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
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
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
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
that I am not willing to be seen maintaining a Scuffle with him Others of his Party have known how to make a vigorous Opposition from this Context the sum of what they say is Every Clause here objected is a several Argument against the Socinian Heresy The First declares the Real Divinity of our Saviour by asserting his Eternity in these words In the Beginning as who should say from the very First or from all Eternity was the WORD The second Clause saith The WORD was with God to signify the continual and perpetual Generation of the WORD or Son and also the mutual Inexistence of these two Divine Persons in one another The next yet more Directly and even Expresly contradicts the Socinians by saying the WORD was God They say He was a Man and no more than a Man 'T is true they allow He may be called God in such sense as Moses is called a God and that by God himself at Exod. 7.1 in that He was to represent the Person of God being to deliver God's Commands to Pharaob to Israel and to the Egyptians But our Evangelist has been careful to prevent these Evasions by telling us what kind of God the WORD was All things saith he were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made And lest Incredulous and Obstinate Men should interpret all things in these words to be only All things belonging to the Gospel-state or the whole Oeconomy and Doctrine of the Gospel as the Socinians would now wrest St. John's words To prevent I say this Elusion he adds yet farther He was in the World and the World was made by him But this Holy Evangelist has not yet done with them He says at V. 14. The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us 'T were Nonsense to speak so of a Person who was only a Man Who ever said Peter or James were made Flesh and dwelt among us Would it not be Ridiculous so to speak Therefore the Lord Jesus was more than a Man He was God made Flesh that is to say Man for Flesh is a very usual Scripture-Term for Man He was made Man by being Incarnate in an Human Nature by an Hypostatical Union to a Body of Flesh and a Rational Soul This Evangelist has given us too the Testimony of the other John even John the Baptist concerning the Prae-existence or Prae-eternity of our Saviour He that cometh after me is preferred before me for be was before me We are expresly told by St. Luke that John Baptist was six Months older than our Lord Christ as Man Therefore when St. John says Christ was before him it must be thus understood that as God He was before John thô as Man He was younger than John It is true the Socinians have strained their Wits to give other Senses of these Verses or so to interpret them as to make their Saviour nothing but a Man not God not a Creatour no not so much as an Angel but a meer Man Now when Expressions may have divers Senses it sometimes happens that there are no Primitive Acts to ascertain one of the Senses above or rather than another of them but Providence has been watchful on behalf of the true Faith and the Catholic Interpretation of these Verses by preserving to us Ancient Acts and such as must needs satisfy sincere and teachable Persons the Church is in possession of most certain Records by which she indubitably proves the Catholic Interpretation of this Context The Socinians are not the First Authors of this Heresy that there is but one Divine Person even the God and Father of our Lord Christ and that the Lord Christ was nothing else but a Prophet and the Holy Spirit only the Power and Inspiration of God The Nazarens and Cerinthus and Ebion immediately after the Death of the Apostles began to propagate this Heresy to the great Offence and Scandal of the Churches And it so hapned that many hearkued to them insomuch that the Bishops and Churches of Asia importuned St. John to write somewhat more expresly concerning the Divinity of our Saviour than had been yet done by any of the Apostles St. John was at length prevailed on to do as they desired only he requested that a General Fast might be held to invoke the Aid of God on his Undertaking The Fast being ended the Holy Ghost fell upon him and He began his Gospel with these words which came to him from Heaven In the Beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him and without Him was not any thing made that was made This Relation is made by St. Jerom Proem Com. in Matth. And he declares in the same place that this was no uncertain Rumour nor a thing of Hear-say Sed ita narrat Ecclesiastica Historia The Church-History so tells us The Socinians therefore sweat to no purpose in devising Comments or Elusions on this Context which was designedly written against them 't is in vain for them to oppose their own Inventions to Primitive Acts which tell us plainly that this Gospel was written on purpose against their Heresy nay that the words of it with which we pretend to confute them came down from Heaven or were spoken against them from Heaven St. John being only the Penman not the Author of them Thus it is Sir that the Socinians are Baffled by false and Senseless Translations supported by Fictions and Legends There never was a Greater Flamm than this Tale of St. Jerom out of an Ecclesiastical History never seen by any body but Himself Irenaeus two Hundred Years older than St. Jerom and therefore so much nearer to matter of Fact could say nothing of St. John's Gospel but this He publish'd it at Ephesus in Asia Advers Haeres Lib. 3. c. 1. Origen who had made so diligent a search among all the Monuments of Antiquity that He might be able to give an exact Account of the Writers of Holy Scriptures says Concerning the four Evangelists we have received by Tradition as follows St. Matthew first a Publican afterwards an Apostle wrote his Gospel in Hebrew for the sake of the Jews who believed St. mark wrote his Gospel as St. Peter declared it to him The third is the Gospel of Luke approved by St. Paul and written for the sake of the Heathens Lastly St. John's Gospel Had St. Jerom seen an Ecclesiastical History that Origen never saw or would Origen have omitted such a Famous Occasion and Confirmation of St. John's Gospel when he tells us the Occasions and Approvers of the other Gospels The words of Origen before quoted were extant in his Fourth Book of Comments on St. Matthew they are preserved by Eusebius Hist Lib. 6. c. 25. Eusebius spends a whole Chapter concerning the Order of the Evangelists and declares the true Occasion and Cause of St. John's Writing which according to him was this It being saith he observed that the other Evangelists had
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
it in such sense as the Jews and other Eastern Nations used it for a Person of Eminent Dignity or worth The Woman said of Samuel then rising out of the Earth I see Elohim God Thomas says of our Saviour newly also risen Eloi Eloi my God my God they both use the same word and one no more than the other intended to call the Person of whom he spake the true God but only a venerable or dignified Person To be short the Hebrew words El and Elohim the Syriac and Chaldaic Elohi Eloi and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which we render by the English God are words of just such a Latitude in Holy Scripture and among the Jews and other Oriental Nations as the word LORD is with us for we use that word indifferently sometimes of God sometimes of Persons in Dignity and leave our meaning to be judged by the true and known Quality of the Person to whom we speak We do not think or fear we shall be understood as making a Man to be God because we call him by a Name by which also we call God This is the very case before us Thomas says to our Saviour Eloi a Name used of God and of Persons in Dignity and he expected not to be mistaken because the Person to whom he spoke was known to be a Man and not God 'T is likely the before-mentioned is the true Interpretation of the objected Texts and 't is certainly so if Thomas meant those words to our Saviour But divers Learned Persons even among our Opposers have been of Opinion that My Lord and my God or O my Lord O my God! are only words of Admiration and Thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God they are an Exclamation expressing the Apostle's Wonder and Amazement to find that his Master was indeed risen Of this Opinion was Nestorius Archbishop of Constantinople and that most Learned Person Theodorus of Mopsuest 'T is true the Evangelist saith Thomas answered and said unto him unto Christ My Lord and my God! or O my Lord O my God! but this hinders not but that the Exclamation was addressed to God as its Object tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour and to what he had said at ver 27. See the Brief History of the Vnitarians on John 20.28 CHAP. VII On the Texts out of the Epistles HE thinks much weight may be laid on Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Like to which Text is Rom. 1.3 Jesus Christ our Lord who was made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh He saith hereupon that these words According to the Flesh and as concerning the Flesh intimate plainly that according to something else the Lord Christ had another Original and was not wholly of the Jews This something else is the supposed Divine Nature of our Saviour according to which say they he is derived from God as according to the Flesh he is from the Jews Our present Author notes farther that the Lord Christ in the former of the before-quoted Texts is not only expresly called God but God over all blessed for evermore so all the Original Greek Copies read And as for Translations if there are any which favour the Socinians they are not however much to be regarded I answer 1. As to the words As concerning the Flesh and According to the Flesh they never signify as Trinitarians would here interpret according to the Human Nature as if Christ had also a Divine Nature We shall easily find the meaning of those Phrases by some other Texts of Scripture in which there is no Ambiguity Rom. 9.3 My Kinsmen according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham our Father as pertaining to the Flesh Col. 3.22 Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh Will our Opposers say here that Abraham or Paul's Kinsmen or Masters must be supposed to have a Divine Nature because of these words According to the Flesh and As concerning the Flesh 'T is easy to see that these Expressions are only as much as to say According to the Body and that they signify to us that Abraham is the Father of the Jews according to their Bodies as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits and the Jews were Paul's Kinsmen according to the Body but not of Kin to him in respect of Likeness in Faith or Manners also that Masters are Masters over our Bodies not of our Spirits and Minds Therefore in the other Texts also where Christ is said to be the Seed of Abraham of Israel and of David according to the Flesh the real and whole meaning is this That according to his Body or outward Man he descended of the House of David and of the Stock of Israel and Abraham as had been promised concerning him in the Prophets but his Spirit or Soul was from God Here again we interpret Scripture by it self let our Opposers shew a Reason why they decline an Interpretation which the Scripture it self affords to us and how it comes to be Heresy to understand the meaning of one Text by the help of such other Texts as are confest to be clear and evident 2. He saith the former of these Texts expresly calls the Lord Christ God and God over all blessed for ever and that all Greek Copies agree in this reading But he might have taken notice out of Grotius that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac had not the word God they only say of our Saviour here the Blessed over all The same illustrious Interpreter observes that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of St. Cyprian St. Hilary and St. Chrysostom had only the Blessed over all or above all without the word God These are Observations which destroy our Author's Argument from this Text but because he knew not what to say to them he took no notice of them But it is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such Questions as these When it appears by so great Authorities that the Antient Reading was other ways than we read in our present Copies or that the reading was then various and uncertain how can such Texts or such Expressions be admitted as Proofs in so great a Question as this before us Is it advisable or safe to argue against the Unity of God or to build Articles of Faith on suspected Texts the Reading ought to be indubitable else the Inference drawn from it will also be uncertain An Article of Faith must have a sure Foundation else 't is not Faith but a precarious Conjecture 3. But allowing now that the Word God is rightly read in this Text two of the most eminent Critics and principal Masters in the Greek Tongue have observed that St. Paul's words should have been pointed and read after this manner Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ is come The God over all be blessed for ever Amen So Curcellaeus
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
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