no solid satisfaction I have endeavour'd to walk in the old way and aim'd at these two things First To prove the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour and of the Holy Spirit which proof really implies all the rest For if the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God The great objection is answer'd that Three Divine Persons destroy the Vnity of God which is the state of the question Since if it does appear that it is so there is a Trinity of Persons without a destruction of that Vnity which is inseparable from the Divine Nature Secondly I have attempted to shew the insufficiency of these Gentlemen's Answers to those substantial Texts on which our Belief rests For I must beg leave to say that it is almost incredible that such thin ill-built unwary Answers should drop from Persons undoubtedly of great Learning and it is a strong confirmation of those very proofs when mighty Adversaries have so little to say to them If the whole is not mannag'd as it should be I hope that the Sacred Cause which I maintain will not suffer for it and if the Person for whose sake these Letters are written is not satisfy'd by what I have done It is his and my Misfortune that I can do no better Whatsoever is in these Papers is with the humblest submission offer'd to the Judgment and Censure of the Church of England THE First LETTER SIR I Have read the Books which you were pleas'd to lend me with as much application as I could and am now to discharge my promise of giving you my sence of them I confess it is somewhat a hard Province and in particular to me who ever was an Enemy to disputes in Religion and fully perswaded that the only way to unite dissenting Christians is not so much to dispute as to live up to the duties of a Religion which we all confess to be as the God who gave it holy and just This would have oblig'd me to be silent But since it has pleas'd God to make you a part of my Care and that you desire me to resolve your Doubts against the Catholick Doctrine which you say you are most willing to embrace if you can be satisfied that it is true I will endeavour to give you the best information I can leaving all to the candor of your nature and to that solid judgment which I have observ'd in you I design'd once to have follow'd every tract which you put in my hands But I was disswaded from it First By the length and tediousness of the work Secondly By observing that your Friends say almost the same things over and over again These Gentlemen having the way to turn the same Argument into several shapes and put their thoughts every day in a new dress As to their abilities their greatest Enemies must confess that they are not ordinary They are Men of learning Their stile is correct exact and florid They have the misfortune of Origen of whom an Ancient said that Vbi bene nemo melius ubi male nemo pejus None can do better where they are in the right none worse where they are in the wrong I find also that sometimes those fine Pens are dipt in Gall that they are not sparing of the sharpest invectives and that laying aside their fine and Gentlemen-like way of writing they become Mortals again and grow acquainted with all sorts of Sarcasms The Preface to Mr. Milbourn is sharp and scurrilous The Reflexion on both the Universities and the skill of the Bottle do not much grace the Dispute The Trinity of Marcus Tullius Cicero by reason of an illustration of the word person by Dr. Wallis The Trinity of the Mobile of ignorant and lazy Doctors The Sabellian Targonry of Dr. South Consider on the Explic of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 11. might have been laid aside and the pretended Wit that it amounts to reserv'd for a better use Give me leave also to admire how men who are willing to be thought pious as well as learned can turn solid Reasonings into Railleries and disprove an Argument by ridiculing it Indeed Tertullian in his Apologetick asks whether he shall laugh at the vanity of the Heathen and their Rites or whether he shall reproach them with their blindness Rideam vanitatem qut exprobrem caecitatem But it is quite another thing when a Writer pretends to answer men of Reason and Learning and when the Objections are really strong and solid Not to multiply instances I will only point at that in a Letter of Resolution pag. 3 4 5. The Author had objected to himself that the Trinity and Incarnation are incomprehensible Mysteries and that when the matter is of meer Revelation it is not to be judg'd by either Reason or Sence He proposes several things which are really above both This is answer'd by making a Mystery of that which is none the assertion of Christ Joh. 15.1 I am the true Vine and the notion of God-Man is ridicul'd by that of Christ-Vine or Vine-man or Viney man Dr. Wallis having asserted That the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are more than three divine Attributes and that though perhaps their Personality may not so exactly be understood by the notion of Personality which we are acquainted with in created Beings yet there is certainly somewhat more than Attributes They make a perpetual descant upon three Somewhats or three I know not what 's the Vnreason of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5 6. Dr. South in his Animadversions Chap. 8. pag. 241. having explain'd the Modes of Being and having told us That a Mode is properly a certain habitude of some Being Essence or Thing whereby the said Essence or Being is determin'd to some particular state or condition which barely of it self it should not be determin'd to That a Mode in things spiritual and immaterial seems to have much the like reference to such kinds of Beings as a posture has to a body to which it gives some difference or distinction without adding any new Entity or Being to it and having told us also pag. 242. lin 4. that no one thing can agree both to God and the Creature by a perfect Vnivocation which the Answerer has I hope not wilfully overlookt and which is enough to prevent any just exception against it Then Consider on the Explic. pag. 21. we have a story of Don Quixot and of Dulcinea del Toboso pag. 22. He makes the grave and learned Doctor to answer That the three Divine Persons are the Substance of God in three Gambols or postures A little below he thinks it should seem that the Faithful must put their trust in there postures Thus the Declamation goes on Posture A begets Posture B Posture A and B breathe Posture C. I appeal to these Gentlemen themselves whether this is the way to vindicate Religion and keep men from Atheism Whether they seek to instruct or divert their Reader Whether such petulant Sallies of Wit are
has been us'd by all the Fathers is the only method to come to the Knowledge of the truth This will be prov'd by the reading of both Testaments For if those things are spoken of Christ which can relate to none but Man and at the same time those things are spoken of him which belong to none but to God shall we presume to separate what God has united shall we run to the extreams of the Old Hereticks who would not admit of a real humane nature in Christ and offer'd an incredible violence to all those texts which represent him as a Man Or as the Socinians who denying his Divinity put to the torture all those places which speak of him as God To take off at once the authority of the Old Testament and make ineffectual those glorious predictions of Christ which tell us what he was before he was in the World They confidently assert in the brief History pag. 22. That the more learned and Judicious Trinitarians confess that the â—rinity and the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit are not indeed taught in the Scriptures of the Old Testament but are a revelation made in the new Nay 't is the more general opinion of the Divines of all sects and perswasions They cite for this some Authors and amongst them Tertulian adversus Prax. Which I would beg of them to read more exactly It is the fault of these Gentlemen to be vastly large in their citations and to pretend to have Authors of their side who are really against them The mistakes I hope are not willful but they are somewhat frequent Neither the ancient or modern Doctors ever said that the Old Testament had nothing in it by which Men might be induc'd to the notice of a Trinity of persons in God and of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit They have said indeed that the Jews had no explicite or clear Knowledge nor no explicite or direct belief of those mysteries Which is true The revelation of the Trinity in Vnity being the previledge of the Gospel and a considerable part of that Grace and truth which came by Christ Jesus Joh. 1.18 No Man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him How could the Old Testament be the form of and the introduction to the new if those truths were not adumbrated in the one which are clearly reveal'd and explain'd in the other How comes it to be a maxim receiv'd amongst the Old Jewish Doctors that whatsoever is recorded in the Law in the Prophets and in the sacred Books Indicant sapientiam point at Christ the ineffable Wisdom or Word How does St. Paul lay this as an Aphorism Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes How comes he before Agrippa and Festus solemnly to declare that he says nothing but what Moses and the Prophets have assur'd should be How come the Apostles and Evangelists to take most of their arguments from the Writings of the Prophets St. Austin treats this at large against Faustus lib. 12. c. 46. Eusebius Praep. Evang. l. c. 3. St. Cyprian Praefat. ad Quirin tells him that the sacred Writings of the Old Testament are of great use ad prima fidei lineamenta formanda To form the first lineaments of our Faith Origen against Celsus lib. 2. calls this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most strong demonstration and Lactantius Instit lib. 5. c. 3. Disce igitur si quid tibi cordis est non solum idcirco à nobis Christum creditum Deum quia mirabilia fecit sed quia vidimus in eo facta esse omnia quae nobis annunciata sunt vaticinio Prophetarum Be sensible then if thou hast any honesty or conscience left that Christ is believ'd by us to be God not olny because he has done miraculous things but because we have seen all the things fulfill'd in him which have been announc'd to us by the Prophets Non igitur suo Testimonio cui enim de se dicenti potest credi sed Prophetarum Testimonio qui omnia quae fecit passus est multo ante cecinerunt fidem Divinitatis accepit It is not then by the Testimony which he has given of himself for who can be believ'd who Witnesses for himself but by the Testimony of the Prophets who have Prophesi'd long before all that he has done and suffer'd He has receiv'd that Men should believe his Divinity The first proof which offers it self out of the Old Testament is that expression of the Almighty Gen. 1.26 Let us make Man in our image after our likeness It is undenyable that in the text as well as in the translation God is pleas'd to speak in the plural number And as we cannot admitt a multiplicity of Gods in a nature which is so entirely one so we cannot but see a kind of consultation in the Divine Persons It is visible that God does not speak to himself or to any created being who cannot concurr in any manner to the creation of Man It being an incommunicable property of the Divine nature And it is an impiety to think that God should speak in the air and to no purpose What is meant then by the Vs but that Son by whom he made all things and without whom nothing was made that was made Joh. 1.3 and that Holy Spirit which moved upon the Jaâ—e of the Waters Gen. 1.2 This the Fathers urg'd agâ—iâ—st the Arrians Thâ—se Gentlemen answer Brief History pag. 8. 1st That this is done according to the customs of Princes and great persons in all languages that is in an oratory and figurative way 2ly pag. 15. that God speaks to the Angels who were present not as adjutants but spectators of his work The presence of Angels is prov'd out of Job 38.7 This second reason is singular and the verse to prove the presence of Angels strangely dragg'd in But it ruins it self For if the Angels are not adjutants to the work How comes God to say Let us make Man This does not at all reach the difficulty The first is as bad that thiâ— is done according to the Custom of Princes It is strange that God should have laid the Custom aside in the formation of all the rest of the Creatures and us'd it only 〈◊〉 â—hat of Man For to say that it is the same as v. 3. let there be light v. 6. let there be a firmameâ—â— c. it is only a gloss and a comment against which the sence of the words stands unmoveable It is stranger 〈…〉 and Custom which in its 〈…〉 the Majesty of any divine 〈…〉 in a way which to these 〈…〉 to the unity of his nature I farely ask whether it was custom which caus'd God to alter the manner of his expression in all the Verses before or else a design to speak somewhat in this mysterious to us The first is
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
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
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
Consent of the learned World made venerable Essence Substance Hypostasis Generation Spiration Procession And yet these Gentlemen not only pretend to Reason but would so monopolize it to themselves as to make their Adversaries the most unreasonable people in the World Reason in all their Writings is the Word To it the most express Revelation must be made to stoop and God must not be Judge of what he commands man to believe But man assumes to himself to know whether what God commands is agreeable to the Principles of his Reason I know that they would seem to exclaim against this and that in the Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation pag. 1. they complain that they are charg'd with exalting Reason above Revelation They apologize for it in the Observations of Dr. Wallis's Letters pag. 16. But how can this be reconcil'd with this Assertion Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5. If Heaven and Earth were miraculously destroy'd to confirm an Interpretation which disagrees with the natural and Grammatical sense of the words it will for all that remain a false Interpretation Which in plain English amounts to this that though Heaven contradicts an Interpretation by the most forcible sort of Argument which is a real Miracle and such as the Destruction of the whole World yet if it does not agree with that natural or Grammatical sense which our Reason makes of these words The Miracle will be true but the Interpretation false I am willing to give to Reason all the weight and admiration that it deserves it being the distinguishing Character of man and that by which he ought to be guided in his spiritual and temporal Concerns But there is a rational way of using our Reason which when strain'd beyond its bounds is no more Reason but extravagance and obstinacy When the greatest Authority in the World imposes on us the belief of that which our Reason cannot penetrate or understand It is not the work of Reason to reject it because the Notion is unintelligible and in our imperfect way of Reasoning offers seeming Contradictions But the truest and noblest Exercise of our Reason is to submit to that Authority and when we are satisfy'd that God speaks man is never so rational as when he yields without any inquiry into what he is pleas'd to reveal I say seeming Contradictions for admitting the Divine Revelation no Contradiction can be real We may imagine that indeed it is so because we are men who know very little and in the state of sin and weakness that we are in meet with a thousand obstacles to our perceptions But supposing that God has deliver'd it there can be no such thing as a Contradiction because howsoever I apprehend it it still comes from him who cannot contradict himself The Question once more is not of the Unity of the Divine Nature The Orthodox are as stiff as they in the point The Question is Whether the Trinity of Persons destroys or no the Unity of that Divine Nature The Orthodox must carry it if they can prove that the same God who has reveal'd the one has also reveal'd the other For if he has done this our duty is to adore in an humble silence what we cannot understand and those very Contradictions which we fansie in the thing reveal'd ought only to be to us sensible proofs of our ignorance and deep arguments of humiliation The Socinians then are in a great mistake and instead of writing Books after Books to shew the pretended inconsistencies and contradictions in the Revelation they ought to prove plainly that it is not reveal'd at all For if it clearly appears that it is so the pretended Contradictions must lye at their door but the Revelation will still be safe and certain It is strange that ingenious men who meet with so many things unintelligible in Nature will have nothing to be so in Religion They will submit to Philosophical proofs and Mathematical demonstrations which are at most but natural Evidences and will reject the greatest and most certain Evidence which is Faith Nothing can take them from reasoning and nothing will bring them to believe Whether the thing is is the Question How it is does not at all belong to us How the Father communicates his Essence to the Son How the Holy Ghost proceeds from both How three Persons subsist in the same Divine Nature can be no part of our inquiry If we can but be satisfy'd that God has so reveal'd himself to us that he is God that in that Deity which is one there are three equally adorable Persons we have nothing to do with the How Let us adore and believe the thing and reserve the manner to a better and a happier life where we shall know even as we are also known 1 Cor. 13.12 Those Reverend Persons who out of condescension to querulous men have undertaken to give Explications of the Trinity in Unity never pretended to go further They never thought that this could be Geometrically prov'd They built upon the Revelation and endeavour'd to find every one that way which seem'd to them the aptest to reconcile what these Gentlemen call Contradictions But left the thing it self as incomprehensible and relying on his Authority who reveal'd it The Socinians are not candid in the matter They endeavour to disprove the Athanasian Creed They pretend to answer the late Archbishop the Bishops of Worcester and Sarum They ridicule Dr. Wallis They insult the Dean of Paul's They are rude to Dr. South but still are clamorous about the How can it be and are not serious in proving that it is not These Gentlemen have pretended that by denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost they make the Scripture plain intelligible and obvious to the meanest capacities They think after this to have remov'd all those difficulties which the Clergy call Mysteries but are not so in themselves In the impartial account of the word Mystery pag. 3. By the means of Mystery Divines have made Religion a very difficult thing that is an Art which Christians are not able to understand and thereby they raise themselves above the common Christians and are made necessary to the People improving that Art to their own benefit Passing by the incivility of the reflexion I dare affirm that denying the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit nothing is easie nothing is plain in Religion That the Scripture is the darkest Book that ever was written and that no Christian can find the satisfaction of his mind and the peace of his conscience It may be said with a great deal of truth that the stream of the Scriptures runs that way that the belief of the Holy Trinity and the union of the two natures in Christ is the Key to all difficulties and that distinction so much laught at by these Gentlemen of one thing said of him as God and of another as Man which
the person promis'd by the Holy Prophets ever since the world began In the History of his passion he shews that he has suffer'd nothing but what was foretold by the Spirit of God The casting lots on his vesture v. 24. The calling for drink v. 28. That the scripture says the Evangelist might be fullfill'd And immediately before the Text in dispute For these things were done that the Scripture should be fullfill'd What is to interpret a Prophecy but to shew its accomplishment how can God better justify his servants the Prophets then by fullfilling visibly what they have foretold Malachy is another witness of that sacred truth which God has deliver'd to Mankind Mat. 3.1 I will send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me And the Lord whom you expect shall suddenly come to his Temple That by the Lord who is to come to his Temple God is understood is agreed by all Interpreters Parallel to this is Isay 40.3 The voice of him that cryes in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord Make strait in the desert a high way for our God The learned Rabbins Maimon and Kimchi are positive that this Prophecy regards none but the Messiah St. Jerom affirms in Mal. 3.1 that the old Jews were of the same mind This is put out of doubt by the anthority of the New Testament The sacred Writers understanding one part of the Prophecy of John the Baptist and the other of Christ Matt. 11.10 Mark 1.2 Luk. 1.76 and 7.27 The Lord then is God who should come to his Temple It is our God to whom the way was to be prepar'd But both these are said of Christ by the testimony of the Evangelists and the consent of the Jewish Writers Therefore Christ is the Lord Christ is our God The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. brings again the rare notion of God coming by his Ambassador Jesus of which we have taken notice already He has another singular imagination and would have this to be said of Nehemias But this being without any warrant reason example or authority of any note does not deserve a reply Many more Texts might be added to these But a letter must not swell into a volume and I am affraid I have been already too tedious to you But yet before I conclude you must give me leave to say by way of Appendix to what has been laid before you that of all those Gentlemens answers none is so weak so insufficient and short of the thing propos'd as that to an objection of the Dean of Pauls that Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy unreasonable and unaccountable Observat On Dr. Sherlock's Ans pag. 45. and foll I have not seen the Dean's Book and I take what they make him say upon their own credit But there is more even in that than has been or can be answer'd They call it Trifling But upon the least consideration it must be own'd that the answer and not the objection is the trifle The Dean says that if Christ were no more then a meer Man the Antitype should fall very short of the Types contain'd in the Old Testament that is the Figures should far excel that of which they are Figures and Moses his dispensation should be far more glorious than that of Christ which if it be not an absurdity nothing in the world can be absurd I will presume to add to what the Dean says that this is visible For how can it be conceiv'd that the Old Testament is an introduction to the New That from the Creation of the World to the coming of Christ every thing every person every institution or transaction should be a Figure That Moses should be a Figure the Temple a Figure in a word that whole dispensation a Figure which are all the assertions of the Fathers and yet deny'd by no Christians and yet all this so magnify'd by the Prophets look'd upon with such an expectation by the Jews even reverenc'd by the Heathen attested by God himself who at sundry times and in divers manners speaking to the Fathers by the Prophets has at last spoke to us by his own Son That those splendid promises those stupendous miracles those incomprehensible methods of the Almighty those repeated raptures and discoveries of the Prophets those mighty characters of him that was to come That all this should end in the appearing of a meer Man who by the Holiness of his Life should be acceptible to God is in the modest terms of the Dean very unaccountible It is a great truth that nothing can so effectualy ridicule the Jewish dispensation as this The Answerer has said nothing to this and has not so much as taken notice of it And indeed he is to be commended the objection is great and substantial It does not lye within the reach of a small criticism and comparing a Text or two together and then saying How can this be The Dean of Pauls having laid this principle of twenty instances which he might have given has chosen this of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle or in the Temple by the visible symbols of his presence He argues from thence very rationally that the God who fills Heaven and earth with his presence must have prefigur'd something more Divine and mysterious by dwelling in a house made with hands He urges that a Typical presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real presence and God's personal dwelling amongst Men Nothing answering to a Figurative visible presence of God but a personal visible presence All this is just and coherent He says that the Man Corist Jesus was really the Temple which the Divinity chose to inhabit The Antitype of that Temple where God made himself visible That Christ with a great deal of reason call'd his body a Temple since God did appear so eminently in him All this is so true that they have not one word to say to it Their exclaiming against Allegories and the instance of the Ark are wide of the thing The prodigious inclination of the Israelites to Idolatry being the reason of the visible Symbols of God's Presence is a new and at best a slender notion The Metaphorical expression of the Apostle to the Corinthians that they are the Temple of God is nothing to the purpose I dare to say that if the Dean had gone no farther all had been without exception But he does and urges a personal union by saying that without it the body of Christ had been no more then a Figurative Temple as the other was that is the Figure of a Figure which is unsufferable This will not prove a contriving of Types and Figures of cold and groundless Allegories as they call it if they are pleas'd but to consider from all the Texts examin'd before that God had promis'd to appear and that all these promises imply a personal appearance If this can be prov'd as I humbly conceive that it has where lyes the difference between a personal appearance
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
quicker way to strike dumb a Man of the Bishop's parts and judgment His Lordship says that Christ cannot be a Creature because the Apostle speaking of him says Gal. 1.5 to whom be glory for ever and ever an Eulogy given to none in Scripture but the Almighty The Prelate follow'd in this the constant notion of the Jews so visible in both the Testaments that no truth is clearer conceiving by the word Glory either the essential happiness of God his incomprehensible greatness or his glorious appearance to men and the earnest wishes of pious Souls that this should be for ever acknowledg'd by all his creatures Matt. 6.13 for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory for ever 1 Sam. 4.21 Exod. 24.16 Esay 6.1 Joh. 12.41 Act. 7.55 Mark 8.38 2 Pet. 1.3 and very many other places The way to answer this is either to deny the notion and shew that it is either false or mistaken or else to prove that this way of expression is not us'd only to God But this cannot be done and therefore this Author replies That glory and honour are Equivalent Terms in the Greek that for ever and ever is no more than for ever that Daniel who say'd to a heathen Prince O king live for ever would not have scrupl'd to say O king I wish thee glory for ever that he should not be reckon'd an Idolater for wishing His Lordship perpetual honour One must have a great deal of charity to believe these Gentlemen to be in earnest and not endeavour to banter Religion out of doors when such crude and indigested answers drop from their Pen. Glory with them is no more than Honour and Lord is no more than Master and Sir and Worship is the same as how do you do To worship another says this Author pag. 27. often fignifies no more than to salute them by bowing and the like which superiors do to inferiors This is true But when God brings the first begotten into the World the Emanuel the God with us the Redeemer of Mankind his only Son when he subjects the whole Creation to him and commands the very Angels to adore him Heb. 1.7 and let all the Angels of God worship him does all this amount to no more than asking how he does do I will give one instance more how these Gentlemen take the wrong side of a thing when they please His Lordship has insisted that it is a vast absurditiy that the same acts in which we adore God should be at the same time offer'd to a Creature than which nothing is truer But his Lordship says this Author pag. 26. is guilty of a much vaster inadvertency as he himself will be oblig'd to confess when he casts his Eye upon the following Text 1 Chr. 29.20 All the congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers and bowing their heads worshipped the Lord and the King In which words worship is given to the King as to the Lord and yet is no Idolatry But this Author is himself guilty of a vast mistake For worship as it is an act of Religion is pay'd neither to the Lord nor to the King in this last part of the Text. That that is adress'd to God is in the first All the congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers The rest is no more than a civility pay'd at their parting to the King who was then present and to the place where they worship'd as at this time we bow either in the Church or towards the Altar and yet on this sort of trifling answers these Gentlemen gravely insist to oppose the plainest and clearest truths Another Text he has cited to this purpose 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels where says this Author an Apostle joins Creatures with God in the Highest act of Religion i.e. an adjuration I can see nothing in this like Religious worship The Apostle prays neither to God nor to Christ nor to the Angels He might as well have added before the Holy City and before all the World St. Paul had given those directions to Timothy which have been the ground of all the Canons made since in the Church He insists that he should be faithful to them and as a motive to his obedience he intreats him by all that is holy by God by J. C. by the Elect Angels This I find to be the sence of most Interpreters nor do I know any amongst the ancients or the Protestant Commentators who so much as dream't that this did import adoration to any creature 7ly To adore to trust in to believe are Acts which can have none but God for their object But all this is so often attributed to Christ that it cannot be deny'd with any sort of modesty Heb. 1.7 let all the Angels of God woship him Matt. 12.21 in his name shall the Gentiles trust render'd by the Apostle in him shall the Gentiles trust Eph. 1.12 13. that we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ in whom also you trusted after that you heard the word of truth the Gospel of your salvation in whom also after that you believ'd you were seal'd with that holy spirit of promise Act. 20.21 repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord J.C. 2 Tim. 3.15 which are able to make thee wise to salvation through faith which is in C.J. Gal. 2.16 knowing that a man is not justify'd .... but by the Faith of J.C. even we have believ'd in J.C. that we might be justify'd by the faith of Christ The Scripture is so full to this that it is not so much to cite as to transcribe But is this Author serious when pag. 26. of his answer to the Bishop to elude the strength of this and of five hundred places more he brings in dogmatically 1 Sam. 12.18 The people greatly fear'd the Lord and Samuel and Exod. 14.31 The people believ'd the Lord and his servant Moses I wonder he has omitted fear God and honour the King for it is as much to the purpose Will men ever be guilty of that crying injustice to pretend to overthrow the Faith once deliver'd to the Saints and ruine at once the Authority of vast many Texts by one or two single and solitary places of Scripture which when all is done signify nothing to the question in hand Christ is propos'd to Mankind as the Son of God as the Saviour and Redeemer of their Souls as the only name under Heaven by which we can be sav'd The end of the Scripture is that we should believe in him he that believes shall be sav'd he that does not believe is condemn'd already and we are put off with Moses and Samuel whom the people did believe because they confirm'd by a Miracle the truth which they deliver'd 8ly He that is pray'd to is God for none but God can be the object of our Prayers To hear to know to relieve our wants naturally supposes
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