Doctor answers this Objection Now saith he this Argument is fallacious for tho Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the God-head the Equality and Sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of the Persons A Son is Equal to his Father by Nature but Inferior to him as his Son Now where is the Fallacy but in the Author's Answer His Comparison of a Father with his Son is short of his purpose for tho a Son be equal to his Father by Nature yet he is not equal to him in Authority and Power and therefore a Father is truly greater than his Son is his Head and can command him This is not meerly a Subordination of Order but of Power and Authority also But it is not so with the Father and Son in the Trinity they are not only equal by Nature in the Author's Hypothesis but in Power and Authority as they have the same Nature so they have the same Attributes whereby they are equal to one another in all Things Now if it be so how can the Father be said to be greater than the Son who is as great as himself How can he be called his Head which imports some Authority over Christ As appears from 1 Cor. 11. 3. But I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God It appears by this place that God is the Head of Christ as Christ is the Head of every Man and the Man the Head of the Woman Now Christ's being the Head of every Man imports some Power and Authority over every Man as the Man's being Head of the Woman imports a Power and Authority over the Woman and consequently God's being the Head of Christ must import an Authority and Power over Christ else the Comparison would be unreasonable fallacious and impertinent But I say how can God be called the Head of Christ in such a Sense if Christ be as Great and have as great Power and Authority as God has how can God be called his God To be ones God is as much as to be his Benefactor and his Protector according to the stile of Scripture but Christ being All-mighty and self-sufficient how can the Father be stiled his God that is his Benefactor and Protector I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God John 20. 17. My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Mat. 27. 46. How could Christ say these things on the Doctor 's Hypothesis for being God as well as the Father He must no less forsake himself than the Father forsook him and he might as well call himself his own God and complain of himself that he had forsaken himself Nay being himself Almighty God as well as the Father and being able to comfort himself in his Sufferings how comes he to invoke the Father or to call him his God for those Words plainly shew that He expected and desired from the Father the Assistance which He could not perform to Himself Furthermore how can we forbear conceiving Two Gods according to this Hypothesis Christ who invokes the Father is God the Father whom He invokes is God also consequently there are Two distinct Gods Can he that invokes and he that is invoked be one and the same Being I always thought that this supposed two several Beings Lastly If our Lord Christ were himself God how could any command him He has all the Power and all the Authority that the Father has He is no more subject to the Father than the Father to him nay the Father and He are but One God The Author goes on If the Father as I have explained it be original Mind and Wisdom the Son a Personal subsisting but reflex Image of the Father's Wisdom thô their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son And therefore thô I know such Texts as he alledges My Father is greater than I The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's humane Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to the Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and therefore the Father may be called his God Let us consider this Paragraph The Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom What Gibberish is this Has the Doctor found any where in Scripture that the Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom Why does he not speak the Language of Scripture If his Words have any Sense he means that the Father reflects upon his own Knowledge and Wisdom but how comes he to fancy that a reflected Wisdom or to reflect on ones own Wisdom is a Divine Person and an Intelligent Being One would think it only an Act of God to reflect upon his own Knowledg or other Perfections without dreaming of a Divine Person but Metaphysicians it seems have a clearer Sight than other People what is to others only an Act of God the Metaphysician discerns to be a Divine Person 2. The Original saith the Author is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son But the Superiority in the Trinity is only a Superiority of Order which can admit of no such Expressions as Greater than Christ the Head of Christ the God of Christ as I shewed before He sees he saith no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to Christ's Divine Person and his Relation to his Father because the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I will shew more particularly the ridiculousness of this Assertion by insisting upon the first of the Passages before cited as I have done upon the two others Our Saviour seeing his Disciples sorrowful because He had told them that He was going to his Father and being willing to comfort them and to lessen their Sadness tells them John 14. 18. If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go unto the Father For my Father is greater than I. One would think that Christ's meaning is That the Disciples should be glad to hear that he leaves the World to go to his Father because his Father being greater than He would undoubtedly crown his Obedience with an immortal Glory and a Name which is above every Name But this Author has found out another Sense which is worth the observing If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go to the Father for the Father is greater than I that is to say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity This would have been a very unsignificant Comfort Be not sorrowful for my leaving this World and going to the Father For the Father is the first Person of the Trinity Yet
all Men grant Let the Author abate a little of his Confidence Is an Ironical Answer sufficient to confute a good and a strong Argument This is a wonderful Argument says he to prove that Christ is not God When St. Paul says in his Salutations Grace be to you and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ who would guess that Jesus Christ is God as well as the Father he nor any other sacred Writer ever says that there are Three Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost he calls only the Father God and distinguishes the Lord Christ from him If the Lord Christ is God as well as the Father the Apostle should have framed his Salutation thus Grace be to you and Peace from God the Father and from the God Man Jesus Christ But according to the Language of Scripture says he God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit I answer that is a Demonstration that the Father only is God else the Title God could not be appropriated to him when he is distinguished from the Son and Spirit And to discern so much a Man can lack nothing but common Sense But I observe farther to this Answer that supposing Christ were but a Man the Apostle could have expressed himself no otherways from whence it follows that either the Apostle did indeed so think and so teach or this Author must charge him as not knowing how to speak correctly and properly 'T is impossible saith the Brief History that the Son or Image of the One true God should himself be that One true God as impossible as that the Son should be the Father or the Image that very Thing whose Image it is This is meer Sophistry saith our Author for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God they are the same One true God and yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father I appeal to the Reader whether this be not a mear denial of the Difficulty not an Explication or a Solution of it The Son saith the Historian can't be the One true God because he is the Son and Image of the One true God for the Son cannot be the Father nor the Image the very Thing whose Image it is Yes says our Answerer God and the Image of God are the same One true God The next Argument of the History is that Many Texts expresly declare That only the Father is God In answer to this says our Author This would be a Demonstration could he produce any one Text which asserts that only the Father in opposition to the Son and Holy Ghost is God for then the Father must signify the Person of the Father in opposition to the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost But has not the Historian produced such a Text John 17. 3. Father this is Life Eternal to know Thee the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or Jesus Christ thy Messenger Here the Father to whom the Son directs his Prayer as appears by Ver. 1. is called the only true God and the Son Jesus Christ whom he hath sent or his Messenger Here the Father as the Sender is opposed to the Son as the Messenger and the First called the ONLY true God the Other an Apostle or Messenger Our Author adds But when the Father is called the only true God only in opposition to all the false Gods which the World then worshipped there Father does not signify Personally but that one Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source the Fountain and the Original So soon has this Author forgot his own Observation and Rule of Interpretation that according to Scripture God signifies God the Father whenever he is distinguished from the Son or Spirit Is not he to whom Christ here directs his Prayer called God and is he not distinguished from the Son who is called the Messenger why then should he not signify here Personally God the Father as well as in other places why must Father here signify not the Father but one Godhead of which the Father is the Source Thus either his Observation is false and then he is overthrown by the Texts to which he opposes it or it is true and then in this Text the only true God is affirmed by our Saviour himself to be the Father only in opposition to all other Persons whomsoever I cannot but admire this Author's way of expounding Scripture One while he founds Christ's Sonship on his eternal Generation so that the title Son denotes begotten Wisdom the second Person of the Trinity as soon as this notion will not serve the turn as when the Son is in St. Matthew and St. Mark denied to know the Day and Hour of Judgment then the Son shall signify Christ Man Again when God is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit he signifies Personally God the Father this Notion shall serve us against many Socinian sayings of Scripture against all the Texts in the seventh Argument of the History But when John 17. 1 3. and the like Texts are urged then on the contrary God the Father must not signify the Father Personally but one Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source Certainly were his Hypothesis true there would be no need he should thus turn himself into all Shapes to defend it When the Father is called the one God and the only true God in opposition to all false Gods is he not so called in opposition to the Son also Most certainly he is In these two Texts John 17. 3. 1 Cor. 8. 6. we have no warrant from Reason or Scripture to understand by the Father Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Is it not absurd and senseless to say That the Father signifies also the Son and Holy Ghost in those very Texts where he is distinguished from them I always thought the Father signified the Father only and the Son the Son only and Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost only I always thought that the Language of Scripture was agreeable to the Language of Men because otherways it cannot be understood by Men and therefore that Father must not be understood to be Father and Son and a third Person distinct from both But Trinitarians better sighted than other People have found it may When we read in Scripture 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father It sounds as if the Apostle had said There is but one numerical infinite Being the Father of Jesus Christ and of all the World because this is the natural Idea we have of one God the Father But this Author tells us we are grosly mistaken for one God signifies three infinite Minds three substantial intellectual Beings or Persons Again we should think that the Father here signifies the Father only but this is it seems another foul Mistake for it signifies besides the Father a Son
that we should explain one obscure place by a thousand that are plain and easy 3. I come now to assign the true Sense of this famous Context Vers 1 2. 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 PARAPHRASE When Jesus who is called the Word because he was the Messenger and Preacher of God's Will and Word and as it were the Mouth by which God pronounced his Oracles began to preach the Gospel he was intimate to the most secret Counsels of God like one who is in the very Bosom of his Father and he was in the form of God and like God by reason of the Glory and Majesty that did shine in him 1. That the Man Jesus may be called the Word or the Word of God no Body will deny who reads Rev. 19. 13. where Jesus is thus described He was clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood and his Name is called The Word of God He who is here called the Word of God who is clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood must be the Man Jesus Our Lord calls himself the Way because he teaches us the way to Salvation and the Light in this very Chapter because he is the bringer of it therefore why not also the Word of God because he was the Revealer Bringer and first Preacher of it 2. It appears by the second Verse that the Evangelist did not design to make a real Distinction between to be in the beginning and to be with God for what was distinctly spoken in the first Verse is put together in the second thus The same was in the beginning with God In effect the meaning of the Apostle is not that Christ was when he began to enter upon his Prophetick Office this would be no great wonder but that when he began to preach the Doctrine of the Gospel he was admitted into the most intimate Counsels of God or made partaker of his most secret Will This I think to be the reason of the Repetition contained in the second Verse besides that we may observe that Repetitions are very frequent throughout the whole Gospel of St. John and more used in that Book than in any other of the New Testament Thus when the same Apostle says 1 John 1. 1. That which was from the beginning which we have heard c. he does not pretend really to distinguish those two things and to say that the Gospel was in the beginning of the Gospel but that what he had seen and heard of the Gospel from the beginning of it that he declared unto Men. 3. I have proved before that In the beginning cannot signify the beginning of the World but that it is here used for the beginning of the Gospel the place last quoted and several others do sufficiently prove 4. To be with God and to be in the Bosom of the Father at ver 18. are equivalent Terms If therefore we know the true Sense of the latter Expression we shall have a right understanding of the former The Words at ver 18. run thus No Man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father he has declared him Now to see God in St. John's Stile is to know the Decrees and Will of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel Those words therefore ought to be thus paraphrased No Man knew at any time the Will and Decrees of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel the beloved Son of God who was admitted into his most secret Counsels has fully discovered them to us The Word Only-begotten is put here for Beloved by way of Excellence and so it is used very often both in Profane and Sacred Authors And to be in the Bosom of the Father is not here an Interpretation of Only-begotten that is Best-Beloved but it is brought in as the reason of the full knowledg that Christ had of God's Will and of the discovery he made of it Christ saith our Evangelist here has fully declared the Will and Counsels of God to us How so Because he was intimate and admitted to the most secret and hidden Counsels of God which he expresses by the Son 's being in the Bosom of the Father This is then the true Sense of this Phrase The Word was with God viz. God discovered to him the whole extent of his Will he kept nothing secret from him he filled him up with the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg 5. We may easily understand the true meaning of the Word was God if we compare them with Phil. 2. 6. where Christ is said to be in the form of God and equal with God or rather like God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred Christ was in the form of God and like God by reason of the Power and Authority bestowed upon him whereby he wrought all sorts of Miracles raising the Dead curing the Lame restoring sight to the Blind stilling the Winds and the Sea c. This we may apply to the words of St. John Jesus was not only in the Bosom of God Partaker of his most secret Counsels but he was besides invested with such Authority and Power as made him like God So that Christ is by St. John called God or rather a God by reason of that Power and Authortiy whereby he became in some manner like unto the true and most High God But this Appellation does no more prove him to be the true and most High God than Solomon or the Judges in the Psalms will be the True God because this Name God is given to them Psal 82. 6. and 45. 6. Ver. 3. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made PARAPHRASE All things necessary to the Propagation of the Gospel were performed by him the Author and first Preacher of it And without his Direction there was not any thing performed that was performed That this relates not to the Creation of the World but to the Dispensation of the Gospel is very plain from the following words In him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men c. In these words the Evangelist teaches us how all things were made by Christ because in him was the Life and Light of Men which all Men may discern to be spoken of the Gospel by him taught which is the Light of Men and their Life as it leads them to Eternal Life Ver. 10 11. He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not He came unto his own and his own received him not PARAPHRASE He was conversing among Men to teach them the way to Salvation some of them were reclaimed by him but the greater part rejected him He was sent to his own Brethren but most of them would not receive him It does sufficiently appear by these words and the World knew him not that the Apostle speaks only of
did not give any Son he had before but made an excellent Man whom he was pleased to call his only begotten Son When our Saviour says God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son c. I desire our Author to tell me what is meant by the Word God Whether the whole Trinity or the Father only If the whole Trinity the Sense will come to this The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost so loved the World that they gave their only begotten Son Which is false for in the Trinitarian Hypothesis the Son is not the Son of the Second or Third Persons in the Trinity If by God be meant the Father only How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Son and the Holy Ghost How is he only said to love the World for the Son and Holy Ghost love it as well as the Father Thus they are not the Socinians but the Trinitarians that ridicule the Christian Religion by putting on it an absurd and unnatural Sense But says he God's Love in giving his only-begotten Son for our Redemption which our Saviour fixes on as the great Demonstration of God's Love is not so wonderful if this giving his Son signifies no more than making a Man on purpose to be our Saviour What then Does it follow from thence that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion It only follows that the Socinian Doctrine makes the Love of God less wonderful than the Trinitarian For in it self it is a wonderful Love that God should raise up a Saviour to Apostate and Rebel Mankind tho this Saviour was not God himself But why should we call a Chimera a more wonderful Love for the Son of God cannot be God himself and therefore God could not shew his Love by giving such a Son To conclude as the Love of God in redeeming Offenders is wonderful be the means what they will So his Love in giving for them his Beloved Son tho but a Man cannot without Impiety be denied to be wonderful to a Miracle The ridiculing is only on the side of our Author not on the Vnitarian and I am apt to think that if I were not an Vnitarian already his Book made up of bold Charges inconsequent Reasonings and arrogant Definings of what he understands not would make me one In the next place says he at pag. 239. the Apostles mightily insist on the great Love of Christ in dying for us and his great Humility in submitting to the condition of Human Nature and suffering a shameful and accursed Death even the Death of the Cross He cites 2 Cor. 8. 9. and 5. 14. and Phil. 2. 5 6 7 8. And goes on thus Supposing Christ to be but a meer Man who had no being before he was born of the Virgin who knew nothing of his own coming into the World or for what end he came whose Undertaking was not his own voluntary choice but God's appointment Where is the great Love where is the great Humility of this The meaning of all this is that were not Christ the Supream God whatever he has done on our behalf would be no great Argument of his Love or his Humility If Codrus and Decius devoting themselves to Death for the Good of their respective Countries have been accounted by all Men great Lovers of their Countries Shall not Christ's dying for the Eternal Salvation of Mankind pass for an Argument of wonderful Love Is it nothing for Christ to lead a wandring poor and miserable Life to expose himself to all the Injuries and Fury of Implacable Adversaries to undergo a painful and infamous Death and all this to make Men partakers of everlasting Life Must all this be accounted nothing unless the Person so doing be the Supream God How did he become Poor says he who was never Rich But I ask him How the Supream God can become Poor How God can make himself of no Reputation or humble himself and become obedient unto Death all which things he imputeth to a Person who is God I would know How it comes that Christ's Love and Humility is described by such Characters as can only be applied to a Man if we must not be allowed to believe that the Love of Christ-Man was wonderful He insists much on 2 Cor. 8. 9. where our Translation says Christ became Poor But he might know that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to become Poor but to be Poor and so Castalio renders it So the Sense of that place is this Tho Christ was Rich and Glorious by reason of the Authority and Power conferred on him yet he was willing to lead a poor Life that by his Poverty as by one means we might obtain Eternal Riches and Glory The Historian explains being in the Form of God at Phil. 1. 6. by being made Like to God by a Communication to him of Divine and Miraculous Power over Diseases Devils the Grave the Winds the Seas c. To this our Author replies This dwindles the Form of God into just nothing for according to them he had no power to do this but God did it at his Word as he did for other Prophets And therefore this is no Form of God no likeness at all For Christ did not work Miracles as God does by an inherent Power but God wrought Miracles for him Christ indeed could not work Miracles by an inherent or proper Power of his own since he was not God but to conclude that therefore there was no form or likeness of God at all in him is a very bad Consequence When we say that Christ was in the form or likeness of God we exclude thereby an equality with God and we mean only that he was in a manner like God This may be explained by a Comparison It may be said that a Vice-Roy is like a King but this does not signify that he is the King himself or is equal to the King but only that by reason of the Power and Authority conferred on him he is in a manner like the King So that thô he does not act by a Power of his own yet he may be truly said to act like a King To conclude from hence that this dwindles the likeness of the Vice-Roy with the King into just nothing would be meer Impertinence for then a Porter would be as like a King as the Vice-Roy himself which no Man in his Senses will affirm When therefore Christ by the Power bestowed upon him cast out Devils cured all sorts of Diseases raised the Dead commanded the Winds and the Seas He was indeed in the likeness of God and it was a great Humility in him that he was so far from making an ostentation of his Glory and Greatness that he became like a Servant humbled himself and underwent all sorts of Sufferings even the Death of the Cross But says the Author pag. 241. How did he take this Form upon him which signifies his own
this ought to be the Interpretation of this Passage if the Author's Assertion be true Now I think the true meaning of this Phrase the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity should be this the Father is the first God as the Son is the second God and the Holy Ghost the third God This Author may say so if he pleases I shan't contradict him for that 's the Consequence that flows naturally from his Principles But I shall deny that the Father may be called the God of Christ if Christ be the supream God as well as his Father how can the supream God have a God over him The term God relates only to Creatures God cannot be said to be the God of any but Creatures this common Sense and the whole Current of Scripture teaches Yes you 'l say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I answer therefore you may in your Hypothesis call him the first God but by no means the God of the Son or Spirit to whom He is not Superiour in Power Authority or other Divine Attribute The Author speaks an unintelligible Jargon in his following Paragraph which I think there is no need to insist on Therefore I shall here leave it to every rational Man to judge whether we ought to rest satisfied with such a trifling Answer to the propounded Objection The second Objection p. 155. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without Blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that He is the Creature the Possession the Servant and the Subject of God To this the Author answers thus That Christ is called a Creature he proves because He is the First-born of every Creature Col. 1. 15. But here he should have remembred his Absolutely and without Restriction for Christ is so the First-born of every Creature that He is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature Surely an absurd Consequence I say on the contrary Christ is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore a Creature Let us see which of us is in the right Every one may plainly see that when St. Paul calls Christ the Image of the Invisible God he means that He is a Visible Image of an Invisible God and therefore he added the Epithet Invisible which otherways had been useless not to say ridiculous For then the Sense of the Apostle's Expression must be this Christ is the Invisible Image of the Invisible God Now the Nature of an Image is to be visible to every ones Eye or else it is no Image But if Christ is called the Image of the Invisible God because He is the second Person of the Trinity this second Person being as Invisible as the first it follows that Christ is an Image of God as Invisible as the Original which is ridiculous No no the Man Christ is the Image of the Invisible God by reason of his unspotted Holiness and of the supream Power and Authority conferred on him He is the Brightness of God's Glory and the express Image of his Person but such an Image as was Visible while He lived upon Earth and may now be seen of all the Inhabitants of Heaven Besides it does plainly appear by the Context that St. Paul calls Jesus Christ Man the Image of the Invisible God Who the Father saith he at Ver. 13. has delivered us from the Power of Darkness and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Ver. 14. In whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood even the forgiveness of Sins Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature There you see that He who is the Image of the Invisible God is that dear Son in whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood but He who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men must be Jesus Christ Man therefore Jesus Christ Man is the Image of the Invisible God Now let any unprejudiced Man judge which of these two Consequences is right either this of the Author Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore no Creature or mine Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore a Creature He goes on He is so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies that by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and He is before all things which is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Begotten before the whole Creation and therefore no part of the Creation and by him all things consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things were not only made by him but have their Subsistence in him Now let us suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to signify born before all Creatures I deny that therefore Himself is no part of the Creation The plain meaning of born before all Creatures is that Christ was born before any other Creature As these Words Adam was born before all Men do not signify that he is no Creature or no Man but only that he was the first Man created Therefore I say supposing that these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are well translated by born before all Creatures I may with great reason draw a Consequence contrary to the Author's thus Christ is born before all Creatures therefore He is part of the Creation Himself The Author is very unhappy at drawing Consequences Here is another as false as the former That this does not relate to the New Creation as the Socinians would have it is very plain For 1. In this Sense Christ if He were a meer Man was not the First-born of every New Creature For I hope there were a great many New Creatures that is truly Good and Pious Men before Christ was born of his Virgin Mother What supposing the New Creation by the Gospel is here meant can't Christ as a meer Man be the First-born of every New-Creature being the Messias the Author and first Preacher of the Gospel the Head of the Church the Fountain from which the Holiness of every New Evangelical Creature does spring In a Word being the Author of this New Evangelical Creation can't He also be the First-born of every New Evangelical Creature Those Socinians that he speaks of by the New-Creation mean nothing else but the New-Creation wrought by Christ and his Gospel and therefore either this Author imposes on them or is not fully acquainted with their Opinions or has no great Skill in Reasoning I see the Author does not understand the above-cited place Therefore I think it worth while to explain it the rather because 't is one of the strongest Holds of the Trinitarians and to show that instead of favouring their Opinion it overthrows it In order thereunto 1. I will prove that the Old Creation that is the Creation of the World is not intended in that Text. 2. I will set down what I take to be the true Sense of that whole Context 1. That the Creation of the World
Christ And if this be so to be baptized into John 's Baptism must also signify to be baptized in the Name of John John indeed made Proselytes to the Messias but he preached the Doctrine of Repentance and he who was baptized by him was baptized into the Profession of the Doctrine taught by him and therefore whoever profest in his Baptism to follow the Doctrine of John might be said to be baptized to the Doctrine of John or in the Name of John Lastly He asks Whether it be not very absurd that the Power or Inspiration of God which is not a Person should be joined in the same Form with the Father and Son who are Persons I answer I see no absurdity in being baptized into the Profession of a Doctrine which not only comes originally from God the Father and is revealed by his Son but is confirmed by the Power or Spirit of God The next and last Place of the New Testament which our Auther considers is the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel Which says he pag. 215. gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ and a plain Demonstration of the incurable Perverseness of Hereticks I will examine this High Pretence and shew these three Things 1. The Absurdity of the Author's Explication of this Chapter 2. The Inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the Context 3. The true sense and meaning of this so much controverted Place 1. The Historian said that the Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictious and that it is this In the Beginning i. e. from all Eternity But How saith the Historian can in the Beginning be from all Eternity From all Eternity is before the Beginning or without Beginning not in the Beginning To this our Author replies That No Man expounds in the beginning of Eternity But he should not be so bold in his Assertions for Mr. Calvin expounds it so He adds When St. John tells us In the Beginning was the Word we say this proves the Eternity of the Word for that which was when all things began which had a beginning was it self before the beginning and without beginning I answer had the Evangelist designed to teach us the Eternity of the Word he would undoubtedly have done it by the same Characters that are used in Scripture to express the Eternity of God Now this Expression in the Beginning is so far from denoting Eternity that it is never applied to God in that Sense We read in Scripture That In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth Gen. 1. 1. Heb. 1. 10. a plain Demonstration that In the beginning cannot be applied to him that is God but only to Creatures and as plain a Demonstration that God himself is from all Eternity for he who created all things must needs be not only before all things but from Eternity But we never read God was in the Beginning in all the Descriptions which the Scriptures afford us of his Eternity nay they rather declare it or describe it by Before the beginning Psal 90. 2. Before the Mountains were brought forth even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God Here Eternity is described by before the beginning This is the Scripture-Notion of Eternity therefore if St. John had intended to shew the Eternity of the Word he should not have said In the beginning was the Word but as 't is said of God In the beginning the Word created the Heaven and the Earth Nor will it avail any thing to say The Word was so in the beginning that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made For as the foregoing Words In the beginning was the Word are no true Description of Eternity in Scripture so neither are these All things were made by him c. the Scripture-Description of the Creation There is no mention here made either of the Heaven or the Earth or the Sea which are never omitted in the Descriptions we have in Scripture of the first and true Creation a I shewed before and therefore there is no need to insist longer on this Phrase in this place The Historian goes on Was the Word i. e. was God the Son But where in Scripture says he is the Word called God the the Son Our Author replies This Word indeed is God the Son but we do not paraphrase it so in this place In the beginning was God the Son but In the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word But I pray what is the meaning of this For if the Word is indeed God the Son one may paraphrase it here In the beginning was God the Son as well as In the beginning was that Divine Person called the Word the one is as fit and as good Sense as the other But it seems our Author is asham'd to paraphrase the Word by God the Son this is a Modesty in him which is but seldom found in his Book Histor The Word was God i. e. The Son was with the Father Answ It seems then that God in this Clause is the Father But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost and is not he too according to Trinitarians God or a God If he is why does St. John only say the Son was with the Father and how comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost To avoid the strength of this Argument our Author replies By God the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom that Supream and Soveraign Being whom all Men called God without making a Distinction of Persons in the Godhead But if God in this place does not signify the Father only but the Three Persons of the Trinity he should not tell us that the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom but those Three Minds whom all Men called God for we are taught all over his Book that God is Three infinite Minds and consequently Three Wisdoms for an infinite Mind cannot be without Wisdom Neither should he say That Supream and Soveraign Being whom all Men call God but those Three Supream and Soveraign Beings for he often tells us that God is Three infinite and substantial Beings therefore he is Three Supream and Soveraign Beings It is a plain Contradiction to say in one place God is Three Minds and Three Beings and in another that he is but one Mind and one Being Furthermore when the Evangelist says The Word was with God if by God he means not the Father only but the Three Persons who are that God this will make a very trifling sense For then the Word was with God must signify thē second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity and consequently with himself which is not only trifling but ridiculous The Apostle adds And the Word was God Our Author to serve his Hypothesis puts here another or a new sense on the word God for he saw it was inconsistent with
is meant of Christ's Incarnation The second that in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render he dwelt amongst us St. John alludes to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle I begin with the first It cannot be denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred was as well as was made Thus it is taken Luke 1. 5. and 24. 19. and even at Verse 6. of this Chapter Nor can it be doubted that the word Flesh signifies not only Humane Nature but very often Humane Nature as subject to Infirmities and Afflictions Now is it not more agreeable to Reason and Scripture to interpret these words thus And the Word Jesus was a Man like unto us in all things Sin excepted having the same Mortal Nature being exposed to the same Miseries and Afflictions than to say The Word was Incarnate which is a Language unknown to Scripture wherein we never find that God made himself Man and altogether repugnant to Reason And this I confirm by Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood He likewise himself took part of the same that thrô Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death even the Devil Here Christ is said to be Partaker of Flesh and Blood as pious Men are which cannot be meant in a sense of Incarnation for pious Men are not said to be Incarnate but the one and the other are Partakers of Flesh and Blood that is of Infirmities and Sufferings This he explains farther at Verse 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren but his Brethren were not Incarnate But at Ver. 10 and 18. he expresly expounds this of Christ's Sufferings Ver. 10. It became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through Sufferings Ver. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered he is able to succour them that are tempted Mr. Limborck saw and confessed this that I have been saying his Words are these Theol. Christ pag. 226. The true sense of this place is that the Word was Flesh That is a true fleshly Substance subject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh that is to say He was Mortal Vile and Contemptible Which appeared more especially in the days of his Passion and of his Death which are called at Heb. 5. 7. The days of his Flesh 2. Our Author charmed with Allegories and mysterious Interpretations has found out that St. John alludes here to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and this he thinks God did to make the Anti-type answer the Type Christ's Body to the Tabernacle or Temple Since he is so much in love with Allegories it may be I may do him a kindness to help him to one which I have ready at hand it is this As the Tabernacle in the Wilderness had no fixed place to stand in as the Temple afterwards had but was carried from one place to another according to the several Incampments of the Israelites So Christ to fulfil that Type was always wandring with his Disciples having no where to lay his Head Mat. 8. 20. This Allegory is as probable and more natural than his without supposing an impossible Incarnation I cannot tell whether the Author will like it better than his own I am sure I like neither of them No no there is no Mystery in the Greek Word Our Version renders it well He dwelt among us So does Seb. Castalio Et apud nos Gratiae Veritatisque plenus habitavit And he full of Grace and Truth dwelt among us And the same word is thus used without any Mystery Rev. 12. 12. and 13. 6. where it is applied to the Inhabitants of Heaven By way of conclusion I will set down the sense of the whole Verse which is an Abridgment of the Life of Christ The Word was Flesh a mortal Man obnoxious to Sufferings and Death here is his Priestly Office He dwelt among us full of Grace and Truth here is his Prophetic Office We have seen his Glory here is his Kingly Office Thus therefore we ought to paraphrase the whole Jesus Christ was a Mortal Man Partaker of Flesh and Blood subject to the same Infirmities that we are in a word like unto us in all things but Sin And he dwelt among us preaching the happy News of Reconciliation with God and the Doctrine and Truth revealed to him by the Father But thô he were a Mortal Man a Man of Sufferings and Griefs yet we have seen his Glory shining in his Miracles his Transfiguration his Resurrection his Ascension into Heaven c. Such a Glory as was well becoming the beloved Son of God Having spoken of the Temple he comes to discourse of Sacrifices and tells us The true meaning of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World is not meerly that he was slain in God's Decree for what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done But this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures from the Foundation of the World ever since the fall of Adam in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall which were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ But 1. Where has he found that those early Sacrifices were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ The Scripture is silent about it and the Apostle to the Hebrews who inlarges on the Sacrifices of the Mosaical Law does not so much as mention those that were offer'd before which is unaccountable if they were Figures of the Sacrifice of Christ 2. But he says He knows no Principle of natural Reason that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts to God and therefore he must think the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution But suppose those early Sacrifices were an Institution does it follow from thence that they were instituted to be Types of the Sacrifice of Christ By no means God might have other Reasons for such an Appointment But since the Scripture does not mention the appointing of those Sacrifices we have good reason to believe that they were of Humane Institution for had God appointed them it would not it should seem have been omitted in Scripture 'T is reasonable to think that Abel and Cain thought fit to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God to shew by such visible Marks the Sense they had of God's Majesty and to express the Reverence they ought to pay to him 3. To deny that the Lamb was slain from the Foundation of the World meerly in God's Decree because what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done is no very accurate reasoning in a Divine because 't is contrary to the stile of Scripture Is there any thing more usual with the sacred Writers especially with the Prophets than to speak of things to come as if they were come to pass already by reason of their certainty and the immutable Decree of God
is not there meant This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. He who is the First-born of every Creature is the same who shed his Blood ver 14. for the Redemption of Men as I noted before Now he who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men can be no other but Jesus Christ Man but this very Jesus Christ Man is there stiled the First-born of every Creature by whom all things were created c. as we translate the Words Therefore this cannot be meant of the Creation of the World which is the Work of God not of a Man Yes you 'l say for He is God as well as Man and therefore may be said to have created the World I answer Where have you found in Scripture that Christ is God as well as Man I know He is called Man in the Writings of the New Testament but I could never find him there stiled God-Man as He should have often been if He was both Does the Apostle make a distinction between his two Natures does he say we have Redemption thrô his Blood as He is a Man and that He is the First-born of every Creature and has created all Things as He is God Not at all but only tells us That the same Jesus Christ in whom we have redemption thrô his Blood is the First-born of every Creature and by whom all Things were created c. Why should we contrive a distinction of our own when the Apostle makes none But 2. I cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ since we have no Warrant from Scripture for it I mean that the Scripture does never say in express Words that Christ has created Heaven and Earth which is the proper Description of the Old Creation or of the Creation strictly and properly so called and the Description usual in Scripture when it speaks of that Creation as it is said that God the Father of Christ has I do observe so great a difference between the Expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning the Creation of the World by God and those Expressions which are supposed to import the same Creation by Christ that I cannot forbear alledging some places concerning both I omit those of the Old Testament which are so many and will insist only upon some taken out of the New God saith St. Paul Acts 17. 24. that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands And Acts 4. 11. Lord thou art God which hast made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all that in them is Acts 14. 15. We preach unto you that ye should turn from these Vanities unto the Living God which made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all things that are therein And Rev. 14. 7. Fear God and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Water This is the true and proper Description of the Creation of the World Were it ascribed to Christ in such express Terms we could not doubt that Christ had created the World which if the Apostles had believed they would undoubtedly have taught us so great a Truth and that both in express and plain Terms and often No Christ is never said to have created Heaven and Earth the Sea and all that is therein In this very place the Apostle does not say that the First-born created Heaven and Earth but All things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and the All Things of which he speaketh he limiteth to all Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers visible and invisible which shall be explained hereafter This second Reflection that this Text contains not the proper Description of the Creation of the World used in Scripture being added to the foregoing that this Context speaks of Christ as Man ought to perswade any unprejudiced Man that the Creation of the World is not here attributed to Christ The Primitive Christians were so far from believing that Christ created the World that as the Father only is called God in the Apostles Creed so He only is stiled Maker of Heaven and Earth 3. As the Epistle to the Galatians is an excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans so the Epistle to the Ephesians must be made use of for the right understanding of the Epistle to the Colossians The Design and Scope of those two Epistles is the same so that we must look into the Epistle to the Ephesians to find out the true Sense of this controverted Text in the Colossians Now he that seriously compares these two Epistles with one another will find that Coloss 1. 15 16 17 18. must be interpreted by Ephes 1. 20 21 22. and Ephes 1. 10. is a true Commentary on Coloss 1. 20. Coloss 1. 18. runs thus And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence To which answers part of the 22d verse in the Ephesians in these Words And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Col. 1. 15 16 17. runs thus Who is the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature for by him were all things created as we translate the Word that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all things and by him all things consist To these Verses do answer the 20 21 and part of the 22d verse of Chap. 1. to the Ephesians in these Words He God raised him from the dead and set him at his own right Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and Might and Dominion and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come and hath put all things under his Feet Now in the Epistle to the Ephesians we see there is not the least intimation of the Creation ascribed to Christ but only of his exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and all earthly Powers which plainly shows that the Apostle meant not the Creation of the World in the forecited Verses of the Epistle to the Colossians Nay were it so he would speak Non-sense In the Epistle to the Colossians he would tell us that Christ has created all the Orders of Angels the visible and invisible Thrones c. which plainly shows that He is thereby as far above them as the Creator is above his Creatures but in the Epistle to the Ephesians he would tell us that Christ has been exalted far above all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Thrones and Powers which undeniably proves that He was not so before Now what is a Contradiction if this be not to say that Christ created them and that the Father set him far above them We must therefore of necessity explain
the Context of the Colossians by that of the Ephesians and put such a Sense upon it as imports no true and proper Creation 4. Coloss 1. 19 20. being interpreted by Ephes 1. 10. is a Confirmation of what I have said hitherto The former Coloss 1. 19 20. runs thus For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made Peace through the Blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Earth or things in Heaven To which answers the other Text Eph. 2. 10. in these Words That in the Dispensation of the fulness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in Heaven and which are in Earth even in him No Man I hope will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistle to the Colossians which we render to Reconcile ought to be interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text of the Ephesians which signifies to gather together in one or to sum up So that the meaning of both places is this that it pleased God in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head even Christ whom he set up Lord and King over them Now this does perfectly agree with what St. Paul says to the Ephesians concerning Christ's exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and his being Head of the Church for his Argument runs thus God has exalted Christ above all the Orders of Angels and made him Head of the Church for he had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ But if the Text of the Epistle to the Colossians is meant of the Creation of the World this will be perfect Non-sense for thus it ought to run Christ has created all Orders of Angels and all Powers on Earth and was made Head of the Church for God had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ. No Man in the World can speak greater Non-sense than this would be were the Creation of the World ascribed to Christ in the controverted Text. I desire the Author to reconcile his explication of these Words that in all things he might have the preeminence with what follows That is says he at p. 157. that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the dead So the whole Argument according to the Author must run thus Christ was the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the Dead for God was pleased in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under Christ as their Head Could any thing be said more absurd and ridiculous The Author's Skill in Scripture and Reason is I think alike 2. Having thus proved that the Old Creation or the Creation properly so called is not ascribed to Christ in this Context of the Colossians I come now to explain its true Sense as clearly as possibly I can Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature The meaning of these last Words is not that Christ was begotten before all Creatures as this Author would have it but that He is the Lord and King of every Intelligent Creature in Allusion to the First-born of a Family who is Heir of all Things This I prove by the 17 and 18th Verses Ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And He is before all things is the Explication of the First-born of every Creature and signifies not that He is before all Creatures in order of time but of Dignity and Power being by God set over all the Orders of Angels and over the Church as their Head and King But if you don't rest satisfied with this parallel Place the 18th Verse will afford an undeniable proof of what I say There you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rightly rendred in our Bibles That in all things He might have the Preeminence both in Heaven and in Earth among Angels and in the Church I say now these last Words ought to be the Explication of the two before-mentioned Expressions to be the First-born of every Creature and to be before all Things ought to be interpreted by his having the Praeeminence in all Things so that He is the First-born of every Creature is this He hath the Preeminence over every Creature Thus by the Context it self we find out the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the English we translate First-born of every Creature And thus too are these Words interpreted by the principal Critics among the Orthodox as they are called Gomarus Camero Piscator Drusius Vorstius Davenant Dally Grotius for they will have him also to be Orthodox Hammond I come now to the next Verse For by him were all Things created I have fully proved they cannot be understood of the Old Creation the Creation of Heaven and Earth and the Sea and of the Things in them which is the Creation properly so called therefore to reconcile this Verse with the foregoing and with the Words before cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians He God set Him at his own Right-Hand far above all Principality and Power and every Name that is named The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Created ought to be rendred Modelled Disposed or Reformed into a new Order So that the Sense will run thus Christ is the Lord of every Creature for by him are all both Visible and Invisible Creatures even all Men and Angels Modelled or Disposed into a new Order being subjected to Him and His Commands As for Angels all the Orders of them whether they be Thrones or Dominions none of them are exempted from his Power and Authority he rules over them which is the meaning of Ver. 17. and they are all as it were compacted in one Body under his Conduct as for Men as He is the Beginning and the First-born from the Dead so He was also made Head of the Church his Body so that in all things He has the Preeminence He rules in Heaven and on Earth over Angels and over the Church which is the Sense of Ver. 18. This I hope makes a clear Sense agreeable to the whole Context and to the Text in the Ephesians I observe that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or He is before all Things is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Or He is the First-born of every Creature So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and by him all Things consist or are compacted into one Body ought to be the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by him were all Things not created as 't is rendred in the English but Modelled or Reformed I know not why Dr. Sherlock has called this a Socinian Explication as if it were devised by them to serve their Hypothesis the truth is the