the objected Text In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of St. Matthew from the common Form and Practice of the Church in administring Baptism as 't is certain that these words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever have been added to the Lord's-Prayer in the same Gospel of St. Matthew from the Greek Liturgies or Forms of Common-Prayer These Criticks observe that Cardinal Bellarmine is very angry with the Unitarians who maintained the Dispute at Alba because they said those words were added to the Bible but only since the Nicene Council had corrupted the Faith all Antiquity saith the Cardinal is witness against them that those words were always read in the Gospel of St. Matthew But the Learned Cardinal does not produce one Testimony in Confirmation of what he says tho he uses to be very free in his Quotations of Fathers and ancient Ecclesiastical Historians In short we have nothing but Cardinal Bellarmine's word for it that the Ancients did read the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Whereas some pretend to find these words cited by St. Ignatius as spoken by our Saviour in the Epistle of the said Ignatius to the Philippians that Epistle is all of it a meer Forgery by Confession of all the Criticks who have publish'd the Works of Ignatius or have written Notes upon them They observe that Epistle is never quoted by any of the Ancients nor was heard of in the World before Ado Viennensis who flourish'd about the Year 859. Eusebius the famous Ecclesiastical Historian quotes the objected Text nine times in several parts of his Works but never with the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he reads thus Teach all Nations in my Name instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you The constant Practice of the ancient Unitarians was to baptize only in the Name of the Lord Christ and therefore it was ordered by the Councils of Nice and Laodicea that the Paulinists i. e. the Unitarians who came over to the Church should be re-baptized Whether they or the Catholick Church so called are in the right concerning the Form of Baptism is best determined from the Practice of the Apostles for we cannot well suppose that if the Form prescribed by our Saviour himself was In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles would depart from that Form or that 't was lawful for them so to do But where-ever there is mention in Scripture-History of the Administration of Baptism either by the Apostles or by their Order the Form of such Baptism was only In the Name of the Lord Christ or Vnto the Lord Christ Acts 2.38 Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus The same thing is said at Acts 8.16 Acts 10.48 Acts 19.5 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Cor. 1.13 Add to this that besides the School-men and other Moderns St. Basil St. Hilary and St. Ambrose do expresly own that the Apostles administred Baptism only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Finally the other Evangelists mention the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour after his Resurrection but they say not that he appointed it to be administred In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which 't is not likely they would have omitted if our Saviour had injoined that Form of performing the Rite of Baptism Nay it should seem by what St. Luke says that the Form of Baptism appointed by our Saviour was only in his Christ's Name not in the Name of more Persons Luke 24.46 47. Jesus said unto them that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name unto all Nations Here Remission of Sins seems to be no other thing but Baptism administred in Christ's Name as a sign of the Remission of Sins and therefore it is that elsewhere instead of Repentance and Remission of Sins the holy Writers say Repentance and Baptism so St. Peter speaks Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus To this effect speak the forementioned Criticks and from hence they infer that we cannot make use of this Text to warrant the Church's Form of Baptism In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit much less to prove that the two latter are God or Gods equal with the Father I desire and resolve Sir to argue this great Question concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or whether there is more than one Divine Person with all possible sincerity Therefore I will ingenuously own to you that tho the before-mentioned Exceptions to this Text are not without their weight yet I have observed divers things which make me to think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture was spoken by our Saviour and written by St. Matthew First 'T is found in all the Copies of the Bible both Printed and Manuscript and in all the ancient Translations which cannot be said of any other Text which is rejected by us or by our Opposers all the doubtful and suspected Texts are wanting in divers Copies of the Original Greek and of the Ancient Translations I conceive we ought not to argue against the Truth of any Text from only Negative Proofs or from some possible Interpretations of other Texts tho those Texts are perhaps many It ought to be shown that either Church-Historians or Fathers have said that such Text was not read or was otherways read in the Copies of their Times Secondly To the Allegations out of the Acts of the Apostles and some Epistles of St. Paul it may be answered That those Texts mention only the Name of the Lord Jesus and not the other two Names the Father and the Holy Ghost because by the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto the Lord Jesus they mean to the Profession of the Lord Jesus and of the Doctrine by him taught without at all intending to express by those words the Form of Baptism which every one knew to be In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I like this Interpretation because when St. Paul asked some Disciples at Ephesus whethey they had yet received the Holy Ghost and they had answered that they had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost He replies Vnto what then were ye baptized Acts 19.3 This Reply of the Apostle seems to suppose that if they were baptized with Christian Baptism and not only with the Baptism of John they must needs have heard of the Holy Ghost because the Form was in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thirdly The ancient Unitarians baptized only in the Name of the Lord Christ I think 't is grounded only on the Report of Pope Innocent I. who might not understand their Discipline or
own that he appeared and acted But he healed Diseases by a Virtue issuing from himself for he said Virtue is gone out of me That there was a Balsamick and Sanative Virtue in the Body of our Saviour I will not deny but neither can it be denied that the like Virtue was also given by God to the Bodies of some of the Apostles for Handkerchiefs from their Bodies and their Shadows healed many Acts 5.15 19.12 Nor is there any more Force in that that the Lord Christ invites to him the Heavy-laden promising to give them Rest to their Souls For he gave Rest to Souls sensible of the Guilt and Burden of Sin by his Doctrine which every Gospel-Preacher may do nay ought to do A Gospel-Preacher is to declare to the Sensible and Penitent the Forgiveness and Absolution of God and thereby gives them Rest and Peace But 't is marvellous that this Author should urge it as a Proof of our Saviour's Divinity that He declared to some Persons whose Faith appeared in visible Acts of Piety and Trust in God that their Sins were forgiven for sure he knows what is said to the Apostles at John 20.23 Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose Sins ye retain they are retained Let him show if he can that our Saviour ever claimed any higher Authority or Power than the Apostles are here vested with by Command from God But I think it were not hard to prove that in all these Texts the word Sins is put for the Effect of Sins even Diseases so as to make this sense that our Saviour and his Apostles had Authority and Power either to loose Men from their Infirmities and Ails or to leave them in them as they should see reason and cause either for the Spiritual Benefit of the Person or for Confirmation of the Gospel by such Signs and Wonders Our Lord Christ knew what was in Man saith the Evangelist St. John But he doth not say that he knew it of himself by a Natural Omniscience without Revelation from God The Prophet Ahijah knew what was in the Mind of the Queen of Israel 1 Kings 14.6 Elisha knew what his Servant Gehazi had done and what he purposed 2 Kings 5.22 The same Prophet knew the Counsels that the King of Syria took against the King of Israel 2 Kings 6.9 12. He told Hazael not only what was in his Heart but what should be there in time to come 2 Kings 8.12 The Holy Scriptures do not expresly say that the Knowledg which these Prophets had of what was in Man or what is the same thing the secret Thoughts of their Hearts was only derivative or by God's Revelation They supposed there was no need to instruct or warn the Reader concerning a matter that was self-evident But as if foreseeing the monstrous Doctrine that some would advance concerning the great Minister and Prophet of the New Testament the Lord Christ and designing to arm the Faithful against it they have been careful to tell us directly and explicitly that the Prophetick Knowledg that was in him was derivative or by Revelation from God not from himself or by a Natural Omniscience of his own Rev. 1.1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew unto his Servants things that must shortly come to pass And He Christ sent and signified it by his Angel or by his Messenger to his Servant John How can a considering Man doubt that if our Saviour knew the things which must very shortly come to pass only by God's Revelation of them to him that his Knowledg too of what was in the Hearts and Minds of Men must be also by God's Revelation or the Inhabitation of the Spirit of God in him But our Author urgeth that the Lord Christ saith I am He which searcheth the Reins and Hearts Rev. 2.23 He ought to know that to search the Heart and Reins is an Hebrew and Scripture Phrase and form of speaking and signifies no more but this to know the most secret Thoughts and Purposes of the Mind and Heart This is a Property that can belong only to God to know or as the Hebrew speaks to search the Hearts and Thoughts if you mean thereby originally or of himself or by his own natural and proper Omniscience but the Prophets and more especially the Lord Christ know the Hearts and Reins by God's Revelation to them and search the Thoughts by the inhabiting Spirit of God in them When therefore our Saviour saith here I search the Hearts he meant this I know the Thoughts of the Heart by God's Revelation to me or by his Inhabiting Spirit in me In a word God only knoweth the Thoughts of the Heart and what is in Man originally of himself or by his own proper and natural Omniscience But Prophets search or know the Hearts and what is in Man secondarily derivatively by God's Revelation to them by his inhabiting Spirit in them We are assured that this last only was our Saviour's meaning in these words I search the Hearts by the first words of this Book of Revelation before quoted even these The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him There could be no need that God should make a Revelation to him if he himself knew the Reins and Hearts by a natural Omniscience of his own We are not therefore to stick at the meet words I search the Heart but to consider the Import or Sense of that Phrase in the Scripture-Language which signifying only this to know the Thoughts of the Heart or Mind they do not prove the Person of whom they are spoken to be Omniscient or God unless it had been said He searcheth or He knoweth the Hearts by his own Omniscience and not as 't is said of our Saviour by Revelation from God or God's inhabiting Spirit When the Lord Christ opened the Vnderstandings of the two Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures this was not an Act of his Power but the Effect of the Discourse he made to them He opened their Understandings to understand the Prophetic Scriptures by explaining those Scriptures to them He conferred a Measure of the Holy Spirit by the External Sign of breathing on the Disciples We can no more infer from hence that he was God than that the Apostles also were so many Gods because they gave the Spirit by the External Sign of laying on their Hands Acts 19.6 The latter was as great a Miracle as the former and both of them the effect of God's Power not of Man's But 't is false what our Author here adds that our Lord Christ did Himself shed on them the Holy Spirit when he caused the Spirit to descend on them in the form of Cloven Tongues The Apostle indeed saith He Christ hath shed forth this this miraculous Participation of the Spirit which ye now see and hear But he saith not as our Author reports his words He himself hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear for it
was not He himself but He by the Gift of God that shed forth the Spirit on them Let us hear the whole Verse Acts 2.23 Therefore He Christ being by the right Hand of God exalted and having received or obtained of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Here indeed the Spirit is said to be shed forth by the Lord Christ on the Apostles but not by Him himself but He shed it forth having saith the Text received it of the Father As who should say having received this Power from the Father which afterwards the Apostles also received of the Father even the Power of conferring the Spirit He now shed it forth on them not He himself by his own Authority or Power but by the Warrant Order Grant or Commission of the Father If our Saviour had conferred the Spirit on his Disciples by his own Power or Authority it would not have been said that having received of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost he shed it abroad on his Followers Let our Opposers show that the Lord Christ was more than the Instrument Minister and Mediator by Whom and at whose Instance God shed forth the Spirit neither this nor any other Context ascribes more to him and as much as is elsewhere ascribed to the Apostles Acts 10.44 Acts 19.6 They are words which our Saviour speaks to his Disciples As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But it follows not from hence that the Authority and Power of Christ was equal to the Power and Authority of the Father nay the contrary rather follows for the Messenger is but the Minister and Servant of the Sender After Jesus was ascended into Heaven his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name and by Faith in him Acts 3.6 In the Name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk Ver. 16. His Name through Faith in his Name hath made this Man strong We confess hereupon that Miracles were done by the Name or in the Name of the Lord Jesus and through Faith in his Name But how does this prove that he was God Such Miracles prove indeed that the Person in whose Name they are done is a most Powerful and Effectual Mediator with God but not that He himself is God they prove that he is acceptable to God and that what he desireth that also God willeth but not that he is the true proper Author of those Miracles 'T is a particular Honour that God is pleased to do to the Lord Christ that in his Name Wonders should be done and that some who believed in his Name should on that account be enabled to do Miracles But when our Opposers infer from hence therefore Christ is God this is no Necessary or Natural Consequence because nothing hinders but that God may confer the same Honour on any other Person or Thing Nor secondly is it a true Consequence because we are assured by innumerable express and clear Testimonies that the Lord Christ is not God As 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Jesus Christ Finally Our Lord promis'd that he would deliver his Apostle from the People and from the Gentiles and declares that we are sanctified by Faith in his Name or by believing in him Acts 26.17 18 c. He delivered indeed that Apostle from very many Machinations of the Jews and Conspiracies of the Gentiles but all this as Mediator not as God by his Intercession which as this Apostle saith he ever liveth to make on behalf of all the Faithful and more especially of such as are extraordinarily commissioned to the Work of propagating the Gospel in Heathen Nations as St. Paul was As to our being sanctified i. e. made Holy by Faith in Christ or by believing in him it was never questioned I think by any but the meaning of the Expression is only this that such as sincerely believe the Lord Christ and the Gospel or Doctrine by him delivered do sanctify themselves they refrain from every Evil Work and Word their Faith does dispose and incline them of its own Nature and Tendency to Sanctification and Holiness this is the only meaning of our being sanctified by Faith in Christ CHAP. IX On what is alledged from the Fathers OUR Author passes from sacred Authorities to Ecclesiastical and Profane for proving the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour He quotes the Account which Pliny gives to the Emperor Trajan concerning the Christians that they were wont to meet before Day Et Carmen Christo canere ut Deo To sing Psalms to Christ as if he were a God He cites also a Dialogue supposed to be Lucian's in which that Author jeers the God who is Three and One These two Authors were very Ancient within about 100 Years after Christ and their words before quoted show How early the belief of the Trinity and of the Divinity of our Saviour was found among Christians For Ecclesiastical Writers he brings some Fragments out of Justin Ignatius Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyprian Lactantius Gregory Thaumaturgus Faelix also out of the Councils of Nice Antioch and Constantinople He saith the Socinians are apt to appeal in these Questions to the Ante-Nicen Fathers before-named and that several great Men such as Erasmus Grotius Petavius and others yield this Point to Us. I will make no Advantage of our Author's Ignorance in this Matter I will freely own to you Sir that the Socinians never Appeal in these Questions to the Fathers whether Ante-Nicen or others who are now extant We grant they were in Sentiments very different from ours all the Ante-Nicen Fathers I mean whose works have been suffer'd to come down to our Times were in the Opinion concerning God and the Lord Christ afterwards called Arrianism except perhaps Clemens Alexandrinus who seems to have held the same with Savellius Nor do Erasmus Petavius Grotius and other Criticks grant to us as he supposes that the Ante-Nicen Fathers were of our Opinion they have granted those Fathers not to us but to the Arrians They grant those Fathers did not hold the Doctrine of the Trinity or of the Divinity of our Saviour in such manner as 't is now held by the Church for the Church holds a Trinity of Three Coequal and Coeternal Persons all of them jointly and equally Creators none of them Creatures but those Fathers held a Trinity in which only the First Person is truly God or the most high God the Second and Third are Creatures though also they were the Creators according to these Fathets of the other Creatures They say inded sometimes that the Son is Coeternal and a Creator but by Coeternal they mean only that he was not made in Time but in that Eternity which did precede Time and the Creation of the World They call that Duration Time which began with the World and which is both
sort of People called Schismaticks and Hereticks who having free and discerning Minds stout and brave Souls finding themselves in some Particulars either cheated or wronged by the strongest side they maintain tho a dangerous and bazardous yet a generous and perpetual War for the Natural Liberties of Mankind in Matters of Conscience and Religion They assert by all possible and honest means the Kingdom of God that is they admit of no Lords over Conscience but only God nor any Law of Faith of Worship or Manners but only God's Word no Canons or Articles no humanly devised Creeds or Catechisms nothing but God's Word the naked Gospel without any Interpretations or Interpreters but only Reason and Good Sense These have the luck sometimes to baffle Mother-Church and to bear up against all her Indignation But this Sir shall serve in Answer to your Dedication and Preface only let me advise you as you would come off with more Credit and do more Good in the Parish of Great St. Hellens than you did at Great Yarmouth that you carry it with more Modesty and Respect to all the Inhabitants and to forbear such smutty Lampoons as you made upon that Town What follows is an Answer to your Book and I address it to Friend T. F. An Accurate EXAMINATION of the principal Texts usually alledged for the Divinity of our Saviour and for the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a Book of Mr. Luke Milbourn called Mysteries in Religion vindicated To T. F. CHAP. I. Containing an accurate Examination of 1 Tim. 3.16 SIR YOUR particular Friend Mr. Milb has begun his Attack on Socinianism with a Text of St. Paul in the Explication and Vindication of which he wastes no fewer than 82 Pages The Text is this Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1 Tim. 3.16 He saith hereupon that indeed some Translators read here Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH which Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is the Law was given by Angels but the Gospel by the Ministry of Men even by Jesus Christ and his Apostles called Flesh here in opposition to Angels who are Spirit and because Flesh is the usual Scripture-Term for Man but all the Greek Copies he saith agree in reading this Text as we read it in our English Bibles as also does the famous Manuscript in the King of England's Library which is about 1300 Years old And if saith he the Providence of God as the Socinians contend is concerned to preserve his own holy Word from Corruptions and Falsifications 't is reasonable to think such Providence has been exercised rather about the Original Greek than about Translations But neither saith he do all the old Translations read here as the Socinians do for the Arabick reads as we do GOD was manifested in the Flesh Further more Macedonius to whom the Socinians impute the Corruption of this Text was too late in time for he lived in the Year 512. to attempt an Innovation in Scripture And besides he could have no design in so doing because he had no peculiar Opinions about our Saviour Finally the word God in the first Clause of this Verse makes that Clause to accord with all that follow it for all of them together will make this most proper Sense The Eternal Son of God God equal with his Father and Creator of the World took upon him and was manifested in our weak and passible Nature being incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus He was justified to be God notwithstanding his mean outward Appearance by divers glorious Actions and Miracles done on that behalf by the Holy Spirit He was seen i. e. known by Angels to be the Eternal Son of God and God thô covered with the Veil of Flesh He was preached as such by the Apostles to the Gentiles was believed on generally in the World where-ever they came and after his Resurrection He was received up into the Glories of Heaven But if saith our Author we read here as the Socinians do Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is by Men what Sense shall we make of the other Clauses Will it be Sense to say The Mystery of Godliness the Gospel was seen by Angels Or will it be true that it was received up into the Glory of Heaven The Socinians indeed here answer That instead of these words received up into Glory it should have been said by our Translators was gloriously extolled was magnified and lifted up but this saith our Author is false for on the contrary the Gospel was despised and derided both by Jews and Gentiles This is the Sum and Force of what he has transcribed out of Authors in behalf of his Opinion from the words of this Text. He might if he had pleased have given us too the full and solid Answer made by the Socinians to these Pretences of his Party for I see he has quoted the Books in which those Answers are to be found but that was not the way he thought to mend his Fortunes in the World which is what he aims at and the cause of his writing his Book I will briefly evince these two things 1. This Text of St. Paul has been falsified by those who affirm the Ante-mundan Existence and Divinity of our Saviour 2. This Corruption has been so unskilfully performed that the Attempt serves only to betray their Unfaithfulness and Partiality but does not a whit avail their Cause 1. This Text has been most certainly falsified by substitution of the word God instead of Which WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh The first time I meet with this Text read with the word God among the Antients is in the Acts of the first Council of Nice a Council of next Authority to the Scriptures themselves in the Opinion of our Opposers In this Council a Person repeated the words of St. Paul as they are now read by Trinitarians God was manifested in Flesh the Person who made this Mistake probably from some Marginal Note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word Which in the Text was answered by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading for St. Paul's words are Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH was manifested by Flesh Mr. Milbourn will not say that the Authors of the Old Translations the Latin Syriac and Armenian were Unitarians be sure St. Jerom Author of the Latin was a bigotted Trinitarian yet they and he read with the Nicene Council WHICH was manifested by Flesh not GOD was manifested in Flesh I appeal to any Man of ordinary sense whether he can think those Translators and Fathers would have corrupted the Bible in favour and to the advantage of their Adversaries the Unitarians by saying not GOD but WHICH was manifested by Flesh
on the Gospel it self I know not Sir what stronger or clearer Proofs any Man can require that this Text was anciently read by WHICH which Mystery of Godliness was manifested by Flesh i. e. by Man as the Law had been by Angels For you see we have for this reading first all the ancient Translations the Latin Armenian and Syriac then the Council of Nice so much extolled and reverenced by our Opposers besides these the Testimony of Trinitarian Historians Men of Learning and Dignity and contemporary to the Corruption of this Text also a vast number of the best and oldest Copies of the Original Greek and the Judgment of the ablest Criticks upon them If all this does not amount to a Demonstration on our side in the Judgment of indifferent Persons yet there is no Man of common Prudence and Caution but will allow that the reading for which our Adversaries contend GOD was manifested in Flesh is too uncertain doubtful and precarious to build on it as the Trinitarians do an Article of Faith or to innovate in the Doctrine of the Unity of God dictated to us by Natural Light and the principal Design of both the Testaments 2. But supposing now this Point were yielded to them that we are to read here GOD was manifested in or by Flesh it will nothing avail the Trinitarian Cause For by GOD here we may understand as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themselves do not the Person but the Will and Mind of God this was manifested to us by Flesh that is by Men by Jesus Christ and his Apostles 'T is true our Translators render the words by was manifested IN Flesh but they will not deny that they might have been rendred Manifested BY Flesh for themselves so interpret the Greek Particle in the very next Clause of this Verse was justified IN the Spirit that is say They was Justified or Proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit of God That the word God may be sometimes interpreted not of the Person but of the Will or Mind of God is not denied by the Trinitarian Interpreters nay themselves as I said before so interpret Thus for Example when St. Paul saith Gal. 1.10 Do I now perswade Men or God Our Opposers interpret it thus Do I seek to perswade Human Inventions the Devices and Figments of Men or the very Will and Commands of God The like on divers other Texts Therefore Sir if Mr. Milb has prevailed with you to read this first Clause by God was manifested you may for all that abide in your Sentiment about the Unity of God and interpret to him the whole Verse after this manner Without Controversy Great and Glorious is the Mystery of Godliness even the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus for 't is no less or other than the Will and Nature of God manifested to us by the Agreeable and sutable Ministry of Men of Flesh and Blood like to our selves not as the Law was by the Amazing and Terrible appearance of Flaming Ministers even the Spirits and Angels of Heaven This Will of God or this Revelation of his Nature and Will has been justified i. e. proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit Energy or Power of God it has been seen and admired by Angels who desire to look more accurately into this New Revelation which in part supersedes the Revelation of the Divine Will that was delivered by them it has been Preached to the Gentiles and Believed on in the World Did I say it has been Believed on it has not been Barely Believed but received generally speaking with great Honour and Glory From P. 82. where our Author takes leave of this famous Text to P. 309. He mortifies his Reader with a long Impertinence concerning the Reasonableness and Vsefulness of Mysteries in Religion and that 't was Necessary the Messias should be the Son of God We are not concerned in the Truth or Falshood of either of these Affirmations of our Author be it as He says thô his Allegations or any He can bring prove neither of them What are they to his Purpose If Mysteries are indeed so useful in Religion as he contends they are it will not follow from thence that we must admit as parts of our Religion all the Mysteries that fanciful or ignorant Men have devised much less that we are obliged to let all the Nonsense and Contradictions that Any may seek to impose on our Faith pass for Holy and Divine Mysteries That 't was Necessary that the Messias should be the Son of God I doubt very much and I think our Author has offer'd nothing in proof of it that is Considerable or Material but that de Facto it was so that our Lord Christ was indeed the Son of God the Socinians have always Granted and Affirmed because he was begotten by the Divine Power on a pure Virgin Therefore overpassing so much useless Scrible of this Author I come to his second Particular as He calls it at P. 309. That the Blessed Jesus was so the Son of God as to be God equal with his Father or was really and truly God as well as real Man CHAP. II. THAT our Lord Jesus Christ was true God Equal with his Father our Author undertakes to prove 1. From Texts of the Old Testament 2. From Texts of the New Testament 3. By the Actions and Miracles done by the said our Lord Jesus 4. From the Consent of the Primitive Church 5. From the Common and as he saith on every hand Approved practice of worshipping and praying to him His Proofs from the Old Testament accurately examined He alledges First the History of the Three Angels who at Gen. 18. appeared to Abraham One of these Angels is called Jehovah both by Abraham and by the Historian but the Name Jehovah which our Translators render LORD is saith our Author communicable only to God and that this Angel was indeed God appears fâ—rther by Abraham's calling him at V. 18. the Judg of the whole Earth He saith hereupon that by this History we gain the Certainty that our Saviour had a Being before he was born of the Virgin and that the Title Power and Acknowledgments belonging to the True God are given to Christ But all this while Mr. Milb you forget the one thing Necessary even to prove to us that this Angel or this Jehovah is the same Person that afterwards in Gospel-times is called the Lord Jesus When you evince that your Allegation of this History will indeed be a Proof of the Pre-existence of our Saviour till then we remain in that seemingly rational Belief that his Mother was Older than He. But neither can we grant to you that this Angel was indeed God because the Name Jehovah is given to him for that Name is bestowed in Holy Scripture on Angels when they are appointed to represent the Person of God as we shall presently see is confessed by some of the principal Critics of the Trinitarians themselves and
this the Goings forth of the Lord Christ have been Decreed by God from the Days of Eternity But Grotius instead of From Everlasting or from the Days of Eternity hath Translated here from ancient Days and so All know the words may be rendred therefore he maketh the Sense to be this Whose Goings forth i. e. whose Descent Original or Pedigree is of Old from Ancient Times For Christ is come of that most Ancient Stock of David of the Town of Bethlehem Our Author may please in his next to try his Skill on these Solutions in the mean time I pass to what He hath objected from the New Testament CHAP. IV. On his Texts out of the Gospels THEY are not many Texts Sir on which our Author has insisted to prove his Proposition that our Lord Christ is true God but He assures us at P. 309. they are Choice Ones We have considered those He alledges from the Old Testament let us now examine what He hath urged out of the New On the Texts of St. Matthew He begins with Matth. 1.22 23. This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord by the Prophet saying A Virgin shall Conceive and shall bring forth a Son and they shall call his Name Immanuel which being interpreted is God with us He notes that these words are spoken of the Lord Christ and that the Name Immanuel or God with us has been appropriated to him by God for we no where find that He hath given this Name to any other But where God giveth a Name and the Spirit of God interprets it it cannot be insignificant from whence it follows that the Lord Christ is indeed God Eternal and God with us To this I say thô the Consonants of the Hebrew Name Immanuel may be so Pointed that the Name may be Interpreted God with Him which would turn the Objection from this Text upon our Opposers yet that is not here to be insisted on because we shall see presently that in giving that Name it was really intended the Child should be called or named God with Vs The Text here objected out of St. Matthew is taken from Isa 7. where that Prophet tells Ahaz King of Judah who was at that time invaded by the Confederate Kings of Syria and Israel that the Confederacy of these two Kings against Judah should in the end come to nothing and that Israel should be destroyed from being any longer a Nation within the term of 65 Years And for a Sign to you says the Prophet that God will bring this to pass a Virgin one who at present is a Virgin shall forthwith Conceive by her Husband and bring forth a Son whom God will have to be called Immanuel or God with Vs because before this Child is of Years of Discretion to know Good and Evil God will indeed appear to be on our Side He will withdraw by Death the two Kings who are Confederate against us There is no Learned Critic that doubts that the Child here promised by the Prophet to be a Sign of the Truth of what He had said about the Confederacy of the Two Kings and the final Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel is Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz Son of this Prophet by the Wise whom it should seem He had lately taken And They observe that this is the Reason why he saith in the next Chapter I and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for Signs in Israel from the Lord Isa 8.18 But whether the Child Immanuel was the Son of the Prophet or of some other this is certain that He was to be a Sign to King Ahaz and to the People of Israel and Judah This Child being to be such a Sign the Sign of so favourable a Providence to Judah and Ahaz had an Answerable Name given to him by order from God even Immanuel or God with Vs Therefore our Author's First Observation is certainly false that the Name Immanuel was Appropriated to the Lord Christ and no where given by God to any other Person And so too is his other Note that because God gave to him the Name Immanuel He must needs be true God for God gave the same Name to the Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah that God would be with them or for them by destroying their Enemies the Syrians and Israelites We see that the words of the Prophet were originally intended of a Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah and that there was a good reason why that Name should be given to him But St. Matthew accommodates and applies both the Prophecy and the Name to our Lord Christ because in him they had another and a second Completion we may say a more perfect Completion For the Lord Christ was our Immanuel or God with us not only as he was a Sign that God would be on our side which was the only reason of the Name of the first Immanuel but because he did really conciliate God to us and us to God and because God was with him and in him by an extraordinary Effusion of his Spirit upon him No one can be so blind or obstinate as not to acknowledg that this Interpretation which indeed is not ours but advanced by divers of the principal Trinitarian Interpreters is easy and rational perfectly agreeable to the scope of the Prophet and also to the manner of writing observed by this and the other Evangelists who very usually apply divers Texts of the Old Testament intended originally of other Persons to the Lord Christ because in him they had a second and very often a more perfect fulfilling Therefore let our Opposers show cause why we should depart from an Interpretation every way reasonable to imbrace and adhere to theirs which implies a Doctrine contrary to the first Commandment and to the whole Current of Scripture even this that there is more than one Divine Person or more than one who is true God His second Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost He observes here that the Son and Spirit are set equally with the Father as Objects of our Baptismal Faith which either proves their real Equality or is of dangerous Import for 't is apt to impress upon us false Notions of the Deity and to make us think those to be really equal who are not so He saith moreover that in other Texts where God is joined with his Creatures a distinction is made whereby to discern that one is God and the other but Creatures but not so in this Text we are bid here to be baptized equally and alike to the Father Son and Spirit without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another of them therefore they must be understood to be equal It may be our Author knows not that some Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe that these words of
designedly misreport it and besides his Epistles are supposed to be forged by most learned Men because they make mention of Rites and Persons that were not in Being in Innocent's time Lastly Whereas the Unitarians at Alba said that this Text has been added to St. Matthew since the first Nicene Council tho Cardinal Bellarmine has only denied this he might most easily have proved the contrary For Tertullian who flourish'd above 120 Years before the Nicene Council often quotes this Text. In his Book concerning Baptism Chap. 13. he saith The Law of baptizing is imposed and the Form prescribed Go saith he teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And again in his Book against Praxeas Chap. 26. After his Resurrection he commanded that they should baptize to the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to one of them only It is true none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do ever alledg this Form of Baptism to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Spirit but the reason of that was because tho they allowed that the Son might be called God on account of his perfect Conjunction by Love Unity of Will and Subjection with the Father who only is true God yet they thought otherwise of the Holy Ghost some of them understanding him to be only the Energy or Power of God others that he was a Creature of the Son and only the chief of the ministring Spirits or Angels But to return to our Opposer He saith We are baptized alike and equally to the Father Son and Spirit therefore the two latter are equal in all respects to the former or are God no less than he they are mentioned together in this Text without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another which were of dangerous Consequence and apt to lead Men into Error if only one of these is true God But 1. 'T is not true that here is no Note of Distinction or Superiority for the words at length are these All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit I would know of our Opposer what greater Distinction could be made than our Saviour here makes between God and himself doth he not here expresly profess and own that his Power is given to him that he hath received it from the Liberality of another and not from himself Can any one be said to give Power to himself And the Apostle hath told us how we are to understand it that all Power is given to the Lord Christ in these words to the Ephesians God gave to him to be Head over all things to the Church Ephes 1.22 As who should say He is over all things and hath all Power with respect to the Church 't is He and He only that must prescribe her standing Laws and Rites and appoint by what Persons and what Means the Church shall be first gathered and then preserved 2. But supposing now there had been no Note of Superiority here made or Distinction of Dignity and Power I see not what could be truly inferred from thence to the advantage of our Author's Cause For when God is joined in the same form of Speech with any others sure that needs not to be expressed which all Men know and acknowledg even God's Superiority above all others 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Elect Angels Rev. 22.17 The Spirit and the Bride say Come Will our Author say upon these Texts and upon that other parallel Text 1 Sam. 12.18 All the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Will he say that Samuel and David the Angels and the Bride i. e. the Church are equal with God or with the Spirit because they are mentioned together without any Note of Distinction or of Dignity and Superiority in one more than in the other The Acts of Religion mentioned in those Texts are no less solemn or important than Baptism is fearing the Lord worshipping the Lord adjuring by the Lord are the very highest Acts of Devotion and Religion yet even in them God is joined with Creatures without any Mark of Distinction or Superiority because as I said when God is joined with any others there is no need of such Note or Mark. Therefore the more learned of our Opposers especially the Ancients of the first 400 Years do not insist on this Text of St. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit by these words In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit they understand only to the Profession and to the Obedience of the Father Son and Spirit According to these Criticks the Sense of the objected Text is only this Baptize the Nations into the Profession and Obedience of the Father or God and of Jesus Christ whom the Father hath commanded us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us and of the other Teacher even the Spirit or Inspiration of God by which he advises and comforts the Faithful in all extraordinary Exigences Our Author may please to consult Mr. Pool's Collections on this Text where he will see divers such Interpretations as this all of them by the Criticks of his own Party and all of them consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is held by the Socinians Therefore all those Interpreters and Criticks must be understood as giving up to us this Text. CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel OUR Author's next Effort is from that well-known Context even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel The Clauses by him urged are these In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him namely by the WORD and without Him was not any thing made that was made He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Others have added to these And the WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us Also that Testimony of the Baptist He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses by Misrepresenting it and by concealing the remarkable and probable Proofs which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond which he saith is a full Explication and the Sense of the Catholic Church Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church so called and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John but that 's the very thing in question whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel
wrote only that part of the Actions and Sayings of our Saviour which he did and spoke after the Imprisonment of John the Baptist To supply this Defect St. John was desired to commit to writing what he remembred of our Saviour before the Baptist was imprison'd In a word he wrote his Gospel to supply the Omissions of the other Three Evangelists Euseb Lib. 3. c. 24. Eusebius had read Hegesippus and whatever Church-History St. Jerom could have read and he has made it his Business to make Extracts out of all ancient Books concerning the Writers and Writings of the New Testament the diligence and exactness of this Historian is much admired and praised by all Learned Men nor will any such believe that St. Jerom had seen an Eccesiastical History which Eusebius had not seen St. Jerom says St. John wrote to oppose the Unitarian Heresy and that the first words of his Gospel were pronounced to him from Heaven Eusebius says John had written his Gospel because the other Evangelists had omitted the Gests and Sayings of our Saviour that were before the Imprisonment of the Baptist St. Jerom refers for what he says to an Ecclesiastical History unknown to all the Ancients but Himself Eusebius proves the Account he gives by solid and convincing Arguments His words in the Chapter before quoted are these It is evident that the other three Evangelists have committed to writing only the Gests of our Saviour during one Year's space namely after John the Baptist's being shut in Prison Matthew sets forth the time of his writing in these words When Jesus had heard that John was put in Prison He came into Galilee In like manner Mark saith Now after that John was put in Prison Jesus came into Galilee Luke also maketh this Remark Herod adding this to all the Evils he had done shut up John in Prison Therefore they say that the Apostle John being for this Cause thereto requested has declared in a Gospel according to him the time that was passed over in silence by the other Evangelists and what was done by our Saviour therein This is a probable Account that of St. Jerom is Miraculous and therefore pleases them who are taken with Marvellous things What shall we say then that St. Jerom devised or that he dreamt of an Ecclesiastical History which was never seen before nor since neither of them for I doubt not that his Tale is nothing else but an Improvement and a stretch of some words of Clemens Alexander which he found recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Lib. 6. c. 14. The words were taken by Eusebius out of the Institutions of Clemens Alexander which Institutions are now lost but Photius Cod. 105 and 111. has left us this Character of them that they contained very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fabulous and Impious Tales Of these Tales this is one John the last of the Evangelists seeing that what appertain'd to Christ's Humanity was manifested in the other Gospels being thereto moved by his Acquaintance and inspired by the Spirit wrote a Gospel concerning Christ's Divinity But to return to our Opposers They commonly say St. John wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus and Ebion and the Heresy of the Unitarians We have seen they have no solid ground for this Pretence in the History of the Church Irenaeus and Origon the most Learned of the Ancients knew nothing of it and Eusebius gives a contrary Account But the Gospel it self written by St. John will best decide this Question if he has more confirmed this pretended Heresy than any other Writer of Holy Scripture He did not without doubt write his Gospel against it Therefore let us briefly see what the Unitarian Doctrine is and how St. John hath delivered his Mind concerning it We say that only the Father is true God that the Lord Christ is his Prophet and Messenger to Man that therefore what the Lord Christ said was not from himself or by his own Authority but by particular Command and Charge from God that all the Miracles he did were not properly done by him but by the Spirit or Power of the Father given to him as to former Prophets Let us hear how St. John in his Gospel written designedly against us confutes this impious Heresy John 17.1 2 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 John 7.16 My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me John 12.49 The Father which sent me He gave me a Commandment what I should say John 14.31 As the Father gave me Commandment so do I. John 5.30 I can do nothing of my self John 14.10 The Father that dwelleth in me by his Spirit Energy or Power He doth the Works I know not what could be said more effectually to evince that the Lord Christ is not God but the Ambassador only and Messenger of God speaking according to the Instructions and Charge given to him and Acting by a Power not of his own but bestowed on him as on former Prophets and Messengers of God If the Texts before cited were not the very words of Scripture were they found in any other Book they should be Anathematiz'd as most Gross Socinianism as the very Heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion against whom as saith St. Jerom's Ecclesiastical History they were written And what wretched Subterfuges do our Opposers make use of to decline these plain Testimonies that were suggested by the Holy Ghost against them for we dare not like them feign Ecclesiastical Histories which say they were spoken against them from Heaven First They tell us St. John doth not say that only the Father is God but the Father is the only true God They say the Socinians have not had the Wit to perceive the vast difference between those two Expressions It may be true they say and is true that the Father is the only true God as St. John in the alledged Text says and yet the Son too is true God nay the only true God and the like of the Holy Ghost And when John says neither the Doctrine nor the Actions of our Saviour were his own but the Commandments of the Father given to him and the Works of the Father dwelling in him By the Father in those Texts they say we are to understand Three Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Nay when our Saviour saith Of that Day and Hour the Excision of Jerusalem and the Dissolution of the Jewish Polity none knoweth not the Angels neither the Son but the Father only 'T is not true for all that that the Father only or only the Father knoweth that Day and Hour for then only the Father were true God but the Father only in those words is not the Father only but also the Son who is there expresly denied to know that Day and Hour and besides him the Holy Ghost Well but however these things are St. John has paid us off they
did not like Lucifer conceive in his Mind that Impiety and Robbery to be equal with God but on the contrary He made himself of no Reputation and took the Likeness of a Man of Servile Condition by concealing the great Miracles which he did and by bearing Injuries and Reproaches without answering again Being made in the Likeness of all other Men and found in the common Fashion of a Man He submitted to be taken by the Jews and to undergo the Death of the Cross for the Glory of God and the Salvation of Men. And because He was thus affected towards God's Honour and the Good of Men therefore has God highly exalted him making him Head of the Church both that in Heaven and that on Earth and giving to him that Name above every Name King of Kings and Lord of Lords But hitherto of the Concertation between Mr. Milbourn's Heathen and our Country man I submit to the Reader which of them has best understood St. Paul But I desire you Sir to consider what wild Work our Opposers make with these Words and this Context of St. Paul and how they make no scruple to render him guilty of the most palpable Self-Contradictions in one and the same Breath The Lord Christ saith this Apostle was in the Form of God that is say our Opposers he had the very Nature of God or was truly and really God and He thought it not Robbery so They make the Apostle to speak to be equal with God Now if He was God how could He be equal with God for nothing is ever said to be equal with it self Equality and Likeness must be between several and divers things Well He was God and was equal with God and yet made himself of no Reputation took on him the Form of a Servant was made in the likeness and fashion of Men nay humbled himself to Death even the Death of the Cross But 't is both Morally and Physically or naturally impossible that God should do any of these things undergo any of these Changes Why do they not perceive that He who is true God cannot make himself of no Reputation or take the Form of a Servant the Likeness and Fashion of Men or submit himself to Death The Apostle goes on Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name O strange God exalts God and gives to him which implies that He had it not before a Name above every Name I would know what Name could be given to him above the Name he had before I do not pretend Sir that they own this Interpretation in the very terms I have here set it down but this I say that admitting their Hypothesis that the Lord Christ is true God this and no other was I must not say the Apostle's Sense but his meaning it was You may please Sir to compare it with that easy and natural Paraphrase of the Socinians which was before mentioned and then tell me which of them would be chosen even by a sensible Heathen to whom our Opposer has thought fit to make his Appeal CHAP. VIII On what he objects from the Actions or Miracles of our Saviour AFter he has done with particular Texts our Author from P. 381. spends some Sheets in recounting certain Actions of our Saviour by which it may appear that he was true God that one true God whom the Scriptures every where propound to us as the only legitimate Object of Faith and Worship He saith for instance our Saviour did many wonderful Miracles and that too in his own Name not as the Minister or Instrument of another but in a commanding way as when he rebuked the Winds and Waves and cast out Devils He healed Diseases by a Virtue issuing from himself as appears by the Woman who was cured by only touching his Garment and by his own words thereupon Virtue is gone out of me Nor did he cure only the Distempers of the Body but those of the Mind and Soul for he invited to him the weary and heavy-laden promising that he would give them Rest which is a sort of Language never used by any Prophet or meer Man nay he forgave to divers their Sins which 't is certain only God can do As a farther Display of his Divinity 't is said of him He knew what was in Man and he saith of himself I am He which searcheth the Reins and Heart There can be no greater Omniscience than this nor can Omniscience belong to any but God After his Resurrection He openid the Vnderstandings of his Disciples He breathed on them and thereby conferred the Holy Spirit which being God's Inspiration even in the Opinion of the Socinians How can it be given by any but God Afterwards He himself shed on them the same Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner when he caused the Spirit to descend on them in the likeness of cloven Tongues but if he were not God how should he give the Spirit of God to others They are his own words to his Disciples As my Father sent me so send I you but that could not be said by him if he had not the same Authority or were not equal with the Father After his Ascension his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name or only by Faith in him but no meer Man can enable another to do Miracles nor can Faith in a meer Man avail to that purpose Lastly He sent St. Paul to be a Minister to the Gentiles to convert them to God that so saith he they may have Remission of Sins and an Inheritance among those who are sanctified by Faith in me or by believing in me And in doing all this saith he farther to that Apostle I will deliver thee from the People and the Gentiles to whom I send thee Acts 26.16 17 18. Mr. Milb seems to think there is a great Force in these Allegations towards the evincing that the Lord Christ was indeed God and with these Proofs he concludes his present Argument from Scripture Let us examine what he hath said part by part He saith first our Saviour did Miracles in his own Name not as the Minister or Instrument of another But this is not the Language of Scripture the express words of our Saviour and the whole current of Scripture are against it John 17.28 I am not come of my self John 5.43 I am come in my Father's Name John 5.30 I can do nothing of my self Mat. 12.28 I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God John 14.10 The Father that dwilleth in me to wit by his Spirit be doth the Works Acts 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a Man approved of God among you by Miracles Wonders and Signs which God did by him in the midst of you Assuredly these Texts declare as evidently as in words can be done that the Lord Christ was no more than the Instrument and Minister of God and of his Spirit in working Miracles and that it was in the Father's Name not in his
11. God hath highly exalted him and given to him a Name above every Name That at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow of things in Heaven and things on Earth and things under the Earth And that every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Mat. 28.16 17. The eleven Disciples went away into Galilee into a Mountain where Jesus had appointed them And when they saw him they worshipped him With others the like Then for praying to him there are these Texts Mat. 8.25 Lord save us or we perish Luke 17.5 Lord increase our Faith Acts 7.59 Lord Jesus receive my Spirit 2 Cor. 12.8 9. I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me but he said to me My Grace is sufficient for thee Therefore I will rather glory in my Infirmities that the Power of Christ may rest upon me 1 Thess 3.11 12. God himself and our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way to you 1 Cor. 1.2 To all that in every place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus To which last there are several other Texts which are Parallels Of the Invocation of Christ That we are to pray not only to God but also to the Lord Christ is held by very many of the Unitarians themselves from the time that G. Blandrata and F. Socinus carried this Point against their Opposers in the Conferences and Synods of Poland Socinus and his Party urged as Mr. Milb here does that the Apostle saith To all who in every place call on the Name of the Lord Christ It was answered that the words of this and other the like Texts should have been rendred To all who in every place are called by the Name of the Lord Christ i. e. who from Christ are called Christians It was said further that admitting the Vulgar Translation yet to call on the Name of Christ imports no more but this even to call on his Name in Prayer that is to go to God in the Name of Christ calling on his Name as that only Name by which we can be heard Socinus alledged the words of the same Apostle God himself even our Father and the Lord Christ direct our way to you It was answered that this and what follows is not a formal Prayer but the Apostle desires and wishes that his Journey to Thessalonica may be directed and prospered by God as the Fountain of all good and favourable Providences and by the Lord Christ as the Mediator who cantinually interceeds for all necessary Benefits for the Faithful both Temporal Benefits and Spiritual 'T is in the same manner that we are to interpret the next words The Lord make you to abound and increase in Love for the Efficiency of the Lord Christ if he be the Person here meant in conferring Grace of any kind is only by his Mediation the general Mediation he makes for all the Faithful Socinus went on The Apostle saith concerning the Thorn or Temptation in his Flesh that he besought the Lord thrice concerning it who answered My Grace is sufficient for thee from whence the Apostle concludes that he will glory in his Infirmities that the Power of Christ may rest on him But it was said the Lord to whom the Apostle prayed is the Lord God not the Lord Christ and by those words I will glory in my Infirmities that the Power of Christ may rest on me He means he will even boast and rejoice in his Infirmities seeing they are the occasion of manifesting the Power of Christ namely the Virtue and Power of Christ's Mediation with God the Effects of which do rest on him and on all the Faithful Socinus alledged St. Stephen's dying words Lord Jesus receive my Spirit They replied every one may see in the Original that it should have been translated O Lord of Jesus i. e. O God receive my Spirit There was good reason why St. Stephen should use this Form O Lord of Jesus rather than barely O my God or any such like for being tried and condemned for his Faith in Christ Jesus it was proper to make mention of him and to bear Testimony to him with his very last and dying words It were enough for another to say O Lord God receive my Spirit But a Martyr for Christ and the first Martyr very properly said O thou Lord of Jesus for whose Name and Profession I suffer receive my Spirit I know not whether Socinus urged the words of the Apostles to our Saviour Lord increase our Faith and again Lord save us or we perish I judg he was more judicious than to trifle after such a manner For when they say Increase our Faith and save us from sinking in this Storm they undoubtedly meant that he should increase their Faith by his Prayers to God for them and that he should save them from sinking by that miraculous Power which Prophets have over the Works of Nature as when Elisha made Iron to swim when he blinded the Host of the Syrians when Moses divided the Red Sea and Joshua broke down the Walls of Jericho That this is a true Interpretation we learn from the words of the Apostles when the Storm ceased and the Danger was over What manner of MAN say they is this that even the Winds and Sea obey him They cried not our as Mr. Milbourn and his Fellow Lycaonians do The Gods are come down to us in the likness of Men but as sober Men bred up in the knowledg of the Scriptures and to the acknowledgment of one only God What manner of MAN is this How great a Prophet whom both the Sea and Winds obey The first Unitarians who contended that we ought to pray only to God thought that they very much confirmed the before-mentioned Answers by urging first that our Saviour being consulted about the Object and the Matter of Prayers answered When ye pray say Our Father which art in Heaven As who should say God is the only Object of Prayer you can address to no other but to Him but go to him as to your Father with the ingenuous Assurance of Children not the Dread and Awe of meer Creatures and Vassals Secondly Speaking also of the time of his Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven he saith John 16.23 In that day ye shall ask me nothing Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name calling on my Name be will give it you Elsewhere he saith I will give it you meaning by his Intercession with God 'T is plainly as much as to say Hitherto you have asked many things of me because I am present with you to intercede for you but the time is coming when ye can ask me nothing because I shall be taken from you but be comforted and ask immediately of the Father calling on my Name he will give you whatsoever you shall ask if it be good for you Thirdly To make Christ himself the Object to which we pray is to destroy his Mediatory Office For if he hears our Prayers and both
Church Acts 5.31 Ephes 1.22 There are three sorts of Worship the first is Civil Honour or Worship which is given to Others on account of Civil Dignity or Natural Endowments or the worthiness of the Rational Nature common to us all This kind of Worship is due more especially from Inferiors to Superiors but is not to be neglected by Superiors to Inferiors Next there is Religious Worship which we give to others on account of their Holiness or of their Relation to God And 't is more or less as their Sanctity or their Relation to God is greater or less this sort of Worship is due to holy Men and Women to the Ministers of God and holy Things more yet to Prophets above them to glorified Spirits and Angels We see in the Bible that Religious Worship was express'd by Terms of great deference and respect such as My Father and My Lord and for outward Acts sometimes by Kneeling sometimes by Prostration sometimes other ways as on the other hand they were sometimes accepted sometimes refused Lastly There is Divine Worship which belongs only to God It consists in a Resignation of our Understandings to what God shall say or reveal a Resignation of our Wills and Desires to what he does or decrees 't is a giving up our Affections to love him more than all things besides It consists moreover in such external Acts and Significations of Reverence and of Love towards him as we reserve only for him and never give to any other I say now the Texts cited and urged by our Opposer do not prove that the Lord Christ ought to be worshipp'd with more than a Civil and Religious Worship there are no Acts of Worship ever required to be paid to him but such as may be paid to a Civil Power to a Person in high Dignity and Office or to Prophets and holy Men or to such as are actually possest of the Heavenly Beatitudes What if it is said the Apostles worshipped that is kneeled to him Mat. 28.17 and that to him every Knee both in Heaven and Earth shall bow Phil. 2.11 Let our Opposers show that the Apostles worshipped him not as their Master but as their God or that every Knee is to bow to him not as to a Superiour Lord but as to a Person who is true and most High God till they prove this they prove nothing to the present purpose We are well assured that we can prove the contrary because we can prove the Lord Christ was a Man a Person who for his holy Life and Death was exaited by God which is inconsistent with his being God or a Person of God and whatsoever Name he hath that Name was gives to him by God and whatsoever Worship is paid to him is paid to him for the Sake by the Command and to the Glory that I may use St. Paul's words of God the Father of all Phil. 2.11 CHAP. XI Of the Satisfaction AFter having proved as he thinks the Divinity of our Saviour our Author undertakes to prove too the vulgar Doctrine of the Satisfaction He saith P. 683 684. The Infinite Justice of God necessarily requires that every Sinner nay that every Transgression be punish'd Therefore saith he farther that Mankind is pardoned is an Effect of the Justice of God to which Justice a full Satisfaction being paid by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ in our stead God could not evidence his Justice otherways than by granting Pardon and Salvation to us If God could pardon us freely without a Satisfaction to his Justice why are not the fallen Angels pardoned At P. 706. he has contrived a Tale or Romance concerning a certain King who taking Pity of his Rebels declared that they should be pardoned if any Person would be so kind to them as to suffer in their stead He tells us the King 's only Son offered to suffer for them and his Offer being accepted by his Father who dearly loved him the Son died and the Rebels were saved And this he saith is exactly our case with God He pretends also to answer to some Objections made by the Socinians against the pretended Satisfaction to God's Justice by the Lord Christ for our Sins They object that the Doctrine of a full Satisfaction to God's Justice on our behalf destroys the free Grace of God so much magnified in holy Scripture in the gratuitous Pardon of our Sins for if God received an Equivalent on our behalf he hath not pardoned us but only discharged or acquitted us because our Debt to his Justice has been paid for us by another To this he answers Yes the Grace and Pardon of God to us was most free because tho our Debt to God's Justice has been paid yet not by us but by a Person whom God himself found out for us Besides the Satisfaction made for us by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ being a refusable Payment because God might have required the Satisfaction of our selves or from us therefore he is rightly said to have pardoned us and to have shown most free Grace and Favour to us even tho an Equivalent and Satisfaction was made to his Justice on our behalf Again They object that God could not in Justice substitute a most worthy and righteous Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the place and stead of unrighteous and worthless Persons that were to pervert the Nature and whole Design of that sort of Justice which is exercised about Rewards and Punishments He answers God might punish the Lord Christ for us First Because under the Law the innocent Beast was substituted to Death and Punishment by being made a Sacrifice for the Sin and instead of the offending Owner and Master then because the Lord Christ freely offered himself to suffer in our room and stead Farther they object that the three days Death of the Lord Christ cannot be equivalent and therefore not a Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the eternal Death and Damnation of one Sinner much less of all Mankind For supposing that the Value of Sufferings or Punishment is increased even to Infinity by the infinite Dignity of the Person that suffers and supposing again that the Lord Christ being God as well as Man was indeed a Person of Infinite Dignity yet seeing his Divinity could suffer nothing at all but only his Humanity therefore his Sufferings were but human and finite and consequently no way commensurate to the infinite Punishment due to one Sinner much less to that of all Sinners He replies First that to the account of the Sufferings or Punishment of the Lord Christ we must reckon all the Sufferings of his Life and especially his Agony in the Garden which our Author saith was so great that it was equivalent to that eternal Punishment prepared by God for all impenitent Sinners p. 749. But lest the Agony in the Garden and on the Cross should seem to any to have been too much short in time to be laid in the Ballance against
but he cannot inflict their Punishment on the Innocent and Righteous for 't is of the very Essence of Justice nay is the first thing belonging to Justice not to misplace Punishment Not to misplace Punishment and not to exceed the desert of the Offence are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Justice The last Objection of which our Author thinks fit to take notice is this That the Three-days Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ could not be equivalent to the Eternal Damnation of so much as one Man much less of all Mankind He answers three ways 1. Our Saviour's Agony in the Garden was without doubt such a weight of Sorrow and Pain as was equivalent even to the eternal Damnation of all Men else we must say He was far less valiant in suffering than many Martyrs have been nay was a very Dastard and Coward Our Author pursues this Calumny upon his Saviour in several Pages see Reader from p. 739 to p. 749. He makes Calanus the Indian not a Christian neither but an Heathen a very Herot in comparison of that poor dispirited pretender Jesus of Nazareth He hath this Passage at p. 739. Nothing seems more mean among the various Accounts of Sufferers for Truth than the Carriage of our Saviour He saith farther That our Saviour prayed most earnestly to be delivered from Death and that he sweat Drops like Drops of Blood but the Martyrs even offer'd themselves to the most cruel Deaths and sang in the midst of Torments It is true that the great Passion of our Saviour in the Garden has made many to think not without cause that it proceeded from some higher Reason than the apprehension of the Death of the Cross which He was shortly to undergo It may be very probably supposed that He conflicted then with great Temprations that the Devil was very busy to fill his Mind with horrid Idea's and Representations and that this was the Cause of his Agony and that an Angel was sent to strengthen him The Martyrs on the contrary had influences and Assistances from the Divine Spirit and the Tempter was with-held from venting his Malice on them But to suppose with our present Author that our Saviour underwent in the Garden the very Torments of Hell nay such Torments as are infinitely greater than Hell-Torments because they were equivalent to the eternal Torments of all the Damned this is said without any ground nay contrary to all good Reason We must suppose on our Author's Hypothesis First That Christ underwent in the space of an hour such an acute Pain as answers fully to the whole Pain of a Damned Person in all Eternity Secondly That this Pain was so multiplied as to be equal to all the Tortures of all the Damned in whole Eternity And yet Thirdly he was only exceeding sorrowful and had a very great Sweat Surely such a Pain would have made him to cry out much more earnestly than on the Cross and how could an Angel strengthen him under such a Pain of which no Angel in Heaven could himself have bore the thousandth part But I would know too why an Angel from Heaven should be sent to strengthen him as is expresly said at Luke 22.43 Why not rather the Divine Person which our Opposers say was in him and with which he was personally united and personally one It had been far more natural that his own Divinity should have strengthned his Humanity than that the Angel shall be sent to support that Man who was they say God-Man I know not what Relishes other Mens Understandings may have but it will never go down with me that God-Man could want to be strengthned by an Angel and I look upon this to be an unanswerable Argument that our Lord Christ was only a Prophet and not God or any such super-eminent Spirit as the Arians believe him to be But that our Saviour's Sufferings may not want Weight to be laid in the Ballance against all the Sufferings of all the Damned our Author saith 2. As the Guilt and Demerit of Sin is made Infinite by being committed against the Infinite Majesty of God so the Merit of Christ's Sufferings on our behalf becomes Infinite too by being offered to an Infinite God I confess when I read this and his Story of the old King and his Son I gave our Author over for there never was any Man so silly but this Author as to conceit that a thing is made better or greater by the Greatness or Excellence of the Person to whom 't is oftered tho it be true that an Offence may be the greater for some Qualifications of the Person against whom it is done If what he says were true that the Infiniteness of God makes that Suffering which is presented to him to be also Infinite what needed our Saviour to have undergone so much as our Author conceits the Pain of the Cross nay the least Pain in his Finger had been sufficient without the horrible Agony in the Garden which he supposes to have been equal to all the Pains of all the Damned and that for ever And if it be true that Christ's Sufferings are made Infinite by his Infinity to whom they are offered then so also would the Sufferings of any other Man This strange reasoning of our Author makes the Punishment of Christ to be wholly needless the Sinners themselves might have sully satisfied God's Justice and that too by the slightest Sufferings if suffering receives its nature and degree from the Infinity of that Majesty to whom 't is tendred He saith thirdly He that suffered for us was God and Man in one Person and tho 't is true the true God could not die or suffer yet He who was true God did both suffer and die The Sufferings of such a Person must needs be esteemed of Infinite Value tho they were not Infinite in their Intension or in their Duration In think this to be almost as weak as the former Answer For seeing they dare not pretend that God could suffer any thing but only the Humanity which They say was united to him such Sufferings were but Human Sufferings the Sufferings of a Man not of God and therefore in no sense Infinite Their Conceit that the Humanity of Christs is united to the Divine Person of the Son helps them not in this case for God dwells in all the Faithful nay is united to them and one with them they are so joined that I may use the Apostle's words to the Lord as to be one Spirit with him 1 Cor. 6.17 John 17.21 but neither their Righteousness nor their Sufferings have any more value on that account but are rated only according to their intrinsick proper and real Worth CHAP. XII On the Texts alledged for the Satisfaction with a Conclusion of the whole THE last thing we are to consider is the Collection of Texts that our Author has here made he urges First That He Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was bruised