best and most learned Prelates this Nation ever had The joint consent says he in another place of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the Authority of these two Translations He means the Latin and Syriack But to examine this most particularly Grotius does not condemn or reject but only insinuates that he has some cause to suspect the reading God The Latin Interpreter as the most ancient is the great objection for all the rest Armenian Ethiopick Arabick are names serve only to fill the Page and make the simple Reader to stare But it will prove at last no Objection For if a thousand Translations read contrary to the Original Text we ought not to depart from it if the Text is true genuine and indisputable But
groundless and unconceivable Therefore the last must be admitted And this is so much the more rational because the Socinians are Men too learned not to know that the Primitive Writers or to speak the words of a truly great Man of this Nation all the first Writers of the Church of God have expresly attributed the Creation of Man to the Son and have brought in the Father speaking thus to him Let us make Man Not to multiply citations read Orig. cont Cels l. 2. In Gen. 3.22 is another place of the same nature and to the same design The Man is become as one of us to know good and evil I think that custom of Princes has nothing to do here Those little Pedantical evasions are too mean for the weight of the expression If there is but one Person in the Divine Nature how comes the Vs so emphatically Why say those Gentlemen in the page cited Onkelos and Oleaster render the words more truly The Man is become one knowing of himself good and evil Grotius not trusting to this would have God speak here to Angels Thus a groundless supposition is made a solid answer to a translation universally receiv'd before any of these Disputes I humbly conceive that the Irony us'd in that place has no force if the knowledge here spoken of is not that Primitive Essential Knowledge which belongs only to God which Man 's ambitious designs aim'd at and of which neither he nor Angels are capable of v. 5. You shall be as Gods knowing good and evil which is to say just nothing if this consists in the sad experience of his misfortune and not in the rashness of his undertaking The book of Job is certainly a part of the Old Testament and St. Austin in an Epistle to St. Jerom calls Job deservedly a Prophet In the 19.25 26 27. he expresses himself thus I know that my redeemer lives and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth and though after my Skin Worms destroy this body yet in my flesh shall I see God The old Latin Interpreter reads Deum meum my God Whom I shall see for my self and my eyes shall behold and not another I pass over that most solemn and elegant Preface more lasting than the rock on which he wishes the assertion to be written 1st The Holy man draws an argument of comfort in the deepest of his afflictions from the thoughts of another and a better life 2ly He looks upon him who is able to save to the uttermost not only them that come after but all them also who are gone before him 3ly He is satisfi'd that he lives who will redeem him from the pains that he lyes under who knows his innocence because he is the searcher of the hearts 4ly He asserts a final judgment wherein justice will be done to all men who shall rise from their graves and be clothed with flesh to receive it 5ly He avers that he who lives now though invisible will become visible and be their Judge in that great day 6ly He is now only the object of his knowledge and faith but then he shall be the object of his sense He shall see him 7ly He who is now invisible but shall be visible then he calls His God the ground of his hope and indeed of all his confidence This is so positive that it is capable of no allegory but only of a litteral sence That this is spoken of Christ is agreed by the old Rabbins That it is understood of Jesus is the opinion of most Christian Interpreters That that God who is represented here as living according to the noble and usual expression of Scripture which cannot be apply'd to Moses Solomon or any of them who are call'd Gods will stand as a judge and be seen by men in their Flesh and be beheld with their eyes is not the Father is consented to on all hands It must then be the Son who in the union of the two natures is the Redeemer Who as God is known to live and to inhabit Eternity Who in the fullness of Times has appear'd in the flesh and obtained to be at the end of the World the judge of the quick and dead It may be objected to this that Grotius for these Gentlemen look upon an objection not to be answerable if it has but the name of Grotius is positive that the Jews never understood this text of the resurrection of the dead How this learned man comes to be mistaken is strange to me But that he is so may invincibly be made to appear from the body of the Jewish Writers What is taken out of the Book of Psalms to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ has so much the more force because most of it is appli'd to the same purpose by the writers of the New Testament This gives these proofs a double authority and fully determines their sence Nor can any other be put upon them then that in which they are taken by them whom we all acknowledge to be inspir'd This is so natural and carries so much self-evidence along with it that I cannot hear without a deep astonishment Hugo Grotius saying that those Prophecies Non in vim argumenti propriè adhiberi sed ad illustrandam atque confirmandam rem jam creditam That they are not properly arguments to make us believe but a sort of illustrations and confirmations of a truth already believ'd I thought those excesses buri'd long since with Theodore of Mopswest Anathematis'd on that very account by the Fathers of the fifth General Council and Faustus the Manichee so often confounded by St. Austin I was glad to hear Observat on Dr. Wallis's four Letters pag. 16. That those Gentlemen do not profess to follow Socinus but the Scripture that if Socinus has at any time spoken erroneously or unadvisedly or Hyperbolically t is not Socinus who is their Master but Christ yet after all they espouse the same enormity in the brief Hist pag. 16 17. and lay this as a rule Nothing is more usual with the Writers of the New Testament than to apply to the Lord Christ in a mystical or allegorical sence what has been said by the Writers of the Old Testament of God or any other in the litteral and primary sence of the words This they do as often as there is any likeness between the Persons or things or events He that shall read the Thalmud or other Rabbinical Writings will see that the Apostles took this way of Interpreting from the Writers of the Jewish Nation For as often as the Jewish Rabbins met with any event or thing or Person like to what is recorded in some place of the Old Testament they said that place was fullfill'd or was again fullfill'd and accommodated immediately the words of such Scripture to that Person event or thing If this be receiv'd it is a folly to pretend to reason or to dispute First Though there are some Prophecies of Christ which may admit of
be that then in the Messias whom we all acknowledge to be the Holy Jesus which makes the Glory of this latter Temple to exceed that of the former I take this to be the stress of the Question To think that the difference lies in the Building and Architecture as some have fansied of the Temple built afterwards by Herod or even of the duration of this which is the Opinion of some Jews does not deserve any consideration It is said then of the former Temple that the Almighty did appear by a Cloud That he sent a Fire to consume the Sacrifices and this with so great a sence of his Presence that 2 Chron. 5 7. Chapters it is repeated four times that the Glory of the Lord fill'd the House An Argument not only of his approving what they did but even of being himself amongst them How could then the Glory of the second Temple be made greater by the Coming of the Messias For granting that the Spirit of God did inhabit in Christ in a vast measure That he wrought Miracles and pleas'd God by the great Holiness of his Life yet this at most but equals the frequent and glorious appearing of God himself Nothing can justifie the Assertion of the Prophet but this That God in the second Temple is become visible appearing to men in their own Nature That having sent his only Son in the likeness of sinful flesh he has consecrated this second House with his Blood That by assuming our Nature he has made good his Promises and shew'd himself glorious not only in a small corner of the Earth and for a short time but establish'd an endless Kingdom and procur'd ro men an incomprehensible Glory Hence Christ is call'd by David Psal 23.7 The King and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory two of the most High God's Qualifications The Author of the Brief Hist has taken no notice of this place but the Lord Bishop of Sarum having made use of it in a Book or Sermon which I have not seen I find that what they say to it Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 24 25. amounts to this 1st That my Lord is mistaken to think the word Glory in the second Temple alludes to the Cloud of Glory in the first 2ly that My Lord has added His to the Text led to it by that chimerical mistake 3ly That the meaning is plain They have built as well as they could considering the streight they were in But that God in due time will cause this house to be more magnificent even then that built by Solomon 4ly That admitting My Lord's opinion that God has appear'd in the Person of our Saviour in whom the Majesty of God dwelt Bodily the Temple would not be more glorious than any other place where Christ resorted But particularly because Christ never enter'd into the Temple 5ly That this Prophecy was fullfill'd in the rebuilding of the second Temple by Herod To the 1st I say that the sacred writer in speaking of the Glory of the second Temple must allude to the cloud of Glory of the first or else he is not intelligible This is evident if the Glory of the first Temple has no other foundation then the appearing of God in the cloud of Glory But that it is so is undenyable since all the excellence of a building of that nature consists neither in the magnificence of the structure nor the rarity and beauty of the pieces of which it is made But only in God's acceptation The burning bush was certainly more glorious then the palace of the Pharao's The cloud of Glory was a sign that God was pleas'd with the erecting of a House which himself had required Therefore the cloud of Glory was the true and principal Glory of the first House That it is so of the second appears from that magnificent preface of shaking the Heavens and the earth and of bringing in the desire of the Nations and then the promise of filling the House with Glory This proves invincibly that as God appearing in the cloud of Glory was the Glory of the first so the appearing of the Messias the desire of the Nations was the Glory of this second House To the 2d then The Bishop did not undeservedly add the word His but follow'd the sence of the words For if God's appearing in the Cloud made it His Glory His appearing in the Messias must make it His Glory too To the 3d. It is altogether wide of the question 1st The Glory of the Lord was not only visible to the Priests and Ministers of the Altar but to all the Children of Israel 2. Chr. 7.3 2ly It was not only in the Holy of Holies or where the Priests Minister'd but it was upon the house Thus Christ the Glory of the second house appear'd to all the people and did those Miracles which no Man can do except God be with him Joh. 2.3 3ly It is visible that the Glory promis'd to the Temple is not so much to the Temple it self as to the time of its standing since the Temple it self was to be destroy'd A substantial observation and strangely overlook'd by these Gentlemen That time was to be more glorious by bringing in a dispensation of Eternal righteousness By putting an end to all Types and Figures By fullfilling of God's Promises by introducing into the World the desire of the Nations Heb. 12.27 And this word once more signifies the removing of those things that are shaken as of things that are made that those things which cannot be shaken may remain To the 4th It deserves no answer These Gentlemen are positive in things which are really very disputable The modern Jews may be of their opinion The Ancient were not That Herod the Great rebuilt the second Temple is assur'd by them but flatly deny'd by Josephus Ant. Jud. lib. 15. c. 14. They say that it is confess 't by all to have excell'd that of Solomon But this is flatly contradicted by several learned Men and I think to the purpose by Villapandus Tom. 3. in Ezech. In a word These Gentlemen imagine in the place before cited that this noble Prophecy amounts to no more than this ..... We have not so much Money as Solomon but we have done what we can God will provide us more and then we shall do better Consid pag. 24. How can Men of sence and learning espouse such comical Interpretations If they are in earnest what must we think of them And if they are not let them consider that God is not to be mock't The whole Prophecy of Zechariah seems to have no other end but to discover the Messiah to the World His Divine nature is so fully express't in the second Chapter that it is above the reach of any little Criticisms or evasions whatsoever The four first verses announce to Jerusalem that it shall be built again and to its people that they shall inhabit it The 6
God and the word was God But the Divine Nature is one and incapable of division It cannot be multipli'd without destruction Therefore if the Father is God as it is confest of all hands and if the word is God as the Evangelist fully and plainly asserts it there must be more than one Person in that one single and indivisible Deity These persons must be Co-eval Coeternal Consubstantial This shews how mean and low how strange and far from the Question is the Answer or rather the Subterfuge of these Gentlemen which they are never weary of obtruding that Christ is call'd God as Moses and Solomon were and as Magistrates and Princes I beg the favour if we do nothing but catch at the word God as they are pleas'd to say we do to shew me in the sacred Writings some such place as this for Solomon and Moses Does any of the Evangelists or Prophets say in the beginning was Moses and Moses was with God and Moses was God In the beginning was Solomon and Solomon was with God and Solomon was God They cannot but be sensible how such reasonings might be expos'd But though what St. John has said is enough to prevent all objections against the Sacred Doctrine and leave no room for Arrianism Sabellianism and Socinianism yet he prosecutes the Argument and gives us sensible proofs of his Divinity whom he asserts so positively to be God The same was in the beginning with God A repetition of great weight which unites all that has been said before to what is to be said after The word who was in the beginning The word who was with God The word who was God is the same who made all things v. 3. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made The Creation of the World that is of all spiritual and material substances and in a word of all that is is a most sensible and convincing Argument of a Deity A work so transcending all finite capacities that the true God is distinguisht by this from them who pretended to be but are really no Gods Isay 45.12 18. The assertion of Heb. 3.4 is true both in Divinity and Philosophy He that built all things is God None but the supream God can do it Now in what more litteral and accurate way of expression than this can this creating power be attributed to the word 1st You have an affirmation of as great an extent as the whole World it self All things were made by him 2ly Even to prevent the least imagination that perhaps something was which might have another Author and be the emanation of some other being there is the most pregnant positive and particular Negation that can be and without him was not any thing made that was made How long shall Men give the lye to their own reason and so far espouse an Opinion as to contradict the clearest truth He that made all things is truly God Therefore since we are assur'd that Christ made all things and that nothing was made without him he is truly and really God V. 4 5. St. John says In him was life and the life was the light of men To live is the prerogative of the most High for whereas all other beings borrow their life from him he lives independently from them In this sence he is call'd eminently the Living God Christ then is the principle of life and of light whatsoever lives lives by him He is original Life in the order of nature because by him Man was made Gen. 1.26 He is truly Life in the order of Grace Joh. 14.6 I am the life He is our Life even when we are dead Joh. 11.25 I am the Resurrection and the Life He is our life in the order of Glory 2 Joh. 5.20 The true God and Eternal Life A place we shall examine further V. 6 7. The Evangelist adds that the greatest amongst the Sons of Men the other John Matt. 11.11 was sent by God to bear witness that he was come into the World and for fear Men should be apt to mistake this Messenger of God for the God himself whose Messenger he was having so many qualifications above other Men He tells us v. 8. that John was not that light But v. 9. that the word of whom he has made such an admirable description was that true light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that original that essential light that was to come which has no beginning suffers no decay and diffuses it self so as in some measure or other to enlighten every Man V. 10. He tells us that he made himself visible to the World He was in the world He repeats again that the World was made by him and to shew the blindness and ingratitude of the World he says that though he was the Maker and Creator of the World yet the world knew him not He aggravates this v. 10. He came into his own amongst those very Men whom he had made who were his by a must undoubted title even that of Creation and yet his own receiv'd him not refusing the adoration and obedince due to him V. 12. To such as receiv'd him even to them that believe in his name gave he power to become the Sons of God He who is the Eternal Son by Nature assum'd them to the dignity of Sons by Adoption From all that the Evangelist has said the Eternity and Divinity of the word are clear That he is the supreme God the Creator of all things the Universal and only good of Man is plain and evident All the difficulty is how he was in the World came into the World is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he who was to come to appear to be seen in the World the title given him both by the Prophets and Apostles This the Evangelist resolves v. 14. And the word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth These Gentlemen who ask us with so much earnestness to shew them in the Scripture the words Godman and Incarnation may Easily satisfie themselves here The word who was in the beginning before the World was who was with God who was God who has made all things The word who is the true light the original life of all that is who was announc't by the Prophets ever since the World began who had for his Messenger the greatest amongst the Sons of Men who is full of Grace and Truth and of whose fullness we have all receiv'd That word was made Flesh assum'd our Nature and became Man I will end the Explication of this place by these two remarks 1st St. John says he dwelt the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Tabernacl'd amongst us A plain allusion to the Tabernacle to which God was pleas'd to be present or according to the Hebrew to inhabit In this sence the new Jerusalem is call'd Rev. 1.3 The Tabernacle of God with
men The visible and glorious appearance of God amongst Men. God then is become visible in Christ Jesus The word the Eternal God has made the human nature of Chirst the Tabernacle where he shews himself to Men. 2ly That appearance is call'd by the Greeks glory for so the septuagint so all the sacred Writers in the New Testament render it Exod. 40.34 Numb 16.42 1 Sam. 4.22 2. Chron. 5.14 Ibidem 7.1 Isay 6.1 Joh. 12.41 Matt. 25.31 Mark 8.38 Luk. 2.9 Therefore as a proof of this appearance of God in the Flesh St. John adds and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father Wherein the Particle as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Comparison but an Explanation of that glory And we have seen him present amongst us with such declarations from Heaven such a train of stupendous miracles with such a glory as could become none but the only begotten Son of God I have been somewhat large on this place because it is home to the question those Texts being decisive and staring in one's face These Gentlemen are sensible of it and have turn'd their Answers into several shapes and still with a kind of mistrust owning and disowning taking up and laying down again sometimes opposing the litteral sence and sometimes obtruding a poor miserable Allegory The Author of an Answer to a letter of Dr. Wallis by his Friend touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity consults in the letter one of these Gentlemen who gives him several explications of this place The first is that which he calls the ancient Orthodox sence at the Council of Nice and afterwards of some centuries The second of the Modern Orthodox The third that of the Arrians All pag. 9. The fourth is attributed to Paul of Antioch as he remembers it somewhere related by Melanchton which he owns to be uncouth and strange pag. 10. and the Socinian interpretation to be forc't and unnatural because says he we have inbib'd from our youth and even from our Cathechism contrary Expositions The first is that of Grotius pag. 11. who being the only Man of reputation who has lent them Allegories is upon every occasion call'd great and illustrious He concludes by saying I think I have said enough to convince any Man that is not extremely prejudic't that this is an obscure Scripture For as every one of those sences finds some specious grounds in the Text so never a one of them can clearly answer all the Objections that are levied against them and that of the Trinitarians least of all It is then a Text which in his opinion cannot be explain'd This indeed is strange to a high degree that a Writer divinely inspir'd an Evangelist who lays the foundation of a Faith once deliver'd to the Saints and which we are all oblig'd to embrace is by no means to be understood It is also very odd that this should have seem'd clear to all the Ages before and even to all the Christian Churches of this Age which all agree in this though they differ in other points and it should be dark and obscure now to this Gentleman Admirable that some particular Wits should be made now so different from all Mankind as to see what all the World before has not seen and not to see what has been seen by all the World before He tells his Friend further That Dr. Wallis has not done like a Divine but like a censorious he will not say a malicious Person when he Dr. Wallis says if God says The word was God and The word was made flesh shall we say Not so only because we cannot tell how As if these sayings were so clear that they admitted no sence but his He runs on in the difference between the word taken personally which he says is but seldom and impersonally which he says is very often He concludes That they have reason to complain of forc't interpretations depriving God of an incommunicable Attribute even his Unity and of defending their interpretations with sad distinctions between the Essence and the Divine Persons the threefold manner of Existence in God Hypostatical Union Communication of Properties c. This Gentleman is not sensible that he himself justifies Dr. Wallis And that instead of a censorious he represents him like a candid Man when he tells them that is the How can it be that they dispute against Have they not been perpetually minded that we preserve inviolably the unity of God That Three Persons subsist in one Divine Nature because that one God has reveal'd it to be so Let them deny the Revelation if they can But as long as they are angry with the Expositions of the Church concerning how it is The Doctor is in the right it is the How can it be that they quarrel with and upon which they deny the whole But after all this what should we say if this Gentleman who finds this chapter of St. John so obscure and the Catholick interpretation the most unreasonable of all with never so little help should find the one clear and the other highly rational He has himself shew'd us the way in the same Letter pag. 9. The consulting Friend reading to him the Drs. Letter he comes to this place John 1.1 and the 14. The word was God and The Word was made Flesh This says the Gentleman who was consulted were to the purpose If by this term The word could be meant nothing else but a Pre-existent Person and by the term God nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and if taking those terms in those sences did not make St. John speak nonsence and if by Flesh could be meant nothing but a Man how excellent soever and not a Mortal Man subject to infirmities but all these things are otherwise Will this Gentleman stand to this Will the Author of the Brief History and the Answer to Mr. Milbourn and the humble adorers of Grotius his strain'd and Allegorical Explications put the thing upon this issue 1st He does not deny the word to signify a Person but only a Pre-existent Person Nor can he deny him to be pre-existent since he was before all things began to be since by him all things were made 2ly He cannot deny that the term God is meant of the Almighty since the God with whom the word was is undoubtedly the Almighty and the word being said here to be God and God being but one the word must be that Almighty God 3ly He will not offer to deny that the term Flesh here is nothing but our human Nature and that the word made Flesh implies the word being made Man This Author then has plainly answer'd himself and ruin'd all that he pretended to say to his Friend But as for this strange sort of an If and if says he taking those terms in these sences did not make St. John to speak nonsence I will pray him to take to himself what the Author of an Answer to
effectually as that place Isay 44.6 I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God This Text is of the New as well as of the Old Testament St. John begins his Revelation by wishing us peace from him which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty Nor indeed can we have a clearer notion of that supreme being which we call God than that he exists before and after all things v 8. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending says the Lord which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty This is a Title which nothing that is Created can pretend to and an Explication of the Sacred Name Jehovah which in the sence of the Hebrews extends to all the durations imaginable and shews that in the change of all things he is permanent and incapable of alteration This suppos'd I conceive it obvious that if Christ assumes that name to himself if he says of himself that he is the Alpha and Omega The first and the last If he often takes that Title willing to be known by it making it the ground of a solid encouragement to his Disciples in their Sufferings for his sake and if what he says can reasonably be diverted to no other sence it cannot be deny'd that he is God with the Father To see whether this is true read Rev. 1.11 I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last v. 17. Fear not I am the first and the last Rev. 22.13 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last and because these Gentlemen are so fond of Articles and build such mighty things upon them all this is spoken with the same Articles as in v. 8. when it is spoken of Almighty God Which though in truth and reality is no proof at all yet it is so to them who lay so great a stress upon it I will add two remarks to this The 1st is that acclamation which in both Testaments is made to none but God v. 6. to him be Glory and dominion for ever and Chap. 5.13 and every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea and all that are in them heard I saying Blessing honour glory and power to him that sitteth on the Throne and to the lamb for ever The 2d is that admirable description made of Christ Rev. 19. which tells us v. 13. that he has a vesture dip't in blood and that his name is the word of God that Eternal word which Grotius owns created the World and all that is in it which was made Flesh and this same Prophet says washt us in his own blood after he had taken our nature upon him who has on his vesture and on his thigh a name written King of Kings and Lord of Lords a title which belongs to none but God which none but the Almighty can assume He alone being the source of power and from whom all other power is deriv'd All this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. pretends to evade by saying that v. 11. is not in the Latin nor in any good Greek Copy It is true that it is not in the Latin and that it is wanting in some few Greek Copies But being that it is in so many other places in all the Greek and Latin Manuscripts It is disingenuous to accuse this particular place and a candid opposer should have judg'd that it can be Attributed to nothing but the neglect of the Transcriber It is in all the aforesaid places and besides Rev. 2.8 spoken by him who was dead and is alive who lives and was dead and is alive for evermore A second Evasion and really much worse than the first is what he says pag. 20. of the Brief Hist to the 17. v. That Christ is the first and most honourable with good Men and the last the most despis'd by bad Men. He cites for this Hugo Cardinalis from whom Grotius and Erasmus have borrow'd it It is very diverting to see a learned Man as the Author of this History to cite in these disputes Hugo Cardinalis but what if the Cardinal if Grotius if Erasmus have understood these words in a manner so contrary to their real and natural sence I ask what is it to the matter in hand Is it less true because Erasmus and Grotius say that it is not so Will these Gentlemen be contented if instead of these three names we produce three hundred of a contrary Opinion a whole Body of Scripture Interpreters who understand the words in their litteral sence Briefly says the Author again pag. 21. Both Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ are the first and the last but in different sences Why does he not alledge those sences What corner of the Earth hides the precious Treasure A Text is produc't which is express cogent self-evident liable to no little Criticisms A title Attributed to Christ in its utmost latitude without any exception or restriction capable of no reasonable sence but the literal and instead of a substantial answer they tell us that a certain Author understands it so and so that it is capable of different sences and so bid us good night Thus any shift is made an Answer and a bare assertion becomes an Argument I have often endeavour'd to find out what might be the cause of so unfair a dealing in an Author who is certainly a Man of learning and is as sensible as my self that the Interpretation of Hugo is ridiculous and impertinent and that a general Allegation is no Answer The true reason I take to be this They have espous'd this notion that the Trinity and Incarnation are contradictory and impossible read this Author pag. 44 45. that is not so much the thing as the manner The How can it be Thus when we who are satisfy'd that if the thing is plainly and clearly reveal'd it becomes the object of our Faith and excludes any further inquiry into the manner when we bring those Texts on which no impression can be made by denying a word excepting against a Translation exclaiming against an Article or a punctuation citing any orthodox who by chance favours their explication of some particular Text though otherwise an utter Enemy to their Doctrine they leave no stone unturn'd But when a Text is alledg'd which as this stares in the face then any thing will serve they think that their strength is to sit still and rather say nothing then not to the purpose What they say to this place Rev. 19.16 King of Kings and Lord of Lords is of the same nature It is not only a magnificent description of the Almighty but a notion also so universal so innate to all Mankind that from this the most illiterate see the necessity of their Obedience to his Laws The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. says to this that Christ is so Lord of Lords as
Divinity of Christ are parties in the case even by the confession of our Adversaries and so not to be heard But in this it is visible even to the most zealous Socinian that he has grosly and shamelesly corrupted this Text. The word God not being in the Text is really an objection but if truely consider'd rather confirms than weakens the assertion For the only Lord can no more be restrain'd to Christ exclusively to the Father than the only true God can be restrain'd to the Father exclusively to Christ The word God adds nothing to the force of the expression The only Lord being a Phrase of as large an extent and as full an importance as the only true God This takes off at once all the other Texts depending from this on which this Author has so much insisted 1 Cor 8.6 Eph. 4.4 5 6. 1 Tim. 2.5 c. A 2d objection which indeed this Author has not made though he has scarce left a Text untouch't whether it made for his purpose or no and was a reason or only look't like one but is made by the Author of some thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trininy is taken from Joh. 10.35 36. If he call'd them Gods unto whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father has sanctify'd and sent into the world thou blasphemest because I say'd I am the Son of God He does not say I whom the Father has begotten from all Eternity says the Author pag 4. of his own substance But I whom the Father has sanctify'd Which plainly shews that when he says he was the Son of God his meaning was that he was only so in a sence of consecration and of mission and consequently that his unity with the Father is not an Essential and natural unity but meerly moral and relative of works not of Essence which is really incommunicable pag. 6. I should think this passage written with the very finger of truth to be unanswerable were it not that I know the Orthodox are wont to darken the most bright light at the cost of sincerity and good sence and make no scruple of the grossest contradictions and absurdities so they may but cast dust in the Eyes of simple men Passing by the complement which is of a singular nature and a barbarous aspersion on persons whom they themselves own to have an extraordinary piety and learning I must beg leave to admire the difference of Men's perceptions This Author thinks this passage to be written with the very finger of truth and not to be answerable I think so too But he says against the Eternal being of Christ and I saw for it The cause of this difference between us lyes here He fancies that those Verses are an Explication of what Christ had said before v. 30. I and my Father are one for which v. 31. the Jews took up stones to stone him and which v. 33. they call Blasphemy and because that he being a man makes himself God and that to avoid their anger he declares to them that he is no otherwise God than those very Men who by their law are call'd Gods not because they are so indeed but because they have the Power and Authority of God communicated to them Now I think that these words are not an Explication Excuse or Apology for what he had said I and the Father are one But an open and free continuation of what was before and a new assertion of his Divinity This will appear if the whole context is taken together Christ had said v. 9. that he is the door that by him if any man enters he shall be sav'd Agreeable to this expression of Revel 7.3 He that is holy he that is true ... he that opens and no man shuts and shuts and no man opens v. 28. that he gives his sheep Eternal life and that they might not wonder at those Characters which can agree to no creature he carries yet the point higher He tells them v. 30. I and my Father are one That though they see him in the form of a Servant and in all things like Man yet he is God with his Father and partaker of the same Divine Nature This assertion to Men whose hearts were not purify'd by Faith seem'd strange and impious v. 31. They took stones to stone him He tells them with that unconcernedness which truth and innocence gives that he has done amongst them many miraculous works to prove this his Union with his Father He asks which of these works has provok'd their blind zeal to stone him They answer him v. 33. that it is not for any of those good and miraculous works But because being but a man he makes himself not A. God but God He does not at all excuse the thing or parts with his first assertion He pities but not fear their malice and uses a plain and forcible Argument to instruct them Though the name of God be Sacred and the most reverend appellation in the World yet your law says Christ will allow it to them who speak to you from him If it be so then and you cannot deny it because it is writen in your law Ps 82.6 I have say'd ye are Gods If Men are sometime allow'd to be call'd Gods How much more may I make my self God and this without the least danger of Blasphemy who am above any thing that is created to whom every Knee must bow of things in Heaven and things in the Earth and things under the Earth Whom the Father has sanctify'd not only by a peculiar designation as a King or a Prophet but by an Eternal Communication of his nature by which He and I are one and so sent me into the World to save you and the rest of Mankind If I did not do the works which none but the Son of God can do you might have some ground not to believe me But as long as I do these miraculous works it is to you a sufficient argument of perswasion You ought to believe that the Father is in me and I in him v. 38. That the Jews understood this answer litterally as they had done the allegation That they did not take it as an Apology for the pretended Blasphemy but a further proof of his being one with the Father appears by their not relenting but v. 39. Therefore they sought again to take him but be escap't out of their hands I beg leave then of this Author and of Calvin whom he has cited blaming the Fathers for misapplying this Text to say that the Fathers were in the right and that nothing can be more obvious than this It will be much confirm'd if we consider that this is not the only time that the Jews quarrell'd with Christ upon the same account and he always answer'd not by denying but justifying the assertion Mark 2.5 He tells one who was brought to him Sick of the Palsy Thy sins be forgiven thee v. 7.
it is not so replies the Author Grotius affirms that Hincmarus a Prelate so famous in his time is positive that the word God was thrust into the Text by the Nestorians and in particular by Macedonius who corrupted the sincere reading of that very place I never saw either Mr. Milbourn or his Book but he might have told his Answerer that Grotius is strangely mistaken and so must the Learned Prelate be whom he has cited All the World cannot make me apprehend how the Nestorians should thrust the word God into a Text by which they ruin'd themselves and their Doctrines to all intents and purposes Nestorius says this very Author in his Answer to the late Archbishop pag. 61. said That God was not Hypostatically united or after the manner of a Person to the Man Christ Jesus But only dwelt in him by a more plentiful effusion or exertion of the Divine Presence and Attributes than in former Prophets This led him to say that our Saviour ought to be call'd Christ and not God He deny'd that he could call him God c. I ask then How it can be conceiv'd that it should come into the head of the Nestorians to change the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the only thing that could favour their Doctrine into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the only word that could ruine it Is it rational to think that a Sect of men who are professedly bent against the Incarnation of Christ shall alter a plain Text to put in a word which will make it undisputable Will it be believ'd in the next Age if Socinianism is so long liv'd that the Socinians would alter a Text which does not prove the Divinity of Christ and add words to it by which it may clearly be prov'd It is a great mistake to say that Macedonius was turn'd out of the Sea of Constantinople for falsifying this Text. It is true that Anastasius turn'd him out but it does not appear that it was upon any such account That that makes this to be undeniable is that this Text is read by the Fathers with the word God before Macedonius was born and even long before the Heresy of Nestorius St. Chrysostom Patriarch himself of Constantinople long before Nestorius reads in this place God was manifested c. So does Theodoret so does St. Cyril even against this very Nestorius so do several other Fathers too tedious to insert I will add that whoever reads attentively the place of Hincmarus which these Gentlemen have not cited but is Opusc 55. cap. 18. Liberatus cap. 19. and he will find even in their own account the addition of the word God to have been impossible Another Objection is that of the Council of Nice of next Authority with us says the Author and with a great deal of truth to the sacred Scriptures One having repeated this Text with the word God taken probably out of some Marginal note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word which in the Text was answer'd by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading the words being which was manifested in the flesh This makes nothing against us It proves that this reading was ancienter than the Council of Nice It proves if the Author 's wild conjecture may be admitted that if there was even any Copy where the word God was not that the which by the force of the following parts of the Verse and the sence of that age having put to it that marginal note was to be understood of God It proves that the Arrians had begun early to corrupt those Texts which were plainest for the Divinity of Christ Had this Author shew'd that upon this allegation of Macarius the sacred Council had rejected this Text it would have been of some weight but the mistake of that Bishop appears by the unanimous consent of the Greek Fathers using this Text with the word God in the time of and after the Council But even in the Latin Church where the Interpreter reads which The Fathers understood that Mystery which the Apostle calls confessedly so great of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Nor is the assumptum est in gloria of the vulgar Latin taken up into Glory capable of any other sence These Gentlemen have a great disadvantage that when they have never so finely shap't an interpretation and put it in never so pretty a dress not only the new but also the old Christian World rises against it It was the wish no doubt of a good Man that his Soul might rest with the Philosophers Let mine rest with the Primitive Fathers and Councils of the Church In all Arts and Sciences the further we go the greater are our improvements But in the case of Religion the nearer we return to the Spring the more purity and truth we meet with Rom. 9.5 is another staring Text. Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen That the title of blessed over all for ever is only due and was only given to the Almighty is evident from the Old and New Testament and the constant practices of Jews and Christians If the word God was not in this Text it would lose nothing of its force The blessed over all implying with all the Jewish Doctors that Essential Happiness that Absolute Dominion that Incomprehensible Greatness which belong to none but him who is God by nature But since all this is said of Christ in plain and express words the consequence is easy he must be that God Should all Mankind conspire to find words clear and positive to represent the two natures and God made Man they must come short of this Apostle who shews the one in this part of the Text of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came and the other in that who is over all God blessed for ever Proclus in his Book de fid looks on this Text alone as a confutation of all the Heresies concerning Christ Athanasius and the Catholick Fathers urg'd it with vehemence against the Arrians Theophilact the great Admirer and even the Transcriber of St. Chrysostom says in this place that St. Paul by Proclaiming Christ God over all has publisht the shame of Arrius who deny'd it to all the World The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 35. says to this 1st That it is very probable by the Syriack and some passages in Ignatius and other Fathers that the word God was not originally in this Text. For they read it without 2ly Admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek Erasmus and Curcellaeus observe that it should have been thus translated Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came God who is over all be blessed for ever 3ly That these words according to the Flesh or concerning the Flesh never signify according to his human nature as if he had also a Divine Nature Rom. 9.3 My Kinsman according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham
our Father as pertaining to the Flesh Coloss 3.22 Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh Which places do not suppose that they had a Divine Nature but only mean that Abraham is the Father of the Jews according to their Bodies as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits Therefore the meaning can only be that according to the body Christ descended from Abraham and David This last part of the Answer is perfectly Socinian The second he has borrow'd of Erasmus and the first of Grotius The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says the same things He adds That Mr. Milbourn might have taken notice out of Grotius that the Greek Copies us'd by the Author of the Syriack had not the word God They only say the blessed over all That the same Illustrious Interpreter observes that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of St. Cyprian Chrysostom Hilary had only the Blessed over all without the word God Then the Answerer grows angry These are says he Observations which destroy our Author's Arguments from this Text. But because he knew not what to say to them he took no notice of them It is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such questions as these When it appears by such great Authorities that the ancient reading was otherwise or various or uncertain how can such Texts be admitted as proofs in so great a question as this At last he gives the reason why Erasmus has made a Translation contrary to all the Translations in the World because he observes that if the words God over all had been intended of Christ the Apostle should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt not says he that our Author was aware that those Criticks were in the right and therefore he willingly overlook't both the Translation and the reason of it Thus far this Author pag. 34.35 of his Answer This is indeed very severe and much exceeding the bounds of common civility but strangely barbarous if all this is made to appear to be trifling and inconsiderable 1st This Gentlemen who chid Mr. Milbourn for not taking notice out of the Illustrious Grotius that the word God is not in the Syriack should not have trusted Grotius who is really mistaken in this but should have gone to the Syraick it self and there would have found the word God He should have seen also that he was deceiv'd by Grotius as Grotius was by Erasmus an Illustrious Person often deceiving another about St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom and St. Hilary For several Copies of St. Cyprian read the word God And that that demonstrates beyond the possibility of denyal that if it is not in some Copies it must have been the fault of the Transcriber is this that St. Cyprian makes use of this Text lib. 2. adv Jud. and brings into the Catalogue of those Texts which call Christ â—od He had it from Tertullian disputing against Praxeas and alledging this Text twice a thing ordinary to St. Cyprian who us'd to call the learned African his Master This shews by the way how these Gentlemen can assure that the Antenicene Fathers did not believe Christ to be God Erasmus has also mistaken St. Chrysostom who is so far from reading the blessed over all without God that in his Exposition he reads neither the one nor the other but both when he cites this Text. But for St. Hilary I am amaz'd to hear his Authority disputed who has not only cited this Text with the words God blessed over all but added an Explication to it which is levell'd against the very Soul of Socinianism the beloved notion of a deputed or of a made God Non ignorat Paulus Christum Deum dicens quorum sunt Patres ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus Non hic Creatura in Deum deputatur sed Creaturarum Deus est qui super omnia Deus Paul is not ignorant that Christ is God who says whose are the Fathers and of whom Christ came who is God over all Here a Creature is not a deputed God but he is the God of Creatures who is God over all Hil. de Trin. The Author of the Brief Hist was sensible of this and modestly declin'd the naming of these Fathers But how could Mr. Milbourn's Adversary so severely reflect upon him when he himself was certainly in the wrong May I speak to him in his own words either he knew all this or he did not If he did not how could he call a reading various and uncertain when their is none so clear and so free from exceptions and if he did how could he have the Conscience to do it But admitting that God is not in the Text what then The stress of the Argument does not lye in the word God which these Gentlemen understand as they please but in the word blessed over all which belongs to none but God Mark 14.61 Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed By which word blessed the the High-Priest understands in the dialect of the Jews the Holy one the Almighty the only true God Rom. 1.25 and 11.36 2. Cor. 11.31 Gal. 1.5 1 Tim. 1.7 in all which places and great many more is a perpetual acknowledgement of that Eternal Glory which is God's and infinitely transcends any Created Being Nor can there be a more substantial proof of the Divinity of Christ than this that that Glory is given him as in this Text which by the unanimous consent of the Scriptures is given only to God Heb. 13.22 1 Pet. 4.11 and 5.11 2 Pet. 3.18 Rev. 1.6 2ly The punctuation of Erasmus and Curcellaeus and the addition of the word be is a bold and presumptuous attempt unknown to all Antiquity and which the Arrians themselves never thought of If this liberty is granted there is not a place in Scripture but what may be perverted men must leave off to talk and reason There can be no Faith no candor left in disputes The honestest discourse by the means of a different punctuation of the words may be made obscure and infamous But it is the sickness of these Gentlemen The Bible will not say what they would have it to say and therefore they must add Particles and Comma's and alter an order which ought to be Sacred and inviolable But after all this the Criticism says Beza on this place is little and silly It is known to any one who has the smallest tincture of the Greek Tongue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Participle is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He sends Erasmus for this to School and this use of the Greek Tongue I take to be the reason that neither Asterius the Grammarian nor the other Arrians who understood the extent of their own language ever made this exception 3ly That these words concerning the Flesh do no more suppose a Divine nature in Christ than in Abraham these Gentlemen
are not pleas'd to observe that there is in the Text an actual comparison of two natures of Christ as Man and of Christ who is God blessed over all of Christ who in the first capacity is descended from the Jews and is a Jew according to the Flesh and of Christ who in the other has a communication of the Divine Nature and is God blessed over all It is easy to see says the Author of the Answer to Mr Milbourn that these expressions in the places cited by him are only as much as to say according to the Body I grant it But I affirm that it is easy to see that the Apostle speaks in those places Absolutely and without relation to any thing else and that here he speaks relatively to another being which Christ has This appears not only from the thing it self where there is an obvious comparison but from the very way of expressing of the Greek which our language cannot reach In all the places cited by these Gentlemen according to the Flesh is express'd without any Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine it to any sence than what really it has But when this is say'd of Christ There the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is compar'd to somewhat else The Apostle has it clearly Rom. 1.2 and 3. made according to the Flesh where the Flesh does not signify the body as the places which they have cited to elude the force of this Text but the humane nature of Christ in opposition to these words according to the Spirit of Holiness by which the Divine is express'd This explication is of St. Chrysostom on this place Theodoret and long before of Tertullian adv Prax. Made of the seed of David according to the Flesh says that Father Here is the man and the Son of man And declar'd to be the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit Hic est Deus sermo Dei filius This is the God and the word the Son of God This was the Divinity of Tertullian's time before the Council of Nice Having done with this Text I pass to Act. 20.28 St. Paul taking his leave of the Asian Bishops exhorts them pathetically to that diligence and care which is the source of all Pastoral Vertues He urges it on these two Motives 1st That they have receiv'd their power from the Holy Ghost 2ly That the Church which he exhorts them to feed is the Church for which God has been pleas'd to dye Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own blood This is spoken of a God by nature since according to the Socinian Rule God is nam'd here with an Article It is not only a God but the God He has purchas'd to himself a Church he has bought us with a price and because without remission of Sin there is no redemption and there is no remission without blood he has purchas'd us with blood But the blood of Goats and Calves the blood of others being of it self ineffectual and only Figurative he has shed his own blood for us This cannot be say'd of the Father who these Gentlemen deny and with a great deal of reason to have suffer'd Nor can it be asserted of the Holy Spirit since they assure him to be only a power and an energy and it is ridiculous to say that an energy shed his own blood In can be say'd of none but the Son who having taken our nature upon him became our Mediator and High-Priest and by his own blood that blood which he shed for the Church obtain'd eternal redemption for us But that High-Priest that Mediator that Christ is say'd to be the God therefore he must be partaker of the Divine Nature and since the Father is the God and he is also the God there must be more persons than one subsisting in the Deity This is deciding and conclusive Yet the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 34. makes these exceptions 1st That in the Armenian Syriack and the most ancient of the Greek Bibles the reading is not the Church of God but of Christ 2ly That admitting the reading God in the vulgar Editions of the Greek yet some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd the Greek words thus Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own Son's blood 3ly That admitting the Translation in our English Bibles some learned men particularly Erasmus have noted that the blood of Christ is here call'd the blood of God because it was the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World so Joh 1.36 This is the lamb of God that is the lamb of Sacrifice which God gives for the sins of the world These Gentlemen have the misfortune to call every thing an Answer 1st It is true that in some Copies these words have been read with some alteration but nothing at all to their purpose some few have read the Churc◠of the Lord others the Church of the Lord and God but none the Church of Christ They will much oblige the Common-wealth of Learning if they will produce any of these best and most ancient Copies A very learned Man of this Age has pretended to prove that the Church of Christ is not the language of the Scripture and that when the Church is spoken of by way of eminence as it is in this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church it is often say'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God but never the Church of Christ And this Criticism they will find true if they give themselves the trouble to examine it The Syriack Interpreter is rather an Expositor than a Translator The Latin who is wholly a Translator and not an Expositor reads Ecclesiam Dei The Church of God The second part of their Answer that some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd his own Son's blood instead of his own blood is a crying notorious and unpardonable falsification of a Text. What will be the end of our disputes if when we are press'd with the undenyable evidence of a Scripture we presume to add words to it and usher in that Sacrilegious attempt upon the word of God with saying some great Masters of the Greek Tongue When these Gentlemen talk of Syriack Arabick Coptick Armenian they may easily impose upon the simple but for Greek which is common to all professions in this Kingdom to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own proper blood is with his Son's blood to make the falsification Authentick by Attributing it to the great Masters of the Greek Tongue and call this an Answer to a solid Objection is a piece of an Incomprehensible Confidence 3ly Socinus and Chrellius were more dexterous who being press'd by this Text very fairly lay'd aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own wherein lyes the stress of the Argument but call'd it as Erasmus has done the blood of God the Father that is the blood which God gave for the
to our belief I believe in God in which Three Persons subsist The Father who is Maker of Heaven and Earth His only Son who is our Lord and the Holy Spirit who Sanctiâ—ies the Catholick Church This expression the only Son or the only begotten is a stop to all those exceptions For he cannot be a deputed God who is a Son an only Son begotten as the Fathers and Councils express it of the substance of the Father He must be God of God very God of very God The Eternal God of the Eternal God This suppos'd there is no objection can be pretended God cannot have a Son but it must be by a communication of his substance An Eternal being cannot communicate it self as we mortals do within the measures and successions of time A mortal begets another mortal He can give no other substance then what he has An Eternal being gives what he is himself an Eternal and Divine being This leads to the true sence of Col. 1.15 2. Cor. 4.4 Heb. 1.3 where Christ is call'd the image of God the brightness of his glory the express image of his Person Texts so reverenc't by the Fathers of the Christian Church and so abus'd by Socinus and the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 38. who says That those Texts are demonstrations that Christ is not God it being simply impossible that the image should be the very being or thing whose image it is Were this reasoning true which is a meer Sophism to reason of an Eternal and Increated Being by the rules of things mortal and created it can reach to no more than this that the Son is not the Father because he is the express Image of his Person which is true but at the same time it proves that because he is his Image he must have a communication of his substance because he is his only Image as he is his only begotten Son But say these Gentlemen you run on but still you suppose the thing to be prov'd We agree that Christ is the only Son our Lord but we deny that the only begotten implies a communication of substance Christ says the Authour of the Brief Hist pag. 28. is call'd the only begotten on several accounts This especially that he only was begotten by the Divine Power on a Woman He is the only begotten says Chrellius because of all the Sons of God he is the best and most dear to him Time is too precious to spend it in answering such things as these are The Interpretation of Chrellius is trifling and that of the Brief Hist is absurd God is a Father antecedently to the Creation of the World God is not the Father of Christ but as he is the Father of the word who assum'd our nature Had there been nothing created there would have been still a Father and Father of it self supposes a Son If the Father is from ever the Son is from ever These ancient assertions of the Primitive Fathers destroy the notion of these Gentlemen of the only begotten A notion so strange so new so contrary to the language of Scripture and to that of the Church that the Old Hereticks durst never offer at it It ruines the difference between Christ and the rest of men For we are all the Sons of God Nay we can no more be the Sons of God being only Sons of God by adoption and only adopted in Christ Jesus who if he is adopted himself and only a Coheir with us as we are Coheirs with him there is no more adoption the great blessing of Christianity Now if Christ is the only begotten of the Father by reason of his being conceiv'd of a Woman by the Divine Power it is visible that he is no more than an adopted Son as we are This second Adam has no more of the Divine Nature than the first who was made of the Earth by the Divine power as the other was made of a Woman and was only an adopted Son Whereas the Scripture is so careful to distinguish between us the adopted Sons and that Son who is not adopted and is call'd the true Son the only Son his own Son his only begotten Son that Son who is sent Gal. 4.4 that we might receive the adoption of Sons It offers violence to these Texts to which the Author of the Brief Hist has done the advantage to shew that they are proofs against all the Turns of Wit Joh. 10.30 I and my Father are one Joh. 7.29 I know him for I am from him Joh. 10.38 The Father is in me and I in him I came out from the Father and to all the unanimous confessions in the Gospel Thou are the Christ the Son of the living God I commend this Author to have in this place given an answer without a reason to support it He has in this as in other places evaded and shifted the difficulty He sees what straights his Explication of the only begotten is lyable to and too much modesty to have laid down the pretended reasons of his Friends They would put a sober Philosopher to the blush I cannot without Horror read Smalcius de vero natur dei fil And all that can be said to this is what St. Austin said almost on the same account that it is Sceleratissima opinio a most execrable opinion Serm. 191. de temp I will multiply no more Arguments on this subject the places alledg'd being so full and forcible and the shifts of these Gentlemen so visible that it is enough to perswade any equitable person I pass to the second part of the assertion that the name of God is given to the Saviour after a manner applicable to no creature I will not lay down the rules which the Socinians have invented to discern when the word God must be understood of that God who is so by nature and of the deputed God who is only so by Office They are Criticisms for the most part false and always little and uncertain I humbly conceive that 1 Tim. 3.16 is spoken of the God by nature And without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justify'd in the spirit seen of Angels preach't to the Gentiles believ'd on in the world receiv'd up into Glory I humbly conceive also that every word of this is accomplish't in Christ Jesus and that this Text is an Epitome of the Gospel God was manifest in the Flesh is the explication of Joh. 1.1 and the word was made Flesh Justify'd in the spirit is the explication of Matt. 3.16 17. and lo the Heavens were open'd and the spirit of God descending ... and lo a voice from Heaven this is my beloved Son Seen of Angels is the explication of Matt. 4.11 and behold Angels came and Minister'd to him Preach't to the Gentiles is the explication of Matt. 28.18 Teach all nations Believ'd on in the World is the explication of Joh. 6.69 and many places of this nature Receiv'd up into Glory is the Explication