the confession of their Adversaries Some of them had preserv'd the gift of miracles which expir'd soon after Such an assertion had it not been true would have better become a pack of Villains than Holy and Reverend Men. 2ly How durst the Nicence Fathers declare this to be the Faith and Anathematise whosoever was against that sacred wise Divine and Catholick Faith had this Faith been new and unknown to the Fathers before nay had a contrary Faith obtain'd then in the Christian World This is a monstruous supposition that within 300 Years after Christ the Nicene Fathers should presume to obtrude the belief of and declare a Doctrine to be Faith which the Primitive Fathers were not so much as acquainted with To give more strength to this and prevent an objection which perhaps may have some colour and occasion another Criticism I freely own that not only the Arrians but even some of the Orthodox complain'd that the words Consubstantial and Consubstantiality were new and unscriptural But this confirms what I have said the newness and unscripturalness of the words but not of the sence being asserted They agreed in the truth and antiquity of the Doctrine but only differ'd about these two words which by being new and unscriptural were not thought so fit to express it I beg your pardon for insisting so long upon this But I was forc't to it 1st Because this very place of that Letter you have often urg'd to me 2ly To shew that how great Criticks soever we are we must be just and equitable and value reasons above Criticisms If these Gentlemen write for the Unlearned they are much out of the way these things are above their reach And if for the Learned they must own that this has not made one Learned Man of their side It is a sort of Chicane which Men of sence abhor 6ly These Gentlemen would have us prove those Terms by Scriptures which we own to be unscriptural They challenge us to find in the New Testament the word Godman Trinity Incarnation nay whole Propositions in Terminis The Author of the Letter now cited pag. 10. pretends it as a great Argument of their side that Tertullian is the first amongst the Latins and Clemens Alexand. amongst the Greeks who first us'd the word Trinity We might as well ask and with as little reason where is the word Vnity in respect of God or Sacrament or Hierarchy and several more which all the World receives and yet are no Scriptural words If we do but find the things exprest by the words as that God is one that there is Baptism and the Lord's Supper that there is an order of Men appointed to administer holy things the words are a natural consequence and founded in the things themselves Is it not highly unjust to ask us where we find a Trinity if we can prove three Divine Persons That besides the Father whom they acknowledge to be God the Son also and the Holy Spirit is God To wonder at the word Eternal Generation since if we prove Christ's Pre-existence and Pre-eternity He cannot be the Son of God but by way of Eternal Generation To stare at the word Incarnation as such an unheard of thing since if Christ is God and yet has taken our nature He must be Incarnate These are poor mean and a sort of Mob difficulties These Grievances being consider'd I beg nothing but what is equitable 1st I beg that if we prove the thing in question that is the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy spirit we may have no quarell about the words Trinity and Incarnation 2ly That no particular Interpretation of any Protestant Author may be brought against us as Interpretation either of our Church or any other considerable body of Protestants 3ly That if a Text is capable of a various reading and of a double sence that sence and reading may be preserv'd which is prov'd to have been the ancient reading and the sence generally receiv'd in the Churches of God A sence new and unknown to all the Ages of the Church cannot be the sence and that possession which we and all Christian Societies are in of those Texts cannot be disturb'd without something more forcible and authoritative than the witty fancy of an Interpreter 4ly I beg that the Fathers may be heard as Witnesses of an unquestionable integrity and that this at least may be a real prejudice against these Gentlemen that they have not only oppos'd the Faith of their Age but also that of times past 5ly That a Criticism alone the doubting of a Book the denying of a place the wrangling about a Particle without some considerable reason to back it may not be look't upon as an Answer 6ly That not only some one particular Text which we alledge be consider'd but that all our Texts be taken together with the weight of the important reasons which inforce the belief of our Mysteries This granted I conceive that it is no difficult matter to convince a candid Opposer that the New Testament is clear for the Divinity of Christ We will begin by that which is the foundation of our Holy Religion Matt. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is the ancient profession of our Faith and ingenuously acknowledg'd to be such by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milb pag. 16. He cites for this Tertullian de bapt c. 13. He might have cited Theodoret lib. 1. c. 12. St. Basil de Spir. sanct and Arrius himself who is a Witness of this in the Confession of his Faith given to Constantine and reported by Socrates lib. 1. c. 26. The Orthodox from this Text conclude three Persons to be spoken of These Gentlemen only two The Father who is God and the Son The Holy Ghost they will have to be no more than the Energy of the Father They are positive in the Brief Hist pag. 25. That neither the more learned of their Opposers nor the Fathers of the first 400 Years insist on this Text to prove the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit The matter of fact is a vast mistake and the very supposition is impossible This place having been cited so often by the Ancients and modern to prove the Persons of the Trinity must of course in their Hypothesis be an Argument for their Divinity They agree with us that the Son spoken of in the Text is Christ Jesus whom they will have to be the Son of God by all other titles but that of Nature and Essence They say of him that he is the Son of God by his miraculous Conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin By his Mission to preach to Men and reclaim them from their Sins by his Glorious Resurrection being begotten to a new Life and his Admission to a Blessed Immortality whence as God's deputy he is to come to judge the quick and the dead
are not pleas'd to observe that there is in the Text an actual comparison of two natures of Christ as Man and of Christ who is God blessed over all of Christ who in the first capacity is descended from the Jews and is a Jew according to the Flesh and of Christ who in the other has a communication of the Divine Nature and is God blessed over all It is easy to see says the Author of the Answer to Mr Milbourn that these expressions in the places cited by him are only as much as to say according to the Body I grant it But I affirm that it is easy to see that the Apostle speaks in those places Absolutely and without relation to any thing else and that here he speaks relatively to another being which Christ has This appears not only from the thing it self where there is an obvious comparison but from the very way of expressing of the Greek which our language cannot reach In all the places cited by these Gentlemen according to the Flesh is express'd without any Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine it to any sence than what really it has But when this is say'd of Christ There the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is compar'd to somewhat else The Apostle has it clearly Rom. 1.2 and 3. made according to the Flesh where the Flesh does not signify the body as the places which they have cited to elude the force of this Text but the humane nature of Christ in opposition to these words according to the Spirit of Holiness by which the Divine is express'd This explication is of St. Chrysostom on this place Theodoret and long before of Tertullian adv Prax. Made of the seed of David according to the Flesh says that Father Here is the man and the Son of man And declar'd to be the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit Hic est Deus sermo Dei filius This is the God and the word the Son of God This was the Divinity of Tertullian's time before the Council of Nice Having done with this Text I pass to Act. 20.28 St. Paul taking his leave of the Asian Bishops exhorts them pathetically to that diligence and care which is the source of all Pastoral Vertues He urges it on these two Motives 1st That they have receiv'd their power from the Holy Ghost 2ly That the Church which he exhorts them to feed is the Church for which God has been pleas'd to dye Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own blood This is spoken of a God by nature since according to the Socinian Rule God is nam'd here with an Article It is not only a God but the God He has purchas'd to himself a Church he has bought us with a price and because without remission of Sin there is no redemption and there is no remission without blood he has purchas'd us with blood But the blood of Goats and Calves the blood of others being of it self ineffectual and only Figurative he has shed his own blood for us This cannot be say'd of the Father who these Gentlemen deny and with a great deal of reason to have suffer'd Nor can it be asserted of the Holy Spirit since they assure him to be only a power and an energy and it is ridiculous to say that an energy shed his own blood In can be say'd of none but the Son who having taken our nature upon him became our Mediator and High-Priest and by his own blood that blood which he shed for the Church obtain'd eternal redemption for us But that High-Priest that Mediator that Christ is say'd to be the God therefore he must be partaker of the Divine Nature and since the Father is the God and he is also the God there must be more persons than one subsisting in the Deity This is deciding and conclusive Yet the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 34. makes these exceptions 1st That in the Armenian Syriack and the most ancient of the Greek Bibles the reading is not the Church of God but of Christ 2ly That admitting the reading God in the vulgar Editions of the Greek yet some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd the Greek words thus Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own Son's blood 3ly That admitting the Translation in our English Bibles some learned men particularly Erasmus have noted that the blood of Christ is here call'd the blood of God because it was the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World so Joh 1.36 This is the lamb of God that is the lamb of Sacrifice which God gives for the sins of the world These Gentlemen have the misfortune to call every thing an Answer 1st It is true that in some Copies these words have been read with some alteration but nothing at all to their purpose some few have read the Churc◠of the Lord others the Church of the Lord and God but none the Church of Christ They will much oblige the Common-wealth of Learning if they will produce any of these best and most ancient Copies A very learned Man of this Age has pretended to prove that the Church of Christ is not the language of the Scripture and that when the Church is spoken of by way of eminence as it is in this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church it is often say'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God but never the Church of Christ And this Criticism they will find true if they give themselves the trouble to examine it The Syriack Interpreter is rather an Expositor than a Translator The Latin who is wholly a Translator and not an Expositor reads Ecclesiam Dei The Church of God The second part of their Answer that some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd his own Son's blood instead of his own blood is a crying notorious and unpardonable falsification of a Text. What will be the end of our disputes if when we are press'd with the undenyable evidence of a Scripture we presume to add words to it and usher in that Sacrilegious attempt upon the word of God with saying some great Masters of the Greek Tongue When these Gentlemen talk of Syriack Arabick Coptick Armenian they may easily impose upon the simple but for Greek which is common to all professions in this Kingdom to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own proper blood is with his Son's blood to make the falsification Authentick by Attributing it to the great Masters of the Greek Tongue and call this an Answer to a solid Objection is a piece of an Incomprehensible Confidence 3ly Socinus and Chrellius were more dexterous who being press'd by this Text very fairly lay'd aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own wherein lyes the stress of the Argument but call'd it as Erasmus has done the blood of God the Father that is the blood which God gave for the
v. 4. That he is so much better than the Angels that he has by inheritance obtain'd a more excellent name than they I hope that by the name of Angels it will not be deny'd that their being and nature is express't according to the Dialect of Scripture Or else What signifies the distinction of inheriting a name or a name by inheritance from a name given What the Angels are is by the favour and gift of the Creator what Christ is is by nature and inheritance He shews then of the Angels v. 7. what is their name what they are He makes his Angels spirits and his Ministers a flame of fire v. 8. He brings in God speaking to Christ as to his Son discovering his nature his name by inheritance But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever To this these Gentlemen Answer in the brief Hist pag. 16. That the words are litterally spoken of Solomon and mystically of Christ That this is the opinion of Grotius But that whether they are spoken litterally of Solomon and mystically of Christ neither Christ nor Solomon are here call'd God The place being ill translated The Hebrew and the Greek importing no more than this God is thy Throne that is thy resting place or establishment for ever and ever I began to admire how these Gentlemen deny that Solomon is here call'd God who when we prove that Christ is call'd God in many places of Scripture have made this answer almost thredbare that he is call'd God as Solomon is here and Moses Exod. 7.1 But they unsay this again and are somewhat larger in the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 8. They cite Grotius who makes this Psalm to be an Epithalamium sung by the maids to Solomon and Sulamitis the Daughter of the King of Egypt They say That we catch at the word God as if the Psalmist and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews spoke of such a Person as is truly and really God That we should note that Christ tells us Joh. 10.35 That those also are call'd Gods in Scripture to whom the word of God comes That Solomon in this Psalm is saluted by the Name of God according to the known language of those times and Countries to Magistrates and Princes But after all the place of the Hebrews is so pressing that they pass from accomodation and application and are willing to allow that he interprets the words of Christ because The Psalm being compos'd by a Prophetical Poet at the same time that he courted and prais'd Solomon He might Prophecy of Christ That this account is approv'd by the most learned Criticks One would have expected from men of learning somewhat more solid When we say that Christ is call'd God we are so far from catching at the word God that we maintain it to be after a manner so peculiar to the most high God that it is applicable to no Man and that what the Prophet say's and the Apostle after him is visible to the meanest capacity can be said neither of Moses or Solomon or any Prince or Magistrate The business of the Epithalamiums and the custom of the Eastern People are pretty little imaginations That it is not render'd according to the Hebrew or the Greek is notoriously suppos'd The Interpretation of Grotius is both senceless and false It is senceless For what addition is it to the Messias that God is his resting place Is he not so to all good men Are not our Souls made perfect by his grace committed into his hands as unto a faithful Creator to become Eternally happy It is false and that visibly too by the reading of the next verse Therefore O God Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows I read O God For thus Eusebius demons Evang. lib. 4. Orig. con Cels lib. 1. St. Jerom Epis 140. have prov'd that it ought to be read both from the nature of the thing and the letter of the sacred Text. St. Austin in his Exposition on this very Psalm which in the old Interpreter is the 44th is positive that this is manifest from the Greek This has caus'd several learned men to think that what is written in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was formerly written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though Eusebius in the place already cited makes it evident from many unquestionable Texts of Scripture that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers fully the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have said is the sence of the place and the reading of Aquila As for Criticks I highly honour them who have really endeavour'd to find out the true sence of the difficult places of Scripture I own Grotius in particular to have been a Man of great learning But to criticise in Texts which are plain and easie and to torture the words of the Holy Writers to make them bear with notions altogether new and unknown to antiquity I think to be insufferable I am perswaded that this Psalm was never intended for Solomon by the argument of the ancient Jews that the 3 4 and 5. verses which represent a fighting and a conquering Prince can never be made to agree to one whose name expresses and whose life was spent in a profound peace The 110 Psalm is understood of the Messias by the Thargum and most of the old Rabbins That it was so by the Jews in Christ's time appears by his publick appealing to the authority of this Psalm That it is an eminent Prophecy of Christ is evident by his own assertion Matt. 22.43 44. St. Peter proves from thence that he is both Lord and Christ Acts. 2.34 35 36. The Author of the Epistle to the Heb. draws from thence most of his Arguments Heb. 1.13 and 5.6 20. and 7.1 and fol. ver And indeed offer no violence to the Psalm but take what it plainly presents It looks more like a revelation of the new then a Prophecy of the old dispensation The first verse expresses clearly the Divinity of J. C. The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou at my right hand One Divine Person is reveal'd to David speaking to another The Lord saying to My Lord. The argument of Christ is irrefragable If the Christ is no more than the Son of David If he has no other nature than that which he draws from him How comes God to call him Lord in that revelation which he made of him The second verse shews his regal dignity that power which he has over all The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion rule thou in the midst of thy enemies The third his pre-existence before all created beings and consequently a being in God and from God which can be no other way than by a communication of the Divine Essence From the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth Or as the old Latin Interpreter St. Chrysostom on this Psalm St. Jerom on the 22. of Matt. Ante
that nature The Place cited out of St. Peter has no relation at all to this That of St. Paul to the Corinthians is as much foregin to it being only an excellent Metaphor to express our future state That to Timothy is indeed more to the matter in hand but the Apostle has prevented the objection by speaking positively of God's decree in respect of our Election Who has call'd us with a holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose ... which word the Author was pleas'd to overlook What has been said will give light to some difficulties which these Gentlemen judge to be unanswerable The 1st is taken from this very Chapter Joh. 17.3 and this is life Eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent The Author of the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 22. is positive that the Father is call'd the true God exclusively to any other and that nothing can more effectually evince that Christ is not God but only God's Ambassador This is one of those very many Texts says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 5. which directly affirm that only the Father is God The objection is not new It was made by the Arrians in the Council of Nice and exploded by the Fathers The truth is these Holy Men never understood the words as fixing and restraining the Deity to the Father with exclusion to the Son and the Holy spirit nor their sence to have any regard to either of them or else this would absolutely have decided the Controversy Nor is it comprehensible that the Fathers before the Council of Nice would have spoken so fully to the Divinity of Christ or that those of the Council of Nice and the Fathers after them and the whole Christian World durst have embrac't it as an essential part of our Faith if they had look't upon the sence of this Text to be no other than what is pretended by these Gentlemen The Good the wise the Learned cannot be conceiv'd to have willfully run into an errour contrary to the open and known sence of such a place of Scripture They constantly understood these words The Father the only true God to be spoken not exclusively to the two other persons but in opposition to the Gods of the Heathen those false Deities which had usurp't amongst them the place of the true Nor is it unusual in Scripture by the Father to mean not so much the first Divine Person as the Deity in general I will not spend time in setting down the many ways that this Text may be read in or what order the words might be made capable of to take off their pretended inconsistency with the Christian Hypothesis of three Persons subsisting in the same Divine Nature St. Basil and St. Chrysostom have effectually done it and shew'd how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have render'd only is rather comprehensive than exclusive in the dialect of Scripture I have a plain and obvious reason why the only True God must be understood in the sence of the Fathers in opposition to false Gods and not in exclusion of Christ and the Holy spirit and that is that Christ in Scripture is call'd the true God and the only Lord God which can never be if the only true God here must be restrain'd to the Father as these Gentlemen would have it 1 Joh. 5.2 and we know that the Son of God is come and has given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille he is the true God and Eternal life I take this to be positive and decisive that the only true God cannot be understood in relation to the Son or the Holy spirit since the Son is also call'd true God No says the Author of the Brief Hist p. 43. This is a very negligent translation and no sence can be made of the words The latter part of the Text ought to have been render'd we are in him that is true by his Son Jesus Christ and not in his Son Jesus Christ This Text plainly denys that Chirst is the true God The outlandish Socinians had made a miserable exception to this Text which these Gentlemen thought fit to forsake as ruinous But this is to the full as bad The translation is directly against them Therefore it is negligent and nonsensical The translators cannot be made to speak as they would have them Therefore they are careless and speak nonsence The particle in Jesus Christ ruines their opinion Therefore it must be by contrary to the Faith of all translations contrary to any possible construction of the place contrary to the sence of all Interpreters You see Sir how desperate is that cause which cannot support it self without these mean shifts and has nothing to oppose to a plain and deciding Text but the bold and presumptuous altering of a Particle I use these words which perhaps may seem too sharp because the thing of it self is so extraordinary and this Text in the original so infinitely clear that I durst give up the cause if of a thousand Translators strangers to the controversy any one does translate by and not in his Son Jesus Christ I think that Jud. 4. is much to be consider'd There is a description made of unhappy Men who are crept in unawares Their Character is to be ungodly to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and to deny the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ That the whole is spoken of Christ appears from the Greek construction of the Phrase from the singleness of the Article and the continuation of the Text without the least punctuation The whole running thus denying Jesus Christ who is the only Lord God and our Lord. This is so obvious that to prove it is to lose time It not only asserts the Divinity of Christ but also shews how vain is the pretence that in the disputed Text the only true God should exclude the Son or the holy spirit As if any rational Man durst infer from thence that because Christ is call'd the only Lord God Therefore the Father is neither Lord nor God These Gentlemen have taken no notice of this Text in any of their writings that I have seen and so have say'd nothing to it But yet because a proof must be clear and candid and remove if possible all objections what can be oppos'd to it amounts to this That the old latin Interpreter and some Greek Manuscripts of a considerable Authority do not read the word God and that Erasmus has translated not the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ But God who is the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ Erasmus and one or two more Modern Interpreters who with all the care imaginable have endeavour'd to obscure or prevert all those Texts which speak openly of the
to our belief I believe in God in which Three Persons subsist The Father who is Maker of Heaven and Earth His only Son who is our Lord and the Holy Spirit who Sanctiâ—ies the Catholick Church This expression the only Son or the only begotten is a stop to all those exceptions For he cannot be a deputed God who is a Son an only Son begotten as the Fathers and Councils express it of the substance of the Father He must be God of God very God of very God The Eternal God of the Eternal God This suppos'd there is no objection can be pretended God cannot have a Son but it must be by a communication of his substance An Eternal being cannot communicate it self as we mortals do within the measures and successions of time A mortal begets another mortal He can give no other substance then what he has An Eternal being gives what he is himself an Eternal and Divine being This leads to the true sence of Col. 1.15 2. Cor. 4.4 Heb. 1.3 where Christ is call'd the image of God the brightness of his glory the express image of his Person Texts so reverenc't by the Fathers of the Christian Church and so abus'd by Socinus and the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 38. who says That those Texts are demonstrations that Christ is not God it being simply impossible that the image should be the very being or thing whose image it is Were this reasoning true which is a meer Sophism to reason of an Eternal and Increated Being by the rules of things mortal and created it can reach to no more than this that the Son is not the Father because he is the express Image of his Person which is true but at the same time it proves that because he is his Image he must have a communication of his substance because he is his only Image as he is his only begotten Son But say these Gentlemen you run on but still you suppose the thing to be prov'd We agree that Christ is the only Son our Lord but we deny that the only begotten implies a communication of substance Christ says the Authour of the Brief Hist pag. 28. is call'd the only begotten on several accounts This especially that he only was begotten by the Divine Power on a Woman He is the only begotten says Chrellius because of all the Sons of God he is the best and most dear to him Time is too precious to spend it in answering such things as these are The Interpretation of Chrellius is trifling and that of the Brief Hist is absurd God is a Father antecedently to the Creation of the World God is not the Father of Christ but as he is the Father of the word who assum'd our nature Had there been nothing created there would have been still a Father and Father of it self supposes a Son If the Father is from ever the Son is from ever These ancient assertions of the Primitive Fathers destroy the notion of these Gentlemen of the only begotten A notion so strange so new so contrary to the language of Scripture and to that of the Church that the Old Hereticks durst never offer at it It ruines the difference between Christ and the rest of men For we are all the Sons of God Nay we can no more be the Sons of God being only Sons of God by adoption and only adopted in Christ Jesus who if he is adopted himself and only a Coheir with us as we are Coheirs with him there is no more adoption the great blessing of Christianity Now if Christ is the only begotten of the Father by reason of his being conceiv'd of a Woman by the Divine Power it is visible that he is no more than an adopted Son as we are This second Adam has no more of the Divine Nature than the first who was made of the Earth by the Divine power as the other was made of a Woman and was only an adopted Son Whereas the Scripture is so careful to distinguish between us the adopted Sons and that Son who is not adopted and is call'd the true Son the only Son his own Son his only begotten Son that Son who is sent Gal. 4.4 that we might receive the adoption of Sons It offers violence to these Texts to which the Author of the Brief Hist has done the advantage to shew that they are proofs against all the Turns of Wit Joh. 10.30 I and my Father are one Joh. 7.29 I know him for I am from him Joh. 10.38 The Father is in me and I in him I came out from the Father and to all the unanimous confessions in the Gospel Thou are the Christ the Son of the living God I commend this Author to have in this place given an answer without a reason to support it He has in this as in other places evaded and shifted the difficulty He sees what straights his Explication of the only begotten is lyable to and too much modesty to have laid down the pretended reasons of his Friends They would put a sober Philosopher to the blush I cannot without Horror read Smalcius de vero natur dei fil And all that can be said to this is what St. Austin said almost on the same account that it is Sceleratissima opinio a most execrable opinion Serm. 191. de temp I will multiply no more Arguments on this subject the places alledg'd being so full and forcible and the shifts of these Gentlemen so visible that it is enough to perswade any equitable person I pass to the second part of the assertion that the name of God is given to the Saviour after a manner applicable to no creature I will not lay down the rules which the Socinians have invented to discern when the word God must be understood of that God who is so by nature and of the deputed God who is only so by Office They are Criticisms for the most part false and always little and uncertain I humbly conceive that 1 Tim. 3.16 is spoken of the God by nature And without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justify'd in the spirit seen of Angels preach't to the Gentiles believ'd on in the world receiv'd up into Glory I humbly conceive also that every word of this is accomplish't in Christ Jesus and that this Text is an Epitome of the Gospel God was manifest in the Flesh is the explication of Joh. 1.1 and the word was made Flesh Justify'd in the spirit is the explication of Matt. 3.16 17. and lo the Heavens were open'd and the spirit of God descending ... and lo a voice from Heaven this is my beloved Son Seen of Angels is the explication of Matt. 4.11 and behold Angels came and Minister'd to him Preach't to the Gentiles is the explication of Matt. 28.18 Teach all nations Believ'd on in the World is the explication of Joh. 6.69 and many places of this nature Receiv'd up into Glory is the Explication
our Father as pertaining to the Flesh Coloss 3.22 Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh Which places do not suppose that they had a Divine Nature but only mean that Abraham is the Father of the Jews according to their Bodies as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits Therefore the meaning can only be that according to the body Christ descended from Abraham and David This last part of the Answer is perfectly Socinian The second he has borrow'd of Erasmus and the first of Grotius The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says the same things He adds That Mr. Milbourn might have taken notice out of Grotius that the Greek Copies us'd by the Author of the Syriack had not the word God They only say the blessed over all That the same Illustrious Interpreter observes that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of St. Cyprian Chrysostom Hilary had only the Blessed over all without the word God Then the Answerer grows angry These are says he Observations which destroy our Author's Arguments from this Text. But because he knew not what to say to them he took no notice of them It is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such questions as these When it appears by such great Authorities that the ancient reading was otherwise or various or uncertain how can such Texts be admitted as proofs in so great a question as this At last he gives the reason why Erasmus has made a Translation contrary to all the Translations in the World because he observes that if the words God over all had been intended of Christ the Apostle should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt not says he that our Author was aware that those Criticks were in the right and therefore he willingly overlook't both the Translation and the reason of it Thus far this Author pag. 34.35 of his Answer This is indeed very severe and much exceeding the bounds of common civility but strangely barbarous if all this is made to appear to be trifling and inconsiderable 1st This Gentlemen who chid Mr. Milbourn for not taking notice out of the Illustrious Grotius that the word God is not in the Syriack should not have trusted Grotius who is really mistaken in this but should have gone to the Syraick it self and there would have found the word God He should have seen also that he was deceiv'd by Grotius as Grotius was by Erasmus an Illustrious Person often deceiving another about St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom and St. Hilary For several Copies of St. Cyprian read the word God And that that demonstrates beyond the possibility of denyal that if it is not in some Copies it must have been the fault of the Transcriber is this that St. Cyprian makes use of this Text lib. 2. adv Jud. and brings into the Catalogue of those Texts which call Christ â—od He had it from Tertullian disputing against Praxeas and alledging this Text twice a thing ordinary to St. Cyprian who us'd to call the learned African his Master This shews by the way how these Gentlemen can assure that the Antenicene Fathers did not believe Christ to be God Erasmus has also mistaken St. Chrysostom who is so far from reading the blessed over all without God that in his Exposition he reads neither the one nor the other but both when he cites this Text. But for St. Hilary I am amaz'd to hear his Authority disputed who has not only cited this Text with the words God blessed over all but added an Explication to it which is levell'd against the very Soul of Socinianism the beloved notion of a deputed or of a made God Non ignorat Paulus Christum Deum dicens quorum sunt Patres ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus Non hic Creatura in Deum deputatur sed Creaturarum Deus est qui super omnia Deus Paul is not ignorant that Christ is God who says whose are the Fathers and of whom Christ came who is God over all Here a Creature is not a deputed God but he is the God of Creatures who is God over all Hil. de Trin. The Author of the Brief Hist was sensible of this and modestly declin'd the naming of these Fathers But how could Mr. Milbourn's Adversary so severely reflect upon him when he himself was certainly in the wrong May I speak to him in his own words either he knew all this or he did not If he did not how could he call a reading various and uncertain when their is none so clear and so free from exceptions and if he did how could he have the Conscience to do it But admitting that God is not in the Text what then The stress of the Argument does not lye in the word God which these Gentlemen understand as they please but in the word blessed over all which belongs to none but God Mark 14.61 Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed By which word blessed the the High-Priest understands in the dialect of the Jews the Holy one the Almighty the only true God Rom. 1.25 and 11.36 2. Cor. 11.31 Gal. 1.5 1 Tim. 1.7 in all which places and great many more is a perpetual acknowledgement of that Eternal Glory which is God's and infinitely transcends any Created Being Nor can there be a more substantial proof of the Divinity of Christ than this that that Glory is given him as in this Text which by the unanimous consent of the Scriptures is given only to God Heb. 13.22 1 Pet. 4.11 and 5.11 2 Pet. 3.18 Rev. 1.6 2ly The punctuation of Erasmus and Curcellaeus and the addition of the word be is a bold and presumptuous attempt unknown to all Antiquity and which the Arrians themselves never thought of If this liberty is granted there is not a place in Scripture but what may be perverted men must leave off to talk and reason There can be no Faith no candor left in disputes The honestest discourse by the means of a different punctuation of the words may be made obscure and infamous But it is the sickness of these Gentlemen The Bible will not say what they would have it to say and therefore they must add Particles and Comma's and alter an order which ought to be Sacred and inviolable But after all this the Criticism says Beza on this place is little and silly It is known to any one who has the smallest tincture of the Greek Tongue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Participle is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He sends Erasmus for this to School and this use of the Greek Tongue I take to be the reason that neither Asterius the Grammarian nor the other Arrians who understood the extent of their own language ever made this exception 3ly That these words concerning the Flesh do no more suppose a Divine nature in Christ than in Abraham these Gentlemen
in that to Mr. la Motté to venture upon any thing that comes first to hand and to want that candor and modesty that cool temper which the Author of the History has and would be a great Ornament to his Parts and Learning One thing more I have to say before I conclude this and it is that besides those Arguments which have been lay'd before you no Man can seriously read the sacred writings but he will find those things say'd of Christ and to Christ which no meer Creature is capable of 1st He is represented to us in such a height as transcends all Created Beings Phil. 2.9 10. That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth 1 Pet. 3.22 Angels and authorities and powers are made subject to him Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and Earth Joh. 15.16 All things that the Father has are mine Joh. 15.5 without me you can do nothing He commands the Sea the Winds the Devils c. He gives to others the power that he has Mark 16.17 18. In my name shall they cast out Devils c. All this looks like Omnipotency If he is not God men are naturally lead to Idolatry by seeing in a Man all that we adore in God and by which he is known to us 2ly Some men are call'd the Sons of God as Adam the Angels and just men who are all God's adopted Sons But Christ is call'd the Son of God so very often so very Emphatically with so great a solemnity that it is unconceivable how this can be say'd of one who has no other relation to God but to be the work of his hands or the object of his favour Act. 8.37 And Philip say'd if thou believ'st with all thy heart thou may'st and he Answer'd and say'd I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God In the great uncertainty who that miraculous Person was whether Elias or John the Baptist or any of the Prophets St. Peter makes this confession Matt. 16.16 thou art Christ the Son of the living God Christ himself replies that on this confession the Church is buil't on this the salvation of men depends v. 17. That this is not the result of natural inquiry and that Flesh and blood has not reveal'd it to him but my Father which is in Heaven A declaration made not only by poor men here below but come down from above once at his Baptism Matt. 3.17 a second time in the glory of his transfiguration Matt. 17.5 This is my beloved Son An homage which the very unclean spirits the Devils themselves pay'd him Mark 3.11 and the unclean spirits when they saw him fell before him .... thou art the Son of God and Mark 5.7 the Son of the most High God If to be the Son of God is no more than to be remarkable by the examples of a holy life though in as great a measure as our nature is capable of Is it not unaccountable that revelation should be necessary that Heaven should inform us that the very Devils should proclaim it that our Faith and Eternal Salvation should be built upon it Does not this naturally incline men to believe that this very Jesus in that despicable nature by which he appears as a Man has another which none but the Father could reveal and is far beyond the discoveries of Flesh and Blood 3ly None but God could descend to the incredible humiliation of Christ Jesus No Man can properly be say'd to humble himself no not to the death of the Cross None humbles himself in dying who is form'd to dye No Creature humbles it self in suffering who is born to suffer and is subject to vanity I understand how God humbles himself in becoming Man This is easy to apprehend But how the best of men can humble himself in becoming Man when it is not at all his choice and in suffering for his Fellow Creatures which even in the sence of bad men is the most glorious thing in the World is past my apprehension None but he can humble himself in whom is found between the state that he is in and that which he assumes an infinite disproportion Nothing shews more evidently what Christ was before his humiliation than that series and order of stupendous Miracles which attend that very state To be figur'd by the Patriarchs announc't by the Prophets to be born of a Virgin to be declar'd by the Angels Immanuel God with us to exercise a despotick power over the whole Creation to rise from the dead to ascond to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God are convincing Arguments that he is more than a Creature 3ly The name of Lord is given him which all the Interpreters agree is the Jehovah of the Hebrews These Gentlemen must own this themselves I know that the Author of the Considerat on the Bishop of Sarum's Fourth Discourse pag. 22. has quarrell'd with his Lordship because he says that it is the peculiar name of God He tells him that the Socinians deny it and pretend to prove that the name Jehovah is given to particular Persons and communities and pag. 23 24. that we are like to have great many Jehovahs since if the word Lord is Jehovah that Pontius Pilate is call'd so Matt. 27.63 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord is no more than Master and Sir Joh. 20.15 But I know also that all this is a quibble and that such things as these are should not drop from the Pen of a Learned Man as this Author is nor to such a knowing Person as the Bishop For who is he that has the least tincture of Hebrew but knows that the facred name Jehovah signifies Essence Existence and nothing else As God himself has express'd it Exod. 3.14 I am that I am which if it is not peculiar to God a Primitive and Self Existent being I know nothing that is peculiar to him This is so true that Chrellius himself has own'd that it follows the nature of proper names It is undenyable that the Translators of the Old Testament have constantly render'd Jehovah by the word Lord and it is from thence that the sacred writers of the New Testament who as the Bishop observes were Jews spoke like Jews and understood the full importance of their own language have Attributed it to Christ And though the word Lord sometimes signifies no more than Sir or Master as in the instances produc't by this Author yet the stream of the Scriptures is against this mean shift Act. 10.36 he is Lord of all Act. 2.36 God has made him Lord and Christ Rom. 14.9 The Lord both of the dead and living 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory Revel 19.16 Lord of Lords But particularly 1 Cor. 8.5 6. For though there be that are call'd Gods whether in Heaven and in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many To us there is but one God the Father of whom
no solid satisfaction I have endeavour'd to walk in the old way and aim'd at these two things First To prove the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour and of the Holy Spirit which proof really implies all the rest For if the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God The great objection is answer'd that Three Divine Persons destroy the Vnity of God which is the state of the question Since if it does appear that it is so there is a Trinity of Persons without a destruction of that Vnity which is inseparable from the Divine Nature Secondly I have attempted to shew the insufficiency of these Gentlemen's Answers to those substantial Texts on which our Belief rests For I must beg leave to say that it is almost incredible that such thin ill-built unwary Answers should drop from Persons undoubtedly of great Learning and it is a strong confirmation of those very proofs when mighty Adversaries have so little to say to them If the whole is not mannag'd as it should be I hope that the Sacred Cause which I maintain will not suffer for it and if the Person for whose sake these Letters are written is not satisfy'd by what I have done It is his and my Misfortune that I can do no better Whatsoever is in these Papers is with the humblest submission offer'd to the Judgment and Censure of the Church of England THE First LETTER SIR I Have read the Books which you were pleas'd to lend me with as much application as I could and am now to discharge my promise of giving you my sence of them I confess it is somewhat a hard Province and in particular to me who ever was an Enemy to disputes in Religion and fully perswaded that the only way to unite dissenting Christians is not so much to dispute as to live up to the duties of a Religion which we all confess to be as the God who gave it holy and just This would have oblig'd me to be silent But since it has pleas'd God to make you a part of my Care and that you desire me to resolve your Doubts against the Catholick Doctrine which you say you are most willing to embrace if you can be satisfied that it is true I will endeavour to give you the best information I can leaving all to the candor of your nature and to that solid judgment which I have observ'd in you I design'd once to have follow'd every tract which you put in my hands But I was disswaded from it First By the length and tediousness of the work Secondly By observing that your Friends say almost the same things over and over again These Gentlemen having the way to turn the same Argument into several shapes and put their thoughts every day in a new dress As to their abilities their greatest Enemies must confess that they are not ordinary They are Men of learning Their stile is correct exact and florid They have the misfortune of Origen of whom an Ancient said that Vbi bene nemo melius ubi male nemo pejus None can do better where they are in the right none worse where they are in the wrong I find also that sometimes those fine Pens are dipt in Gall that they are not sparing of the sharpest invectives and that laying aside their fine and Gentlemen-like way of writing they become Mortals again and grow acquainted with all sorts of Sarcasms The Preface to Mr. Milbourn is sharp and scurrilous The Reflexion on both the Universities and the skill of the Bottle do not much grace the Dispute The Trinity of Marcus Tullius Cicero by reason of an illustration of the word person by Dr. Wallis The Trinity of the Mobile of ignorant and lazy Doctors The Sabellian Targonry of Dr. South Consider on the Explic of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 11. might have been laid aside and the pretended Wit that it amounts to reserv'd for a better use Give me leave also to admire how men who are willing to be thought pious as well as learned can turn solid Reasonings into Railleries and disprove an Argument by ridiculing it Indeed Tertullian in his Apologetick asks whether he shall laugh at the vanity of the Heathen and their Rites or whether he shall reproach them with their blindness Rideam vanitatem qut exprobrem caecitatem But it is quite another thing when a Writer pretends to answer men of Reason and Learning and when the Objections are really strong and solid Not to multiply instances I will only point at that in a Letter of Resolution pag. 3 4 5. The Author had objected to himself that the Trinity and Incarnation are incomprehensible Mysteries and that when the matter is of meer Revelation it is not to be judg'd by either Reason or Sence He proposes several things which are really above both This is answer'd by making a Mystery of that which is none the assertion of Christ Joh. 15.1 I am the true Vine and the notion of God-Man is ridicul'd by that of Christ-Vine or Vine-man or Viney man Dr. Wallis having asserted That the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are more than three divine Attributes and that though perhaps their Personality may not so exactly be understood by the notion of Personality which we are acquainted with in created Beings yet there is certainly somewhat more than Attributes They make a perpetual descant upon three Somewhats or three I know not what 's the Vnreason of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5 6. Dr. South in his Animadversions Chap. 8. pag. 241. having explain'd the Modes of Being and having told us That a Mode is properly a certain habitude of some Being Essence or Thing whereby the said Essence or Being is determin'd to some particular state or condition which barely of it self it should not be determin'd to That a Mode in things spiritual and immaterial seems to have much the like reference to such kinds of Beings as a posture has to a body to which it gives some difference or distinction without adding any new Entity or Being to it and having told us also pag. 242. lin 4. that no one thing can agree both to God and the Creature by a perfect Vnivocation which the Answerer has I hope not wilfully overlookt and which is enough to prevent any just exception against it Then Consider on the Explic. pag. 21. we have a story of Don Quixot and of Dulcinea del Toboso pag. 22. He makes the grave and learned Doctor to answer That the three Divine Persons are the Substance of God in three Gambols or postures A little below he thinks it should seem that the Faithful must put their trust in there postures Thus the Declamation goes on Posture A begets Posture B Posture A and B breathe Posture C. I appeal to these Gentlemen themselves whether this is the way to vindicate Religion and keep men from Atheism Whether they seek to instruct or divert their Reader Whether such petulant Sallies of Wit are
a litteral sence yet several are capable of none and in those that do the mystical is alwayes principally intended Secondly The Apostolical Writers are by all sides suppos'd to be inspir'd and could not by chance apply to Christ those places of the Old Testament which discover him to us When the spirit of God applies positively this or that text to Christ It shews that this or that text whatsoever litteral sence might appear in it was the principal sence and only design of the Prophecy Thirdly The Apostles and Evangelists never pretended to prove Jesus to be Messias the Son of God by way of allusion and allegory or by an occasional fulfilling of Prophecies But by a real palpable entire and noble way of accomplishing in him what had been Prophesi'd of Old Fourthly It had been a strange undertaking in the Apostles to pretend to shew Prophecies fulfill'd in Christ if these Prophecies had not been known and publick to the World and principally directed to be fulfill'd in him If all is occasional what makes St. Paul to tell the Ephesians ch 2. v 20. That they are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone and Origen against Cels lib. 1. lay this as a principle that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The greatest of all the arguments by which the faith of Christ can be prov'd If people durst allow themselves not to be serious in so grave a dispute How would the Notion be expos'd of Men suppos'd and granted to be divinely inspir'd Who should write after the Thalmud and the Rabbinical Writers The first proof then of another Person in the Trinity and understood of Christ by the Apostles is Psal 2.7 The Lord has said to me Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And as a consequence of this Ask of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession The Author of the brief Hist pag. 15. understands this only of Christ being begotten to a new life the day of his resurrection and by it acquiring the title of the Son of God He pretends to prove it by Act. 13.33 God has fullfill'd the same in that he has rais'd up Jesus again as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And Indeed that sence would appear very plain if there were not a double objection against it 1st If there were no place in the Scripture that did assert a Generation of Christ before his resurrection 2ly If the Apostle himself did not cite this very place in another sence For the first These Gentlemen themselves agree that Christ was the Son of God and begotten of him from the Moment of his Incarnation That he was declar'd to be so Matt. 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleas'd and that the name is given him every where in Scripture before his sufferings This mightily blunts the answer For if this day I have begotten thee be no more in the sence of the Apostle than this day I have made thee my Son by raising thee to a new life Christ receives nothing new by it since he was and was declar'd even in their opinion to be so before But it will be quite overthrown if we consider that the same Prophet Ps 110. appli'd by the Jews to the Messias and by the sacred Writers to Christ and so positively urg'd by Christ himself that Matt. 22.46 No man was able to answer him a word nor durst any man from that time forth ask him any more questions I say that the Prophet speaks thus v. 3. in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the Morning thou hast the dew of thy youth Which is not only before the resurrection but even before the World But if it is read according to the old Latin Translation which the learned World and these very Gentlemen reverence so much Ante Luciferum genui te I have begotten thee before the Morning star was which place was so read by Justin Martyr against Trypho and by Tertullian lib. 5. contr Marcion The sence of the Apostle cannot be that he was the Son of God and begotten by him by rising to a new life For the second The Apostle cites the same Scripture in another sence and this twice 1st Heb. 1.5 2ly Heb. 5.5 The one to prove that he was much better than the Angels and had a far more glorious name The other to evince that he glorifi'd not himself to be made a High Priest Treating of the one without any relation to his resurrection and as for the other it is agreed from all hands to have preceeded it Christ being made our High Priest not by rising from the dead but by offering on the Cross the Sacrifice of himself The sence then of the Apostle can be no other than this That Christ in his resurrection did eminently appear to be the Son of God That his resurrection is a splendid declaration of the Divinity of his Nature And that as his sufferings spoke him to be really Man loaden with our infirmities and dying for our Sins so his resurrection from the dead declar'd him to be God This Tertullian expresses elegantly in these words advers Jud. c. 12. Aspice universas nationes de voragine erroris humani exinde emergentes ad Dominum Deum Creatorem ad Deum Christum ejus Et si audes nega Prophetatum statim tibi promissio patris occurrit in Psalmis dicens Filius meus es tu ego bodie genui te Look upon all the Nations of the earth arising out of the Gulph of Men's errors to the Lord God the Creator and to the God his Christ And if thou dar'st deny the Prophecy Immediately the promise presents it self to thee in the Psalms saying thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee The 6 and 7. v. Of the 45 Psalm run thus Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever The Scepter of thy kingdom is a right Scepter or a Scepter of Justice Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity Therefore God Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy Fellows That this is spoken of the Messias is the unanimous assertion of the ancient Jews The Chaldee Paraprhase interprets the second verse Thy beauty O Messias the King exceeds that of the Sons of Men. Their consent is so general in this that they never so much as dream'd of Solomon in this Aquila reads it in the Vocative Case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostle has not accommodated or appli'd it to Christ as these Gentlemen are pleas'd to speak But has cited and understood it as a direct Prophecy of the Holy Jesus Heb. 1.7 8. His design is to shew that Christ is above all that is created and because in created beings we know nothing greater than the Angels He says
are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him None of these places can be understood of Master and Sir The first notion which they present to the mind is of a sovereign supreme and Divine Authority The name Johovah being given to Persons Angels places and communities is another miserable evasion Nay it is a substantial proof for us For if that sacred name was only given to places which God honour'd with his presence or to them in whom he spoke It shews that the presence of God was the only reason of the name It remains still proper to him and there being no prefence of God so great and so intimate as the Union of the two Natures and God appearing visibly so much in no Man as in Christ Jesus he is truly our Jehovah 4ly Who can think Christ a meer Man a meer Creature as these Gentlemen call him who seriously considers the words of St. Peter act 4.12 Neither is there Salvation in any other for there is no other name under Heaven given amongst men by which we must be sav'd Coloss 3.17 Whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus Matt. 1.21 he shall save his People from their sins Eph. 1.7 in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins I beg of them to leave Mankind to the common notices which they bring with them into the World and not to overrule that universal way of thinking which the Creator has given them Is this spoken of the Doctrine or of the Person of the Holy Jesus Does not all this suppose an excellency which no Created being can attain to Can saving redeeming forgiving atoning be the privilege of any creature If the Prophet speaking of men's natural death says Psal 49.7 that no man can redeem his brother nor give to God a ransom for him how much less can any one free us from the Eternal Condemnation due to Sin 5ly The coming of no Man into the World is express'd as that of Christ Leave one to himself out of the noise and prejudice of a dispute and in the reading of the Scripture he will easily see that it supposes knowledge Choice Pre-Existence in him who took our nature 2 Cor. 8.9 You know the Grace of our Lord J. C. that though he was rich yet for our sakes he became poor that we through his proverty might become rich Phil. 2.7 He took upon him the form of a servant was made in the likeness of men was found in fashion as a man Heb. 2.16 he took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham 1 Joh. 5.20 and we know that the Son of God vs come 1 Joh. 3.8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested appear'd to destroy the works of the Devil Heb. 9.25 he has appear'd to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself 6ly The Grace of God by which he pardons our sins and capacitates us for an Eternal Life is so peculiar to God that no Man has yet pretended to deny it But how often is it attributed to Christ Act. 15.11 but we believe that through the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they 2 Cor. 12.9 and he say'd to me my Grace is sufficient for thee for my strength is made perfect in weakness most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 37. is strangely Embarass'd to answer this He says That the words before the Text cited I besought the Lord thrice ..... are spoken to God not to Christ The power of Christ is the strength which he procures by his mediation with God The Socinians for the most part grant that the word or power of God abiding in Christ does qualify him to hear our Prayers I would ask this Author if the words are spoken to God what signifies this Socinian acknowledgment of Christ hearing our Prayers which overthrows all the rest And if they are spoken to Christ why did he not consider better before he deny'd it He saw and so must the most infatuated Person that the power of Christ is that Grace which is sufficient and was so earnestly pray'd for and that it is the Grace of him who was pray'd to and who answer'd the Apostle Gal. 2.8 He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me toâ—ard the Gentiles Eph. 2.13 But now in C.J. you who were sometimes afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ Tit. 3.7 that being justify'd by his Grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of Eternal life Rom. 16.24 The Grace of our Lord J.C. be with you all And more fully 2 Cor. 13.14 The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ the Love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all These two last places they have excepted against This last Text demonstrates says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 31. that neither the Lord Christ nor the Holy Spirit are God for it plainly distinguishes them from God I say that it demonstates that the Lord Christ is God since he is the Author and giver of Grace and that the Holy Spirit is God since he communicates those graces to us which none but God can give and both are join'd to God who as this very Author explains it in this very place is the Father So that it plainly distinguishes them not from God but only from the Father and shews excellently the operations of the Three Persons The Author of the answer to My Lord of Sarum has foreseen this and therefore winds another way and says pag. 21. that it is true that Grace Mercy and Peace are pray'd for from the Lord Christ but that they are also pray'd from them who certainly are no Gods Rev. 1.4 Grace be to you and peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the seven spirits that are before his throne and from J. C. But he seems to make no difference between a Salutation and a Prayer The one is the introduction to what St. John had to say and from whom he spoke The other is the conclusion of a discourse which to make the more effectual he prays to Christ without whom we can do nothing to give us his grace to the Father to continue those repeated Testimones of his love to us and to the Holy spirit to influence us into the practice of the duty commanded I may wish peace and grace to any Man from all the Angels in Heaven but I must not pray for Grace Peace and Mercy to any created being This Author in the same page has given us a specimen how easy it is to extricate one self of the most substantial difficulties 'T is a folly to read or think There is a
equal with God by equalling himself with God Thus you see Sir your Friends are so taken up with their new Creation that they assume to themselves a power to create a new sence to some words a sence which they never had nor can never have Coloss 2.9 The Apostle has asserted this Sacred truth in few words but comprehensive v. 3. In him Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge v. 7. The Colossians are to be rooted and built up in him v. 8. Philosophy will rather deceive than inform them The traditions of men and the Elements of the World whether the weak notices of the Gentiles or the observances of the Jewish Oeconomy are all insufficient None but Christ can supply their wants and make them truly knowing and good St. Paul gives this reason for it For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily Our translation comes short of the energy of the Greek Text which should have been render'd thus For in him dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead Essentially a notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usual in the Scriptures This proves then all that the several sorts of Hereticks have deny'd of Christ A Communication not of power or Vertue as in Moses or the Prophets but of nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine Nature A Communication not Figurative Sacramental or representative but real and substantial A Communication not partial transient or begun in time but the whole nature the whole fullness of the Godhead A Communication supposing a distinction of Persons against the Sabellians him who communicates and him to whom it is communicated Col. 1.19 For it pleas'd the Father that in him the whole fullness should dwell A Communication which clearly shews against Arrians Nestorians Socinians the Hypostatical Union of the two natures in Christ For it is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his adorable Person in Christ the word made Flesh that this Divine Nature dwells with all the Properties Attributes Qualifications which belong to it All human apprehensions and expressions being infinitely short of this inspir'd way of speaking of St. Paul all the fullness of the Godhead bodily To this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 39. answers somewhat confusedly contrary to his Custom He says that the fulness of the Godhead is the fulness of the knowledge of God which he pretends to prove by Eph. 3.19 where the Apostle wishes that they may be fill'd with all the fullness of God This Christ had and he has fill'd us Christians with it He says that this knowledge dwelt in him bodily in opposition to that imperfect umbratile and unsincere knowledge of God which the Apostle affirms v. 8. to be found in the Philosophy and Philosophers of Greece who in St. Paul's time were in great Esteem amongst the Colossians He adds that this is the Interpretation of the most Learned and Orthodox Interpreters It is true that some Interpreters whom these Gentlemen always honour with the Title of most learned if they but speak what pleases them have oppos'd these words not only to the Philosophy of the Greeks but even to the law which was only a shadow of things to come Christ being the Body as the Syriack reads the 17. v. the substance and perfection of knowledge and there being as much difference between their Doctrine and his as there is between the shadow and the body But two things this Author has not taken notice of 1st That these most Learned Interpreters do only deliver this as a secondary interpretation leaving the Primary which I have laid before you in its full force 2ly That this Interpretation really supposes and resolves it self into the first The Apostle desires the Colossians to avoid the vain Philosophy of the Greeks that science falsly so call'd and the rudiments of the World those imperfect ways of men's invention to bring and reconcile them to God even all the Ceremonial Law which though prescrib'd by God himself yet was only in order to somewhat better and that they should stick to Christ be rooted and built up in him in whom and by whom they should be fill'd and compleated He gives the reason of this because in him are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and he is the head of all Principality and Power and all this is true because he is not only a wise and a rational Man according to the World for such were the Philosophers Nor a Man sent from God for such were Moses and the Prophets but he was God himself come down in our Flesh for in him dwells the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily Substantially Essentially I am satisfy'd that this Author does not believe the application of Eph. 3.19 to have any solidity But there is in the disputed Text the fullness of the Godhead and in this the fullness of God These two words are alike and therefore must be made to jump When he cannot but know that all the Interpreters even the beloved Erasmus and Grotius tell us that the Apostle means no more by this than that Christ may dwell in our hearts by Faith and that we may have as much of the favour and grace of God as we can I beg to know with what candor he has translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God by the Deity or The Divine Nature which though sometimes Synonymous yet cannot be so here But what can more effectually prove the communication of the Divine Nature to Christ than that he is the only begotten Son of God Joh. 1.18 No man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him A title peculiar to Christ and expressive of all that can be conceiv'd of him his Consubstantiality his Co-Eternity his Equality with the Father These Gentlemen think it a very strong Argument that Christ is not God because in the Apostolical Creed the unchangeable rule of our Faith the first Article gives the name of God only to the Father I believe in God The Father and the second does not say and in God the Son but and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord not considering that the word only Son the same with only begotten here is a fuller expression of his Divinity than if the name God had been given him in the Article For this would not have satisfy'd these Gentlemen They would have been apt to say still that the first Article is spoken of him who is only and eminently God and the second or third of a God by deputation of one not truly God but only honour'd with the title of God This would not have remov'd the objection nor prevented that of the Tritheists who seeing every Person in the Creed nam'd God would have concluded not a Trinity of Persons in one God but Three real Gods Whereas the All-wise God has effectually obviated this by proposing the Divine Nature