REMARKS On Several Late Writings Publish'd in English by the SOCINIANS Wherein Is show'd the insufficiency and weakness of their Answers to the Texts brought against them by the Orthodox IN FOUR LETTERS Written at the Request of a Socinian Gentleman By H. DE LVZANCY B. D. Vic. of Doverc and Harwich LONDON Printed by Tho. Warren for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1696. THE PREFACE THE design of the following Letters was to instruct a private Gentleman who by reading Socinian Books had got a mighty prejudice against the Sacred Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation He desir'd that he might have the liberty to communicate my Papers to some of his Friends of that perswasion But this being lyable to many inconveniences it was thought much fitter at once to expose them to publick view Whether he will be convinc'd by these Writings must be left to God who best knows the ways of working upon the minds of men Whether there is matter enough to convince him is left to the judgment of the World The general means to clear a Controversy are Reason and Authority I humbly conceive that the first has nothing to do in this dispute For how can we argue from the Principles of natural reason in a point wholly Divine and Supernatural and how can the Philosopher of this World conclude with any certainty in that which is above all the inquiries and decisions of Philosophy I ever thought the Socinians extreamly in the wrong with their pretended contradictions in the belief of our Holy Mysteries and the Letter to both the Vniversities much the worst of all their Writings It being certainly neither just nor candid to use Topicks though never so ingeniously turn'd altogether foreign to the matter in dispute and to give an air of probability to that which when truly stated and consider'd is of another nature than the thing propos'd to us I take it for granted even by these Gentlemen themselves that Faith and Reason are two different things and consequently that that which is the object of Faith cannot be the object of Reason Of what use then can those Arguments be which are call'd Demonstrations against the Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation Those perpetual descants upon the impossibility of Three being One and One Three of the same substance unbegotten begotten and proceeding of a part of God being incarnate and another not incarnate All this and ten thousand Objections more are a fallacy and an imposition on Mankind The case here being of another nature not tryable at the Bar of our corrupt Reason but call'd to another and a more infallible Tribunal On the other side though it looks much like Charity and Condescension yet it is certainly an Inadvertency to have pretended to answer these Gentlemen in their own way and to run with them upon the same false scent of reasoning on those things which we ought only to believe and adore The Socinians may write till Doomsday to prove the Vnrâ—asonableness and their charitable and learned Answerers may do the same to prove the Reasonableness of our Christian Doctrine I mean keeping still within the compass of natural reason and yet this great truth will never be clear'd because indeed neither of them embrace the true Method to clear it The way then of Authority is both the plainest and the safest It has that advantage that the other is even resolv'd into it For there is nothing so highly rational as a submission of our Reason to an Authority which all sides own to be infallible We all agree that the Divine Scriptures are the rule of our Faith We all acknowledge them to be the word of God and this very name commands naturally and of it self a veneration which no human Writings though of never so much strength and clearness can force from us It is then from thence and only from thence that we ought to reason and conclude in this Sacred Controversy The consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong inducement to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments To oppose all that has been and is Great and Good in the Church of God in a point of Faith is too much for the most presuming Disputant But when the Authority of God speaking in those Scriptures which we all contend to be the Revelation which he has made of himself to us is superadded to the universal consent of the Church all the reasons which we can pretend to oppose to this ought to be no more to men of sence than talk and noise The Church asserts the Vnity of the Divine Nature in which three distinct and equally adorable Persons subsist The Father The Son and the Holy Ghost of which the second was Incarnate and in the fullness of time became Man To say that this is false because incomprehensible is a lamentable consequence Nor is it sufferable to reject the belief of these Mysteries because our poor narrow and corrupt Reason is pleas'd to state contradictions in a subject so far above our capacity and to say as those Gentlemen urge vehemently that we cannot believe that of which we can have no notion or Idea is much worse since besides that we have little or no knowledge at all of the ways operations and manner of Existence of an Infinite Being to suppose a notion or an Idea of the thing propos'd is to destroy Faith which Heb. 11.1 is the evidence of things not seen that is an assurance and certainty of that which is imperceptible to us because above the reach of our understanding supplying by the Authority of the Revelation that notion or Idea of which these Gentlemen argue an absolute necessity The only way then to satisfy our selves is to hear what the Scripture teaches concerning this For if the Church speaks the language of the Scripture it speaks as God has taught us and to speak after God is the most certain and excellent way of speaking in the World The Challenge of the great Athanasius to the Arrians and of St. Austin to the Hereticks of his time was the most reasonable Proposition in nature to a people who own'd Christianity and that is that laying aside human reasoning and relying upon the veracity of the Divine Oracles they should inquire not what man propos'd but what God has say'd in the matter If the Scripture is positive that God is one and yet asserts the Father to be God the Son to be God and the Holy Ghost to be God If it says that the Son has taken our nature upon him The Church speaks as the Scripture has taught and the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is the Doctrine of the Church because it is first that of the Scripture Being perswaded then that the dispute must at last be put upon that Issue and sensible that any thing else that is propos'd of both sides though it shews the great parts and abilities of the Disputants can yet give
Consent of the learned World made venerable Essence Substance Hypostasis Generation Spiration Procession And yet these Gentlemen not only pretend to Reason but would so monopolize it to themselves as to make their Adversaries the most unreasonable people in the World Reason in all their Writings is the Word To it the most express Revelation must be made to stoop and God must not be Judge of what he commands man to believe But man assumes to himself to know whether what God commands is agreeable to the Principles of his Reason I know that they would seem to exclaim against this and that in the Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation pag. 1. they complain that they are charg'd with exalting Reason above Revelation They apologize for it in the Observations of Dr. Wallis's Letters pag. 16. But how can this be reconcil'd with this Assertion Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5. If Heaven and Earth were miraculously destroy'd to confirm an Interpretation which disagrees with the natural and Grammatical sense of the words it will for all that remain a false Interpretation Which in plain English amounts to this that though Heaven contradicts an Interpretation by the most forcible sort of Argument which is a real Miracle and such as the Destruction of the whole World yet if it does not agree with that natural or Grammatical sense which our Reason makes of these words The Miracle will be true but the Interpretation false I am willing to give to Reason all the weight and admiration that it deserves it being the distinguishing Character of man and that by which he ought to be guided in his spiritual and temporal Concerns But there is a rational way of using our Reason which when strain'd beyond its bounds is no more Reason but extravagance and obstinacy When the greatest Authority in the World imposes on us the belief of that which our Reason cannot penetrate or understand It is not the work of Reason to reject it because the Notion is unintelligible and in our imperfect way of Reasoning offers seeming Contradictions But the truest and noblest Exercise of our Reason is to submit to that Authority and when we are satisfy'd that God speaks man is never so rational as when he yields without any inquiry into what he is pleas'd to reveal I say seeming Contradictions for admitting the Divine Revelation no Contradiction can be real We may imagine that indeed it is so because we are men who know very little and in the state of sin and weakness that we are in meet with a thousand obstacles to our perceptions But supposing that God has deliver'd it there can be no such thing as a Contradiction because howsoever I apprehend it it still comes from him who cannot contradict himself The Question once more is not of the Unity of the Divine Nature The Orthodox are as stiff as they in the point The Question is Whether the Trinity of Persons destroys or no the Unity of that Divine Nature The Orthodox must carry it if they can prove that the same God who has reveal'd the one has also reveal'd the other For if he has done this our duty is to adore in an humble silence what we cannot understand and those very Contradictions which we fansie in the thing reveal'd ought only to be to us sensible proofs of our ignorance and deep arguments of humiliation The Socinians then are in a great mistake and instead of writing Books after Books to shew the pretended inconsistencies and contradictions in the Revelation they ought to prove plainly that it is not reveal'd at all For if it clearly appears that it is so the pretended Contradictions must lye at their door but the Revelation will still be safe and certain It is strange that ingenious men who meet with so many things unintelligible in Nature will have nothing to be so in Religion They will submit to Philosophical proofs and Mathematical demonstrations which are at most but natural Evidences and will reject the greatest and most certain Evidence which is Faith Nothing can take them from reasoning and nothing will bring them to believe Whether the thing is is the Question How it is does not at all belong to us How the Father communicates his Essence to the Son How the Holy Ghost proceeds from both How three Persons subsist in the same Divine Nature can be no part of our inquiry If we can but be satisfy'd that God has so reveal'd himself to us that he is God that in that Deity which is one there are three equally adorable Persons we have nothing to do with the How Let us adore and believe the thing and reserve the manner to a better and a happier life where we shall know even as we are also known 1 Cor. 13.12 Those Reverend Persons who out of condescension to querulous men have undertaken to give Explications of the Trinity in Unity never pretended to go further They never thought that this could be Geometrically prov'd They built upon the Revelation and endeavour'd to find every one that way which seem'd to them the aptest to reconcile what these Gentlemen call Contradictions But left the thing it self as incomprehensible and relying on his Authority who reveal'd it The Socinians are not candid in the matter They endeavour to disprove the Athanasian Creed They pretend to answer the late Archbishop the Bishops of Worcester and Sarum They ridicule Dr. Wallis They insult the Dean of Paul's They are rude to Dr. South but still are clamorous about the How can it be and are not serious in proving that it is not These Gentlemen have pretended that by denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost they make the Scripture plain intelligible and obvious to the meanest capacities They think after this to have remov'd all those difficulties which the Clergy call Mysteries but are not so in themselves In the impartial account of the word Mystery pag. 3. By the means of Mystery Divines have made Religion a very difficult thing that is an Art which Christians are not able to understand and thereby they raise themselves above the common Christians and are made necessary to the People improving that Art to their own benefit Passing by the incivility of the reflexion I dare affirm that denying the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit nothing is easie nothing is plain in Religion That the Scripture is the darkest Book that ever was written and that no Christian can find the satisfaction of his mind and the peace of his conscience It may be said with a great deal of truth that the stream of the Scriptures runs that way that the belief of the Holy Trinity and the union of the two natures in Christ is the Key to all difficulties and that distinction so much laught at by these Gentlemen of one thing said of him as God and of another as Man which
v. 4. That he is so much better than the Angels that he has by inheritance obtain'd a more excellent name than they I hope that by the name of Angels it will not be deny'd that their being and nature is express't according to the Dialect of Scripture Or else What signifies the distinction of inheriting a name or a name by inheritance from a name given What the Angels are is by the favour and gift of the Creator what Christ is is by nature and inheritance He shews then of the Angels v. 7. what is their name what they are He makes his Angels spirits and his Ministers a flame of fire v. 8. He brings in God speaking to Christ as to his Son discovering his nature his name by inheritance But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever To this these Gentlemen Answer in the brief Hist pag. 16. That the words are litterally spoken of Solomon and mystically of Christ That this is the opinion of Grotius But that whether they are spoken litterally of Solomon and mystically of Christ neither Christ nor Solomon are here call'd God The place being ill translated The Hebrew and the Greek importing no more than this God is thy Throne that is thy resting place or establishment for ever and ever I began to admire how these Gentlemen deny that Solomon is here call'd God who when we prove that Christ is call'd God in many places of Scripture have made this answer almost thredbare that he is call'd God as Solomon is here and Moses Exod. 7.1 But they unsay this again and are somewhat larger in the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 8. They cite Grotius who makes this Psalm to be an Epithalamium sung by the maids to Solomon and Sulamitis the Daughter of the King of Egypt They say That we catch at the word God as if the Psalmist and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews spoke of such a Person as is truly and really God That we should note that Christ tells us Joh. 10.35 That those also are call'd Gods in Scripture to whom the word of God comes That Solomon in this Psalm is saluted by the Name of God according to the known language of those times and Countries to Magistrates and Princes But after all the place of the Hebrews is so pressing that they pass from accomodation and application and are willing to allow that he interprets the words of Christ because The Psalm being compos'd by a Prophetical Poet at the same time that he courted and prais'd Solomon He might Prophecy of Christ That this account is approv'd by the most learned Criticks One would have expected from men of learning somewhat more solid When we say that Christ is call'd God we are so far from catching at the word God that we maintain it to be after a manner so peculiar to the most high God that it is applicable to no Man and that what the Prophet say's and the Apostle after him is visible to the meanest capacity can be said neither of Moses or Solomon or any Prince or Magistrate The business of the Epithalamiums and the custom of the Eastern People are pretty little imaginations That it is not render'd according to the Hebrew or the Greek is notoriously suppos'd The Interpretation of Grotius is both senceless and false It is senceless For what addition is it to the Messias that God is his resting place Is he not so to all good men Are not our Souls made perfect by his grace committed into his hands as unto a faithful Creator to become Eternally happy It is false and that visibly too by the reading of the next verse Therefore O God Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows I read O God For thus Eusebius demons Evang. lib. 4. Orig. con Cels lib. 1. St. Jerom Epis 140. have prov'd that it ought to be read both from the nature of the thing and the letter of the sacred Text. St. Austin in his Exposition on this very Psalm which in the old Interpreter is the 44th is positive that this is manifest from the Greek This has caus'd several learned men to think that what is written in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was formerly written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though Eusebius in the place already cited makes it evident from many unquestionable Texts of Scripture that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers fully the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have said is the sence of the place and the reading of Aquila As for Criticks I highly honour them who have really endeavour'd to find out the true sence of the difficult places of Scripture I own Grotius in particular to have been a Man of great learning But to criticise in Texts which are plain and easie and to torture the words of the Holy Writers to make them bear with notions altogether new and unknown to antiquity I think to be insufferable I am perswaded that this Psalm was never intended for Solomon by the argument of the ancient Jews that the 3 4 and 5. verses which represent a fighting and a conquering Prince can never be made to agree to one whose name expresses and whose life was spent in a profound peace The 110 Psalm is understood of the Messias by the Thargum and most of the old Rabbins That it was so by the Jews in Christ's time appears by his publick appealing to the authority of this Psalm That it is an eminent Prophecy of Christ is evident by his own assertion Matt. 22.43 44. St. Peter proves from thence that he is both Lord and Christ Acts. 2.34 35 36. The Author of the Epistle to the Heb. draws from thence most of his Arguments Heb. 1.13 and 5.6 20. and 7.1 and fol. ver And indeed offer no violence to the Psalm but take what it plainly presents It looks more like a revelation of the new then a Prophecy of the old dispensation The first verse expresses clearly the Divinity of J. C. The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou at my right hand One Divine Person is reveal'd to David speaking to another The Lord saying to My Lord. The argument of Christ is irrefragable If the Christ is no more than the Son of David If he has no other nature than that which he draws from him How comes God to call him Lord in that revelation which he made of him The second verse shews his regal dignity that power which he has over all The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion rule thou in the midst of thy enemies The third his pre-existence before all created beings and consequently a being in God and from God which can be no other way than by a communication of the Divine Essence From the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth Or as the old Latin Interpreter St. Chrysostom on this Psalm St. Jerom on the 22. of Matt. Ante
he was the expected Saviour then a lively application of this Text to his disciples Go and shew John again those things you do hear and see The blind receive their sight The lame walk the lepers are cleans'd The deaf hear The dead are raised up the Poor have the Gospel preach't to them He is God that should come He is God that should do this Christ is come and has done all this What consequence is more natural than that he is truly God To this these Gentlemen answer Brief Hist pag. 20. 1st That it does not appear that our Saviour intended to quote the words of the Prophet 2ly That admitting he did God is only said to come to the Jews in his Ambassador Jesus Christ And because in him and by him he gave sight to the blind c. They cite for this Joh. 14.10 Act. 10.38 To the 1st Whether Christ intended it or not is not at all material What we have to do is to prove that the Prophecy is fullfill'd in him If it is which is undeniable then he is the God who was to come and work these miracles in the behalf of mankind But that he intended it will appear not only from the exact correspondency of the Text but also from the constant tradition of the Jews who understood this place of the Messias and from it concluded that he was to work Miracles It was natural therefore in the Baptist who could not be ignorant of Christ's stupendous conception by which he was design'd to his Miraculous performances to send and ask whether he was he that was to come and as natural to Christ to give John no other answer than that those things were done by him by which the World was to be convinc'd that the Messias was come The 2d that God is come to the Jews in his Ambassador and Messenger Christ Jesus is a flat denyal to an express Text. The Prophet speaks of an immediate coming of a personal appearance of a Mighty expectation through the whole world He who is to come to appear to remove that expectation by his glorious presence is call'd our God Our God shall come he shall come If this be no more than to appear by his Messenger a less Prophet would have serv'd the turn Such vehement and positive expressions can never agree with so poor a shift Nor is it at all reconcilable with the opinion of the Jews who were so far perswaded that the Messias was a divine person and that he was the God spoken of here that several of their Doctors have thought from the last verse of this Chapter that he should actually deliver them who were already in the place of Eternal Torments But what an unlucky strain is the citation of Joh. 14.10 The Father that dwells in me he does the works And Act. 10.38 God was with him Who doubts that God was present to the Holy Jesus who doubts that God was with him since we contend with all the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian Church that the Eternal word of the Father assum'd his nature The citation of St. John absolutely destroys what they would infer from it Christ tells his Disciples that if they had known him they had known the Father also Philip upon this begs that he would shew them the Father Christ Answers he that has seen me has seen the Father He gives presently the reason of the Answer I am in the Father and the Father in me That is there is in us a distinction of Persons He is the Father I am the Son There is an Unity of nature I am in him and he is in me This is not my own Assertion The Father that dwels in me he does the works The works that the Father does in me are a proof of what I say He resumes the whole Argument Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me Or else believe me for the very works sake Believe me who say that it is so with us But if thou will not believe upon my own Authority be convinc'd by those Miraculous Operations which are an invincible proof of what I say The 40th Chapter of Isaias is to the same purpose only it seems more plain and express It has besides the unanimous consent of the Jews who understand it to be a Prophecy of the Messias Christ is represented here as our God in such expressions as shew the whole Oeconomy of the Gospel and are applicable to no Mortal Man So great a truth is usher'd in with a splendid Preface Verse 3 4 5. by which the four Evangelists have prov'd the Mission of John the Baptist the foreruner of Christ in which we have the advantage that the proof of the one is a proof of the other O Jerusalem that bringest good tidings lift up thy Voice with strength ...... say to the Cities of Judah behold your God Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand ...... He shall feed his flock like a shepherd He shall gather the Lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom Christ then is the Lord God seen by the Cities of Judah To him the character of strength does agree who was to conquer the Prince of this World Joh. 12.31 To him does that of the Shepherd answer exactly who said of himself Joh. 10.11 I am the good shepherd of whom St. Paul said Heb. 13.20 that he is the great shepherd of the sheep and St. Peter 1. pet 2.25 The shepherd and Bishop of our Souls Nor can it be so much as pretended here that God came in his Ambassador and Messenger Christ Jesus That wild notion has not so much as the least place here The Lord God who was to come was to be seen by the Cities of Judah He was to be preceded and have his ways prepar'd by the Illustrious Forerunner The Baptist who was invested in that glorious office was on that very account call'd Luk. 2.67 The Prophet of the Highest Let any one compare candidly these expressions The Lord God and the Highest Esay says the Lord God will come Zacharias says And thou child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways The Baptist was the immediate Prophet of Christ Christ was the Lord whose ways he was to prepare That Lord is the Highest whose Prophet he was and the Lord God who was to be seen and whose ways were to be prepar'd This is another place which these Gentlemen have taken no notice of and so have said nothing to it The 45th of Esay is wholly taken up to prove the unity of the divine nature v. 6.18 22. I am the Lord and there is none else I am God and there is none else opposing in this the vanity and multiplicity of the Gods of the Heathen As a consequence of that Unity the Almighty challenges the praises and adorations of all his Creatures v. 23. I have sworn by my self that
the confession of their Adversaries Some of them had preserv'd the gift of miracles which expir'd soon after Such an assertion had it not been true would have better become a pack of Villains than Holy and Reverend Men. 2ly How durst the Nicence Fathers declare this to be the Faith and Anathematise whosoever was against that sacred wise Divine and Catholick Faith had this Faith been new and unknown to the Fathers before nay had a contrary Faith obtain'd then in the Christian World This is a monstruous supposition that within 300 Years after Christ the Nicene Fathers should presume to obtrude the belief of and declare a Doctrine to be Faith which the Primitive Fathers were not so much as acquainted with To give more strength to this and prevent an objection which perhaps may have some colour and occasion another Criticism I freely own that not only the Arrians but even some of the Orthodox complain'd that the words Consubstantial and Consubstantiality were new and unscriptural But this confirms what I have said the newness and unscripturalness of the words but not of the sence being asserted They agreed in the truth and antiquity of the Doctrine but only differ'd about these two words which by being new and unscriptural were not thought so fit to express it I beg your pardon for insisting so long upon this But I was forc't to it 1st Because this very place of that Letter you have often urg'd to me 2ly To shew that how great Criticks soever we are we must be just and equitable and value reasons above Criticisms If these Gentlemen write for the Unlearned they are much out of the way these things are above their reach And if for the Learned they must own that this has not made one Learned Man of their side It is a sort of Chicane which Men of sence abhor 6ly These Gentlemen would have us prove those Terms by Scriptures which we own to be unscriptural They challenge us to find in the New Testament the word Godman Trinity Incarnation nay whole Propositions in Terminis The Author of the Letter now cited pag. 10. pretends it as a great Argument of their side that Tertullian is the first amongst the Latins and Clemens Alexand. amongst the Greeks who first us'd the word Trinity We might as well ask and with as little reason where is the word Vnity in respect of God or Sacrament or Hierarchy and several more which all the World receives and yet are no Scriptural words If we do but find the things exprest by the words as that God is one that there is Baptism and the Lord's Supper that there is an order of Men appointed to administer holy things the words are a natural consequence and founded in the things themselves Is it not highly unjust to ask us where we find a Trinity if we can prove three Divine Persons That besides the Father whom they acknowledge to be God the Son also and the Holy Spirit is God To wonder at the word Eternal Generation since if we prove Christ's Pre-existence and Pre-eternity He cannot be the Son of God but by way of Eternal Generation To stare at the word Incarnation as such an unheard of thing since if Christ is God and yet has taken our nature He must be Incarnate These are poor mean and a sort of Mob difficulties These Grievances being consider'd I beg nothing but what is equitable 1st I beg that if we prove the thing in question that is the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy spirit we may have no quarell about the words Trinity and Incarnation 2ly That no particular Interpretation of any Protestant Author may be brought against us as Interpretation either of our Church or any other considerable body of Protestants 3ly That if a Text is capable of a various reading and of a double sence that sence and reading may be preserv'd which is prov'd to have been the ancient reading and the sence generally receiv'd in the Churches of God A sence new and unknown to all the Ages of the Church cannot be the sence and that possession which we and all Christian Societies are in of those Texts cannot be disturb'd without something more forcible and authoritative than the witty fancy of an Interpreter 4ly I beg that the Fathers may be heard as Witnesses of an unquestionable integrity and that this at least may be a real prejudice against these Gentlemen that they have not only oppos'd the Faith of their Age but also that of times past 5ly That a Criticism alone the doubting of a Book the denying of a place the wrangling about a Particle without some considerable reason to back it may not be look't upon as an Answer 6ly That not only some one particular Text which we alledge be consider'd but that all our Texts be taken together with the weight of the important reasons which inforce the belief of our Mysteries This granted I conceive that it is no difficult matter to convince a candid Opposer that the New Testament is clear for the Divinity of Christ We will begin by that which is the foundation of our Holy Religion Matt. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is the ancient profession of our Faith and ingenuously acknowledg'd to be such by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milb pag. 16. He cites for this Tertullian de bapt c. 13. He might have cited Theodoret lib. 1. c. 12. St. Basil de Spir. sanct and Arrius himself who is a Witness of this in the Confession of his Faith given to Constantine and reported by Socrates lib. 1. c. 26. The Orthodox from this Text conclude three Persons to be spoken of These Gentlemen only two The Father who is God and the Son The Holy Ghost they will have to be no more than the Energy of the Father They are positive in the Brief Hist pag. 25. That neither the more learned of their Opposers nor the Fathers of the first 400 Years insist on this Text to prove the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit The matter of fact is a vast mistake and the very supposition is impossible This place having been cited so often by the Ancients and modern to prove the Persons of the Trinity must of course in their Hypothesis be an Argument for their Divinity They agree with us that the Son spoken of in the Text is Christ Jesus whom they will have to be the Son of God by all other titles but that of Nature and Essence They say of him that he is the Son of God by his miraculous Conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin By his Mission to preach to Men and reclaim them from their Sins by his Glorious Resurrection being begotten to a new Life and his Admission to a Blessed Immortality whence as God's deputy he is to come to judge the quick and the dead
and born before any created substance but the Father who has begot him Nor can any know the Father after the same manner but his living word who is both his wisdom and truth I remain SIR Your humble c. THE Fourth LETTER SIR HAving prov'd the Pre-Existence and Pre-Eternity of Christ his Antemundane and Eternal Being with God before he assum'd our Nature and shew'd how deficient or to use the very words of your Friends in the Brief Hist pag. 23. how harsh and strain'd their answers seem to be to the Texts produc't against them it remains to make good that Christ is God by a communication of the Divine Essence and that the Scriptures represent him to be God after a manner applicable to no Creature The first of these two assertions is grounded on Phil. 2.6 and foll v. The Apostle proposes Christ to the Philippians as a Divine instance of Humility and Obedience He makes both to consist in this that being really God and equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation but became Man and humbl'd himself to the Death of the Cross The words of the Text are clearer than any Commentary v. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God The form of God is here the Nature and Essence of God For though in some other places of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Form signifies no more than an Image or a personal appearance yet in this it is determin'd to this sence of Nature and Essence by the next Verse where the form of a Servant is certainly the Nature and Essence of a Servant The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting rather than being in the form of God as these Gentlemen will not deny that it should have been translated implies a real and an actual in-being in the Divine Nature St. Paul having asserted that Christ subsisted in the form of God says that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God an expression which crumbles to dust the poor notion of a God by deputation as Socinus has contriv'd and an inferior though an excellent God as Arrius For what inferior or deputed God dares claim an equality with the God of Heaven and Earth audet pariari Deo says Tertullian What Moses Solomon what Lord Lieutenant of a County or Mayor of a Town because the Scripture calls Magistrates Gods would pretend it to be no robbery to equal themselves with God The excessive humility of Christ appears then in this that though God and equal with God yet v. 7. He made himself of no reputation semetipsum exinanivit reads the Old Latin exhausted himself says Tertullian contr Marci more agreeable to the Original he lessen'd he empty'd himself He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men both so Highly Disproportionate to the Infinite Being of God v. 8. He carry'd yet the humiliation to a more stupendious degree For being found in fashion as a man he humbl'd himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross There is then not only a plain assertion but a visible Union of the two Natures There is a God becoming a Servant and a Man and suffering for us in that humanity which he was pleas'd to assume The Author of the Brief History pag. 37. excepts against this He says 1st That it cannot be the design of the former part of these words to intimate that Christ is God because 't is added at last that God has exalted him and given him a name that is above every name These words plainly distinguish Christ from God as one who is not himself God but exalted by God 2ly That this has oblig'd several judicious and learned Trinitarians to interpret the whole Context of Christ as he is a Man 3ly He explains pag. 38. being in the form of God only to be like God by a communication of the Divine Power 4ly He does not translate as we do thought it not robbery to be equal with God but committed not robbery to be equal with God i. e. did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. and foll says almost the same things only he brings in a Tale and a Proverb The Tale is of a Countryman who without a remnant of Greek or Latin did yet puzzle his Vicar by asking whether It was in the Original whether the true reading was thought it not robbery or only thought not robbery to which last the Vicar yielding the Countryman was satisfy'd that this Text did destroy the Divinity of Christ The Proverb is that every like is not the same and therefore that since Christ was in the form of God that is like God as Adam and all other Men he cannot be God He says further that it is both Morally and Physically impossible that God should do any of these things and undergo any of these changes He observes and that Socinus had done before that if Christ is equal with God he cannot be God since nothing can be equal to it self He cites Christopher Sandius who has made a considerable Collection of Authors Fathers as well as modern who confess that this Text is to be understood of Christ as Man and not as God The Answerer to two Discourses of one Monsieur la Motté done out of French repeats all this in other words Only he is so confident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be translated thought it not robbery that pag. 11. he sends us to the School Boys and pag. 8. to the Lexicon I hope they are Persons of too much judgment to take this for an Answer that Christ is not God because God has exalted him and God cannot exalt God For all that is or ever was pretended from thence is not that God has exalted God But God has exalted that humane nature that Man Christ Jesus assum'd by the word to the participation of the honour due to God That other sort of reasoning is as bad as this that if he is equal with God He cannot be God because nothing can be equal to it self I suppose they mean because equality implies comparison and comparison excludes identity This is certainly false in Geometry and false again in Divinity But admitting the Proposition as it lyes It is nothing at all to the Question The design of the Apostle is not to compare Christ with God or a God with another God But only to shew that Christ is that supreme God who humbled himself to that degree as to take upon him the form of a Servant Now what more significant sort of expression could be us'd than this that though he was God and had reason to think all the perfections and glory of the Divine Nature to be his own which is the full and only importance of being equal with God yet he humbl'd himself to death c. I hope also that they are
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
no solid satisfaction I have endeavour'd to walk in the old way and aim'd at these two things First To prove the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour and of the Holy Spirit which proof really implies all the rest For if the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God The great objection is answer'd that Three Divine Persons destroy the Vnity of God which is the state of the question Since if it does appear that it is so there is a Trinity of Persons without a destruction of that Vnity which is inseparable from the Divine Nature Secondly I have attempted to shew the insufficiency of these Gentlemen's Answers to those substantial Texts on which our Belief rests For I must beg leave to say that it is almost incredible that such thin ill-built unwary Answers should drop from Persons undoubtedly of great Learning and it is a strong confirmation of those very proofs when mighty Adversaries have so little to say to them If the whole is not mannag'd as it should be I hope that the Sacred Cause which I maintain will not suffer for it and if the Person for whose sake these Letters are written is not satisfy'd by what I have done It is his and my Misfortune that I can do no better Whatsoever is in these Papers is with the humblest submission offer'd to the Judgment and Censure of the Church of England THE First LETTER SIR I Have read the Books which you were pleas'd to lend me with as much application as I could and am now to discharge my promise of giving you my sence of them I confess it is somewhat a hard Province and in particular to me who ever was an Enemy to disputes in Religion and fully perswaded that the only way to unite dissenting Christians is not so much to dispute as to live up to the duties of a Religion which we all confess to be as the God who gave it holy and just This would have oblig'd me to be silent But since it has pleas'd God to make you a part of my Care and that you desire me to resolve your Doubts against the Catholick Doctrine which you say you are most willing to embrace if you can be satisfied that it is true I will endeavour to give you the best information I can leaving all to the candor of your nature and to that solid judgment which I have observ'd in you I design'd once to have follow'd every tract which you put in my hands But I was disswaded from it First By the length and tediousness of the work Secondly By observing that your Friends say almost the same things over and over again These Gentlemen having the way to turn the same Argument into several shapes and put their thoughts every day in a new dress As to their abilities their greatest Enemies must confess that they are not ordinary They are Men of learning Their stile is correct exact and florid They have the misfortune of Origen of whom an Ancient said that Vbi bene nemo melius ubi male nemo pejus None can do better where they are in the right none worse where they are in the wrong I find also that sometimes those fine Pens are dipt in Gall that they are not sparing of the sharpest invectives and that laying aside their fine and Gentlemen-like way of writing they become Mortals again and grow acquainted with all sorts of Sarcasms The Preface to Mr. Milbourn is sharp and scurrilous The Reflexion on both the Universities and the skill of the Bottle do not much grace the Dispute The Trinity of Marcus Tullius Cicero by reason of an illustration of the word person by Dr. Wallis The Trinity of the Mobile of ignorant and lazy Doctors The Sabellian Targonry of Dr. South Consider on the Explic of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 11. might have been laid aside and the pretended Wit that it amounts to reserv'd for a better use Give me leave also to admire how men who are willing to be thought pious as well as learned can turn solid Reasonings into Railleries and disprove an Argument by ridiculing it Indeed Tertullian in his Apologetick asks whether he shall laugh at the vanity of the Heathen and their Rites or whether he shall reproach them with their blindness Rideam vanitatem qut exprobrem caecitatem But it is quite another thing when a Writer pretends to answer men of Reason and Learning and when the Objections are really strong and solid Not to multiply instances I will only point at that in a Letter of Resolution pag. 3 4 5. The Author had objected to himself that the Trinity and Incarnation are incomprehensible Mysteries and that when the matter is of meer Revelation it is not to be judg'd by either Reason or Sence He proposes several things which are really above both This is answer'd by making a Mystery of that which is none the assertion of Christ Joh. 15.1 I am the true Vine and the notion of God-Man is ridicul'd by that of Christ-Vine or Vine-man or Viney man Dr. Wallis having asserted That the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are more than three divine Attributes and that though perhaps their Personality may not so exactly be understood by the notion of Personality which we are acquainted with in created Beings yet there is certainly somewhat more than Attributes They make a perpetual descant upon three Somewhats or three I know not what 's the Vnreason of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5 6. Dr. South in his Animadversions Chap. 8. pag. 241. having explain'd the Modes of Being and having told us That a Mode is properly a certain habitude of some Being Essence or Thing whereby the said Essence or Being is determin'd to some particular state or condition which barely of it self it should not be determin'd to That a Mode in things spiritual and immaterial seems to have much the like reference to such kinds of Beings as a posture has to a body to which it gives some difference or distinction without adding any new Entity or Being to it and having told us also pag. 242. lin 4. that no one thing can agree both to God and the Creature by a perfect Vnivocation which the Answerer has I hope not wilfully overlookt and which is enough to prevent any just exception against it Then Consider on the Explic. pag. 21. we have a story of Don Quixot and of Dulcinea del Toboso pag. 22. He makes the grave and learned Doctor to answer That the three Divine Persons are the Substance of God in three Gambols or postures A little below he thinks it should seem that the Faithful must put their trust in there postures Thus the Declamation goes on Posture A begets Posture B Posture A and B breathe Posture C. I appeal to these Gentlemen themselves whether this is the way to vindicate Religion and keep men from Atheism Whether they seek to instruct or divert their Reader Whether such petulant Sallies of Wit are
has been us'd by all the Fathers is the only method to come to the Knowledge of the truth This will be prov'd by the reading of both Testaments For if those things are spoken of Christ which can relate to none but Man and at the same time those things are spoken of him which belong to none but to God shall we presume to separate what God has united shall we run to the extreams of the Old Hereticks who would not admit of a real humane nature in Christ and offer'd an incredible violence to all those texts which represent him as a Man Or as the Socinians who denying his Divinity put to the torture all those places which speak of him as God To take off at once the authority of the Old Testament and make ineffectual those glorious predictions of Christ which tell us what he was before he was in the World They confidently assert in the brief History pag. 22. That the more learned and Judicious Trinitarians confess that the â—rinity and the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit are not indeed taught in the Scriptures of the Old Testament but are a revelation made in the new Nay 't is the more general opinion of the Divines of all sects and perswasions They cite for this some Authors and amongst them Tertulian adversus Prax. Which I would beg of them to read more exactly It is the fault of these Gentlemen to be vastly large in their citations and to pretend to have Authors of their side who are really against them The mistakes I hope are not willful but they are somewhat frequent Neither the ancient or modern Doctors ever said that the Old Testament had nothing in it by which Men might be induc'd to the notice of a Trinity of persons in God and of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit They have said indeed that the Jews had no explicite or clear Knowledge nor no explicite or direct belief of those mysteries Which is true The revelation of the Trinity in Vnity being the previledge of the Gospel and a considerable part of that Grace and truth which came by Christ Jesus 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 How could the Old Testament be the form of and the introduction to the new if those truths were not adumbrated in the one which are clearly reveal'd and explain'd in the other How comes it to be a maxim receiv'd amongst the Old Jewish Doctors that whatsoever is recorded in the Law in the Prophets and in the sacred Books Indicant sapientiam point at Christ the ineffable Wisdom or Word How does St. Paul lay this as an Aphorism Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes How comes he before Agrippa and Festus solemnly to declare that he says nothing but what Moses and the Prophets have assur'd should be How come the Apostles and Evangelists to take most of their arguments from the Writings of the Prophets St. Austin treats this at large against Faustus lib. 12. c. 46. Eusebius Praep. Evang. l. c. 3. St. Cyprian Praefat. ad Quirin tells him that the sacred Writings of the Old Testament are of great use ad prima fidei lineamenta formanda To form the first lineaments of our Faith Origen against Celsus lib. 2. calls this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most strong demonstration and Lactantius Instit lib. 5. c. 3. Disce igitur si quid tibi cordis est non solum idcirco à nobis Christum creditum Deum quia mirabilia fecit sed quia vidimus in eo facta esse omnia quae nobis annunciata sunt vaticinio Prophetarum Be sensible then if thou hast any honesty or conscience left that Christ is believ'd by us to be God not olny because he has done miraculous things but because we have seen all the things fulfill'd in him which have been announc'd to us by the Prophets Non igitur suo Testimonio cui enim de se dicenti potest credi sed Prophetarum Testimonio qui omnia quae fecit passus est multo ante cecinerunt fidem Divinitatis accepit It is not then by the Testimony which he has given of himself for who can be believ'd who Witnesses for himself but by the Testimony of the Prophets who have Prophesi'd long before all that he has done and suffer'd He has receiv'd that Men should believe his Divinity The first proof which offers it self out of the Old Testament is that expression of the Almighty Gen. 1.26 Let us make Man in our image after our likeness It is undenyable that in the text as well as in the translation God is pleas'd to speak in the plural number And as we cannot admitt a multiplicity of Gods in a nature which is so entirely one so we cannot but see a kind of consultation in the Divine Persons It is visible that God does not speak to himself or to any created being who cannot concurr in any manner to the creation of Man It being an incommunicable property of the Divine nature And it is an impiety to think that God should speak in the air and to no purpose What is meant then by the Vs but that Son by whom he made all things and without whom nothing was made that was made Joh. 1.3 and that Holy Spirit which moved upon the Jaâ—e of the Waters Gen. 1.2 This the Fathers urg'd agâ—iâ—st the Arrians Thâ—se Gentlemen answer Brief History pag. 8. 1st That this is done according to the customs of Princes and great persons in all languages that is in an oratory and figurative way 2ly pag. 15. that God speaks to the Angels who were present not as adjutants but spectators of his work The presence of Angels is prov'd out of Job 38.7 This second reason is singular and the verse to prove the presence of Angels strangely dragg'd in But it ruins it self For if the Angels are not adjutants to the work How comes God to say Let us make Man This does not at all reach the difficulty The first is as bad that thiâ— is done according to the Custom of Princes It is strange that God should have laid the Custom aside in the formation of all the rest of the Creatures and us'd it only 〈◊〉 â—hat of Man For to say that it is the same as v. 3. let there be light v. 6. let there be a firmameâ—â— c. it is only a gloss and a comment against which the sence of the words stands unmoveable It is stranger 〈…〉 and Custom which in its 〈…〉 the Majesty of any divine 〈…〉 in a way which to these 〈…〉 to the unity of his nature I farely ask whether it was custom which caus'd God to alter the manner of his expression in all the Verses before or else a design to speak somewhat in this mysterious to us The first is
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
whether Christ has seen Abraham The Jews say thou hast not for thou art not yet fifty Years Old Thou art much posterior to him But I tell you says Christ I am so far from being posterior that I am anterior to him Before he was I am Now we must judge of the answer by the question The one ought to have relation to the other or else it is all cross purposes which must not so much as be thought of here To deal candidly do the Jews ask Christ whether he is so much later then Abraham in time or only in the decree of God It is certainly in time Thou art not yet fifty Years Old Therefore Christ speaks also of a priority of time and not of decree Before he was I am Besides admitting of that decree Christ could not have said that he was in the decree before Abraham For Abraham in whose seed all nations were to be blessed was in the decree before the seed it self Abraham's coming into the World was in the decree before Christ's appearing in the Flesh This Author has cited St. Austin but neither his words nor the place where they are to be found If he means in his tracts on the Gospel of St. John He will find that he has made use of this Text to confirm an Hypothesis which runs through all his writings that God having decreed to save Mankind in the Mediator Jesus He is the first of the Elect the first of the decree and in that sence consequently before Abraham and all Men besides but this still upon the supposition of the Union of the two Natures in his Person which if these Gentlemen had observ'd they durst not so much as have nam'd him nothing in the World overthrowing their Doctrine so effectually as this The 1. Pet. 1.20 and Rev. 13.8 are altogether foreign to the question They regard his Office but not his Person His mediation in the behalf of us Sinners but not his Nature The 3d Part of the Answer that the Jews did not apprehend Christ and that he did not intend or care they should is a Proposition which if admitted ruines the whole Oeconomy of the Gospel It makes the God of Incomprehensible Mercies to be guilty of the most refin'd sort of Cruelty to proffer the Patient a Medicine which must undoubtedly Cure him and at the same time to make him incapable of taking it Certainly they cannot but see the horrour of such an Answer Before I leave this Text I must take notice of the words of the Author spoken of Abraham with so much caution and to so little purpose He saw it says he as coming not as present He foresaw as he desir'd the time that it should be The nature of Prophecy is to make present to the sight of the Prophet that which by being future is wholly out of his reach It is that which makes it miraculous But in the case of Abraham he did not only desire but had a clear Revelation of the day of Christ He saw it and the ineffable prospect of the glory of the Messias and of the Infinite Blessings Mankind was to receive by him fill'd him with an incredible Joy This is the true sence of the place But what can more substantially evince the Pre-existence of Christ before all things than that all things are created by him That he has given Being to whatsoever exists That he is not only their Creator but also their Preserver and that whatsoever exists is maintain'd and supported by him What will become of that poor assertion which fixes his Existence to the first moment of his Conception if it can be made plain that he was before any thing that is and existed before any thing did exist For the effect naturally supposes the Pre-existence of the cause Any work that is done implies the being of the Workman who did it and if the World is created by Christ If the Scripture fully and clearly teaches him to be the Creator of the World The Socinian foundation must be sandy and ruinous The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1st Chap. v. 2. says positively that Christ made the World He has in these last dayes spoken to us by his Son by whom also he made the Worlds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But here we are stop't short by the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 41. who tells us That Grotius the irrefragable Grotius says that we translate ill by whom and that we should read for whom That it was a Maxim amongst the Jews that the World was made for the Messias If this fails he tells you that others insist that this is an allegory that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated Ages by which are meant the Gospel Ages or times Thus sinking Men grasp at any thing that appears let it be shadow or substance With what considence can Men substitute a reading contrary to all the Translations extant which read by whom Per quem says the old latin the Syriac and all the Fathers To prove the truth of their Translation they have an empty notion that it was believ'd amongst the Jews that the World was made for the Messias which indeed is the opinion of a few late Rabbins follow'd in this by Grotius who in his interpretation of the Scripture has wholly departed from the ancient Jews Whereas if these Gentlemen desire it It will be made out that it is the constant tradition of the Jews that the World was made by the word the Son of God This destroys the Allegory to all intents and purposes and really it is so raw and so dragg'd that it easily destroys it self If there were no place but this for the Creation of the World or of the Worlds or of the Ages for these are all one they might with more colour fly from the letter to the Trope But we may say that there is scarce any thing in the Scripture more inculcated than this Through Faith says St. Paul Heb. 11.3 We understand that the Worlds were fram'd by the word of God Heb. 1.8 But unto the Son he says thy Thorne O God is for ever and ever ....... and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth and the Heavens are the work of thy hands They shall perish but thou remainest and they shall wax old as does a garment and as a vesture shall thou fold them up and they shall be chang'd but thou art the same and thy Years shall not fail There is then 1st A general assertion of the Apostle We believe that all that is has been made by the word and this as a true Creator without any pre-existent matter So that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear 2ly He brings the Almighty speaking to the Word to his Son and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth Is this a Trope an Allegory or a reality Is it a real or a Metaphorical founding of the earth
contrary He speaks of the place where the Gospel was written but not a word of the occasion of St. John's writing it The testimony of Origen is resolv'd into that of Eusebius who reports it and that of Eusebius himself is nothing against St. Jerom since the Author of the answer owns that the same Eusebius relates this writing of the Gospel of St. John to assert the Divinity of Christ from the institutions of Clem. Alex. Who is in the right then The Author of the Answer who says that St. Jerom cited an Ecclesiastical History which he never saw or St. Jerom who by the Author 's own confession has taken these words out of Clemens preserv'd by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History The case is very plain The Author of the Answer to Milbourn is mistaken But then he must fall foul upon Clemens Alexand. an ancient Writer and a Learned Man He makes Photius upon whose Characters of Men no Critick ever rely'd to give him a very ill one Not observing that Eusebius accuses him of neither Impiety nor Error and that Clemens Alex. has said nothing in this but what most of the Fathers have said not indeed as to the particular matter of fact of St. John's being desir'd to write but as to the other that the design and principal part of his Gospel is to assert the Divinity of our Saviour Is it not on this that St. Cyprian Lactantius Tertullian Gregory the Nazianzene St. Chrysostom Basil the Great have insisted Was not this very Chapter admir'd both by Christians and Heathens Was it not the Hammer of Arrianism in the Council of Nice as afterwards of Nestorianism of Eutychianism and of all the unhappy Sects which disturb'd the peace of the Church But that cannot be says the Answerer pag. 22. The Gospel it self will best decide the Question If St. John has more overthrown the Divinity of Christ than confirm'd it then certainly he has not writ this Gospel to assert it Right but how will this be prov'd He thinks that it will easily be done by shewing out of this Gospel that Christ is the Messenger of God that the Father taught him and commanded him Joh. 17.1 2 3. Joh. 12.49 and 14.10 c. This I confess proves the humanity but how does it destroy the Divinity of Christ How is it against the design of St. John to delineate him truly God because he has represented him truly Man He is not God because he is Man is an ill way of arguing The Arrians themselves were too sharp to fetch their Arguments against the Divinity of the Saviour from his humanity Prove him only a Man a meer Man without any other nature or else all this reasoning is a begging of the Question But what is all this to the accusation laid on St. Jerom St. John has shew'd in his Gospel the Humanity of Christ Therefore St. Jerom is in the wrong to assure that he was intreated by the Asian Bishops to speak more expresly to his Divinity This is at best a sort of a very slender consequence Thus it is Sir that the Socinians are baffl'd by false and senceless translations supported by fictions and legends exclaims this Author He should have said thus it is Sir that the Socinians are mistaken Their zeal for their opinion transporting them too far Thus it is that two Eminent Fathers are abus'd who were the admiration of their Age and the veneration of ours The truth is this Chapter pinches so hard that these Gentlemen are always uneasy at its least approaches They have done all that Men can do to make it ineffectual having left nothing unattempted no turns of wit no strains of fancy no observations no Criticisms no Shifts no Evasions But all to no purpose For truth is great and irresistible it is plain and evident it comes from God and easily overcomes all the oppositions Men make against it Joh. 1.1 and foll In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God The same was in the beginning with God That this is spoken of Christ and that Christ is the word is agreed of all hands The first assertion then of the Evangelist is that Christ was before all things that he existed before they had a beginning There is a great Emphasis in the word was which does not express here a created a dependent being but a Superior an Eternal and Divine Nature Thus Jehovah render'd by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is gives the true notion of God and thus it is said of the word that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers explain'd it did subsist in a most eminent way and incommunicable to a Creature To make this good St. John says that he was with God He could not exist in any Creature whatever let it be never so great noble or perfect because he existed before any thing was Created before the World was Joh. 17.5 He could not be in time because no time was yet when he was Therefore he was in God and with God from Everlasting Who before all Ages says the great Ignatius a Man of the Apostolick times Epist ad Magnes was with the Father and was manifested in the last times The unchangeable word says St. Austin Epis 49. quest 2. residing unchangeably with the unchangeable Father From thence the Greek Fathers understood the admirable description of wisdom to be of no other then the Eternal word the Son of God Prov. 8.22 and those expressions I was set up from Everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was before his works of old when there were no depths I was brought forth I was by him I was by his sides says the Chaldee Interpreter all these expressions they understood to be no other then this and the word was with God This is so plain that I cannot but wonder at the Stir these Gentlemen make about the words Inexistence Eternal Generation Personality as if they were hard and unknown terms the result of Men's Fancies and a Jargon as they are pleas'd to call them The word or the Son for they own these words to be Synonymous in Scripture is said to be from ever with God Therefore he exists in God and I think this is Inexistence A Father and a Son naturally and of necessity suppose a Generation or else they can be neither Father nor Son This is Generation The Father and the Son are both Eternal therefore the Generation must be so too But the Father is not the Son nor the Son is not the Father therefore there is a foundation for Personality The Evangelist proceeds and lays this 3d Axiom declaring the Divinity as he had done before the Eternity of the word and the word was God What can be more express or positive What consequence can be more natural The word was in the beginning or ever the Earth and the World was He was with God and existed in him Therefore he must be
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
that nature The Place cited out of St. Peter has no relation at all to this That of St. Paul to the Corinthians is as much foregin to it being only an excellent Metaphor to express our future state That to Timothy is indeed more to the matter in hand but the Apostle has prevented the objection by speaking positively of God's decree in respect of our Election Who has call'd us with a holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose ... which word the Author was pleas'd to overlook What has been said will give light to some difficulties which these Gentlemen judge to be unanswerable The 1st is taken from this very Chapter Joh. 17.3 and this is life Eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent The Author of the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 22. is positive that the Father is call'd the true God exclusively to any other and that nothing can more effectually evince that Christ is not God but only God's Ambassador This is one of those very many Texts says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 5. which directly affirm that only the Father is God The objection is not new It was made by the Arrians in the Council of Nice and exploded by the Fathers The truth is these Holy Men never understood the words as fixing and restraining the Deity to the Father with exclusion to the Son and the Holy spirit nor their sence to have any regard to either of them or else this would absolutely have decided the Controversy Nor is it comprehensible that the Fathers before the Council of Nice would have spoken so fully to the Divinity of Christ or that those of the Council of Nice and the Fathers after them and the whole Christian World durst have embrac't it as an essential part of our Faith if they had look't upon the sence of this Text to be no other than what is pretended by these Gentlemen The Good the wise the Learned cannot be conceiv'd to have willfully run into an errour contrary to the open and known sence of such a place of Scripture They constantly understood these words The Father the only true God to be spoken not exclusively to the two other persons but in opposition to the Gods of the Heathen those false Deities which had usurp't amongst them the place of the true Nor is it unusual in Scripture by the Father to mean not so much the first Divine Person as the Deity in general I will not spend time in setting down the many ways that this Text may be read in or what order the words might be made capable of to take off their pretended inconsistency with the Christian Hypothesis of three Persons subsisting in the same Divine Nature St. Basil and St. Chrysostom have effectually done it and shew'd how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have render'd only is rather comprehensive than exclusive in the dialect of Scripture I have a plain and obvious reason why the only True God must be understood in the sence of the Fathers in opposition to false Gods and not in exclusion of Christ and the Holy spirit and that is that Christ in Scripture is call'd the true God and the only Lord God which can never be if the only true God here must be restrain'd to the Father as these Gentlemen would have it 1 Joh. 5.2 and we know that the Son of God is come and has given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille he is the true God and Eternal life I take this to be positive and decisive that the only true God cannot be understood in relation to the Son or the Holy spirit since the Son is also call'd true God No says the Author of the Brief Hist p. 43. This is a very negligent translation and no sence can be made of the words The latter part of the Text ought to have been render'd we are in him that is true by his Son Jesus Christ and not in his Son Jesus Christ This Text plainly denys that Chirst is the true God The outlandish Socinians had made a miserable exception to this Text which these Gentlemen thought fit to forsake as ruinous But this is to the full as bad The translation is directly against them Therefore it is negligent and nonsensical The translators cannot be made to speak as they would have them Therefore they are careless and speak nonsence The particle in Jesus Christ ruines their opinion Therefore it must be by contrary to the Faith of all translations contrary to any possible construction of the place contrary to the sence of all Interpreters You see Sir how desperate is that cause which cannot support it self without these mean shifts and has nothing to oppose to a plain and deciding Text but the bold and presumptuous altering of a Particle I use these words which perhaps may seem too sharp because the thing of it self is so extraordinary and this Text in the original so infinitely clear that I durst give up the cause if of a thousand Translators strangers to the controversy any one does translate by and not in his Son Jesus Christ I think that Jud. 4. is much to be consider'd There is a description made of unhappy Men who are crept in unawares Their Character is to be ungodly to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and to deny the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ That the whole is spoken of Christ appears from the Greek construction of the Phrase from the singleness of the Article and the continuation of the Text without the least punctuation The whole running thus denying Jesus Christ who is the only Lord God and our Lord. This is so obvious that to prove it is to lose time It not only asserts the Divinity of Christ but also shews how vain is the pretence that in the disputed Text the only true God should exclude the Son or the holy spirit As if any rational Man durst infer from thence that because Christ is call'd the only Lord God Therefore the Father is neither Lord nor God These Gentlemen have taken no notice of this Text in any of their writings that I have seen and so have say'd nothing to it But yet because a proof must be clear and candid and remove if possible all objections what can be oppos'd to it amounts to this That the old latin Interpreter and some Greek Manuscripts of a considerable Authority do not read the word God and that Erasmus has translated not the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ But God who is the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ Erasmus and one or two more Modern Interpreters who with all the care imaginable have endeavour'd to obscure or prevert all those Texts which speak openly of the
not in earnest when they bring Sandius with his Catalogue of most Learned and Judicious Trinitarians since they cannot be ignorant that All the Greek Fathers concern'd in this dispute who understood I hope their own language better than any of us It being more than highly probable that the Author of the Brief History and of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn who are really accurate Writers can give a far better account of any English Phrase now in use and better understand the extent and importance of it than a Frenchman or a Dutchman who though never so Learned and Judicious will twelve or thirteen hundred Years hence Criticise Paraphrase and give another sence to that Phrase than what they gave themselves since I say all the Greek Fathers who understood the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought these words an undoubted and clear testimony of Christ's Divinity The natural impossibility of the thing is an old objection made to Lactantius and confuted by that Father Negant Deo dignum ut Homo fieri vellet .... ut passionibus ut doloribus sese ipse subjiceret They deny that it is worthy of God to become man and subject himself to Grief and Sufferings This is the constant mothod of these Gentlemen always to return to the How can it be It is not so because it is impossible We say it is possible because it is so and it is so because it is reveal'd It is dinsingenuous to be ever parting from the point in Question which is the Revelation to the manner of the thing it self which is above our reach All these things consider'd which really are not worth answering may not I have the liberty to tell your Friends what they said to Monsieur la Motté pag. 10. T' is a very thin Sophistry this when an Author leaves off to speak to the vulgar and would needs undertake in this very passage Phil. 2.6 7 8. to speak to the learned he should bring something more substantial to blind such Eyes as theirs In short the stress of the difficulty lies here Whether to be in the form of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifies the nature or only the likeness of God such as Adam and all other Men have And whether the Translation is right thought it not robbery to be equal with God That the form of God is the Divine Essence is evinc't from the Authority of the Greek Fathers Theodoret Basil St. Chrysostom Theophilact who not only spoke their own language but were Men of an admirable Eloquence and purity of speech And indeed if we consider the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting it cannot be otherwise It is against all the rules of Philosophy of sence of Speech if form is no more than an accidental form to use the word subsisting which implies of it self a communication participation or in-being in the same nature To say that a Man subsists in the form of a Man is not to say that he is like other Men or has the figure of a Man but that he is really a Man that he has human nature communicated to him To pretend that the form of God is only a communication of a Divine power of miracles c. If this flows from a communication of Essence as Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and in earth Joh. 14.10 The Father that dwells in me he does the works Act. 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approv'd of God amongst you by miracles .... which God did by him in the midst of you is a notion tolerable though very improper But if it is only a communication of a power foreign to us to which we have no relation and in which we are only instrumental such as was in Moses in the Prophets and Apostles is a ridiculous notion To subsist in a miraculous power that is to be a miraculous power is an irrational and unintelligible way of speaking The Great Erasmus then and the Illustrious Grotius from whom they have borrow'd this Explication are greatly and Illustriously mistaken To deal with candor I humbly beg what sence can be made of this Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God a Man made in the similitude of God as other Men are yet became Man for your sakes To say that Christ making himself of no reputation was the concealing of his Miracles as these Gentlemen interpret it is unreasonable and contrary to the Gospel His miraculous Birth of a Virgin his Star in the East his being reveal'd to the Shepherds by the Angels his being Preach't by the Baptist God owning him for his Son his doing good amongst all Men his miraculous works the raising of Lazarus The prodigious Eclipse at his Death the continual attendance of the multitudes upon him made him the most Famous Person in the World The Gospel wholly contradicts the injurious assertion Matt. 4.24 Matt. 9.31 and 14.1 Luk. 1.15 Mark 1.28 That thought it not robbery to be equal with God is truly translated I have this to Offer 1st That the Generality of the Latin Fathers render'd it thus and that no exception was made against it by the Arrians to whom they produc't this Text. 2ly That all the publick Authentick and receiv'd translations read it as we do 3ly That the It which this sharp-nos'd Countryman smelt to be wanting in the Text adds nothing to its force and that thought no robbery is as home to the question as thought it not robbery since the natural sence of the words the very first impression which they naturally give is that Christ did not think to be a Robber Guilty of Theft and Injustice in equalling himself to God The other being strain'd a sence of yesterday and invented in these latter times to serve a turn 4ly That the first part of the Verse who subsisting in the form of God makes that sence impossible for if he subsisted in the form or nature of God how could he who was God arrogate to himself to be God 5ly That the translation of these Gentlemen committed not robbery by equalling himself with God is a most notorious falsification of a Text. I will not send them to School Boys and Lexicons to know the sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civility and Breeding must never be Banish't from the hottest disputes I will only say en passant that Learned men use to Correct Lexicons and Dictionaries and not to be corrected by them But I appeal to themselves and beg of them to know 1st Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify all the World over Robbery And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought judg'd counted and therefore whether thought not counted not robbery to be equal with God is not an exact Translation 2ly I beg that they would produce any one Greek Author either Sacred or profane who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit robbery I pass by that other strange stroke of rendring to be
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
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