contrary He speaks of the place where the Gospel was written but not a word of the occasion of St. John's writing it The testimony of Origen is resolv'd into that of Eusebius who reports it and that of Eusebius himself is nothing against St. Jerom since the Author of the answer owns that the same Eusebius relates this writing of the Gospel of St. John to assert the Divinity of Christ from the institutions of Clem. Alex. Who is in the right then The Author of the Answer who says that St. Jerom cited an Ecclesiastical History which he never saw or St. Jerom who by the Author 's own confession has taken these words out of Clemens preserv'd by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History The case is very plain The Author of the Answer to Milbourn is mistaken But then he must fall foul upon Clemens Alexand. an ancient Writer and a Learned Man He makes Photius upon whose Characters of Men no Critick ever rely'd to give him a very ill one Not observing that Eusebius accuses him of neither Impiety nor Error and that Clemens Alex. has said nothing in this but what most of the Fathers have said not indeed as to the particular matter of fact of St. John's being desir'd to write but as to the other that the design and principal part of his Gospel is to assert the Divinity of our Saviour Is it not on this that St. Cyprian Lactantius Tertullian Gregory the Nazianzene St. Chrysostom Basil the Great have insisted Was not this very Chapter admir'd both by Christians and Heathens Was it not the Hammer of Arrianism in the Council of Nice as afterwards of Nestorianism of Eutychianism and of all the unhappy Sects which disturb'd the peace of the Church But that cannot be says the Answerer pag. 22. The Gospel it self will best decide the Question If St. John has more overthrown the Divinity of Christ than confirm'd it then certainly he has not writ this Gospel to assert it Right but how will this be prov'd He thinks that it will easily be done by shewing out of this Gospel that Christ is the Messenger of God that the Father taught him and commanded him Joh. 17.1 2 3. Joh. 12.49 and 14.10 c. This I confess proves the humanity but how does it destroy the Divinity of Christ How is it against the design of St. John to delineate him truly God because he has represented him truly Man He is not God because he is Man is an ill way of arguing The Arrians themselves were too sharp to fetch their Arguments against the Divinity of the Saviour from his humanity Prove him only a Man a meer Man without any other nature or else all this reasoning is a begging of the Question But what is all this to the accusation laid on St. Jerom St. John has shew'd in his Gospel the Humanity of Christ Therefore St. Jerom is in the wrong to assure that he was intreated by the Asian Bishops to speak more expresly to his Divinity This is at best a sort of a very slender consequence Thus it is Sir that the Socinians are baffl'd by false and senceless translations supported by fictions and legends exclaims this Author He should have said thus it is Sir that the Socinians are mistaken Their zeal for their opinion transporting them too far Thus it is that two Eminent Fathers are abus'd who were the admiration of their Age and the veneration of ours The truth is this Chapter pinches so hard that these Gentlemen are always uneasy at its least approaches They have done all that Men can do to make it ineffectual having left nothing unattempted no turns of wit no strains of fancy no observations no Criticisms no Shifts no Evasions But all to no purpose For truth is great and irresistible it is plain and evident it comes from God and easily overcomes all the oppositions Men make against it Joh. 1.1 and foll In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God The same was in the beginning with God That this is spoken of Christ and that Christ is the word is agreed of all hands The first assertion then of the Evangelist is that Christ was before all things that he existed before they had a beginning There is a great Emphasis in the word was which does not express here a created a dependent being but a Superior an Eternal and Divine Nature Thus Jehovah render'd by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is gives the true notion of God and thus it is said of the word that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers explain'd it did subsist in a most eminent way and incommunicable to a Creature To make this good St. John says that he was with God He could not exist in any Creature whatever let it be never so great noble or perfect because he existed before any thing was Created before the World was Joh. 17.5 He could not be in time because no time was yet when he was Therefore he was in God and with God from Everlasting Who before all Ages says the great Ignatius a Man of the Apostolick times Epist ad Magnes was with the Father and was manifested in the last times The unchangeable word says St. Austin Epis 49. quest 2. residing unchangeably with the unchangeable Father From thence the Greek Fathers understood the admirable description of wisdom to be of no other then the Eternal word the Son of God Prov. 8.22 and those expressions I was set up from Everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was before his works of old when there were no depths I was brought forth I was by him I was by his sides says the Chaldee Interpreter all these expressions they understood to be no other then this and the word was with God This is so plain that I cannot but wonder at the Stir these Gentlemen make about the words Inexistence Eternal Generation Personality as if they were hard and unknown terms the result of Men's Fancies and a Jargon as they are pleas'd to call them The word or the Son for they own these words to be Synonymous in Scripture is said to be from ever with God Therefore he exists in God and I think this is Inexistence A Father and a Son naturally and of necessity suppose a Generation or else they can be neither Father nor Son This is Generation The Father and the Son are both Eternal therefore the Generation must be so too But the Father is not the Son nor the Son is not the Father therefore there is a foundation for Personality The Evangelist proceeds and lays this 3d Axiom declaring the Divinity as he had done before the Eternity of the word and the word was God What can be more express or positive What consequence can be more natural The word was in the beginning or ever the Earth and the World was He was with God and existed in him Therefore he must be
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
true and genuine If I may be allow'd a digression I would willingly know where these Gentlemen found that Constantine dy'd an Unitarian If by an Unitarian they mean that he own'd the Unity of the Godhead I hope we shall all dye in that faith But if by it they mean a Socinian a denyer of the Divinity of Christ It is a gross and a palpable untruth I would also be satisfi'd whether Eusebius of Caesarea whom they so truly call'd the Admirable did not subscribe the Nicene faith To return In an answer to a loving Cosen pag. 3. We hear of nothing but Fathers Tradition Councils c. pag. 8. This general Observation concerning the Fathers is sufficient to make me refuse their testimony and look upon them as no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition We are then in a very sad case Our Translations are dishonest and the Holy Fathers are no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition Our Translations and the Fathers should have spoke as these Gentlemen and then all had been right Where will of necessity such wild notions lead Men and when will the dispute end if they are admitted For my part I am of Mr. Chillingworth's mind and think that it is both the safety and honour of the Protestant Religion to cry out The Bible The Bible a place of that eminent Man so often and so justly commended by these Gentlemen I am perswaded that the word of God ought to be the rule But then I am satisfi'd that no Scripture is of private interpretation That this Bible must be well understood and that Tradition is the greatest human Authority in the World I take this point to be so clear particularly to Men of learning that if any Society of Christians could produce for what they have to say for themselves such a Tradition as Vine â—ius Liâ—inensis has establisht and is the true notion of Tradition we must all come over to it This is so just in it self that these very Gentlemen cannot forbear expressing their joy when what they produce is not altogether their own and has some great names to introduce it They speak then with a certain sort of assurance which they have not at other times I do not know whether I am as other Men or wheit is a singularity in me but if I have never so pretty a notion and find it contradicted by the concurrent testimonies of Men who have united a profound Piety to an admirable Learning such as are the Basil's The Chrysostom's The Theodoret's The two Gregorie's The Eusebius's The Cyrill's The Jerom's The Austin's and many more If I sind primitive and General Councils exclaiming against me If I meet in my way almost all that has been valuable in the last and this present Age in the Common-wealth of learning Though I might perhaps maintain the notion and spin it into a Letter or a small Book not perhaps without some Admirers yet I presently strike and think it both most honourable and conscientious to call the pretty thing in 5ly I have a just value for Criticks though whether a Critick is Master of any one sort of Learning is a great Question to me But to make Criticks the Judges and Criticisms the Touchstone of Faith is insufferable Like Anatomists they dissect till they leave neither Form nor Figure A Criticism is much different from a good reason Allowing one to be good a hundred amount generally to no more than a probability They are a sort of Arrows shot at random which sometimes hit the mark and generally go above or below it I insist the more on this because it is the Palladium of these Gentlemen When a Text is plain and stares in the face then comes out the Criticism This is the dissecting Instrument which runs through the Text till wrangling arises about a Particle or a Punctuation and makes the substantial part of the dispute to vanish When Reason is oppos'd to Reason and Argument to Argument the stander by may in a very short time feel the impressions of truth But when a plain Authority is evaded by a Criticism and this Criticism perhaps answer'd by another For these Gentlemen are great but not the only Criticks There is jarring and clashing and not one step made towards the truth In the Letter of Resolut concern the Doctr. of the Trin. and Incar p. 10. the Author says and he is very much in the right that we pretend That the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions deriv'd down to our times through all the intermediate Ages and by all the Churches professing Christianity The rational way to prove the vanity of the pretence is to shew that there was a time and some Church or other where these Doctrines were not believ'd Instead of this he spends three pages to prove how we have differ'd and do differ amongst our selves in the explication of these Doctrines which rather supports then weakens the Argument It does evince that we agree in the thing though not in the manner of explaining it which is that that I insist on with the rest of my Brethren the Divines of the mob as these Gentlemen call us But this is only to criticise at large All the Criticks says this same Author in the same Letter without excepting one who have made a judgment of the writings of the Fathers for the first 300 Years and particularly which of those writings are genuine and uncorrupted which wholly feign'd or otherwise corrupted I say All the Criticks constantly make this a Note of forgery or corruption if those writings speak any what expressly or evidently of these Doctrines If the Criticks mean that the writings of the Primitive Fathers which speak of those Mysteries in the Terms us'd by the Schools long since the Nicene Council are supposs'd They are in the right But this Criticism is against those Gentlemen themselves It regards only the manner of the expression not the thing express'd But if the Criticks mean that the Trinity or Incarnation were unknown to and were not the Doctrine of the Fathers before the Council of Nice which is that which these Gentlemen must make the Criticks to say or else they say nothing I beg leave of these Gentlemen and of all the Criticks not one excepted to tell them that they are invincibly mistaken I have no criticism to offer here nor will I sill this small writing with citations of these Fathers it being the thing in question Though I conceive with submission to the high and mighty Criticks that most of these citations may be prov'd genuine I have only two plain Reasons to offer 1st With what equity and assurance did the Nicene Fathers declare their decrees to be according to the Doctrine taught by the Fathers who had preceeded them if the Trinity and Incarnation was not the Doctrine of those Fathers The Council was an August Meeting of the most learned and Religious Persons in the World even by
effectually as that place Isay 44.6 I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God This Text is of the New as well as of the Old Testament St. John begins his Revelation by wishing us peace from him which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty Nor indeed can we have a clearer notion of that supreme being which we call God than that he exists before and after all things v 8. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending says the Lord which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty This is a Title which nothing that is Created can pretend to and an Explication of the Sacred Name Jehovah which in the sence of the Hebrews extends to all the durations imaginable and shews that in the change of all things he is permanent and incapable of alteration This suppos'd I conceive it obvious that if Christ assumes that name to himself if he says of himself that he is the Alpha and Omega The first and the last If he often takes that Title willing to be known by it making it the ground of a solid encouragement to his Disciples in their Sufferings for his sake and if what he says can reasonably be diverted to no other sence it cannot be deny'd that he is God with the Father To see whether this is true read Rev. 1.11 I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last v. 17. Fear not I am the first and the last Rev. 22.13 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last and because these Gentlemen are so fond of Articles and build such mighty things upon them all this is spoken with the same Articles as in v. 8. when it is spoken of Almighty God Which though in truth and reality is no proof at all yet it is so to them who lay so great a stress upon it I will add two remarks to this The 1st is that acclamation which in both Testaments is made to none but God v. 6. to him be Glory and dominion for ever and Chap. 5.13 and every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea and all that are in them heard I saying Blessing honour glory and power to him that sitteth on the Throne and to the lamb for ever The 2d is that admirable description made of Christ Rev. 19. which tells us v. 13. that he has a vesture dip't in blood and that his name is the word of God that Eternal word which Grotius owns created the World and all that is in it which was made Flesh and this same Prophet says washt us in his own blood after he had taken our nature upon him who has on his vesture and on his thigh a name written King of Kings and Lord of Lords a title which belongs to none but God which none but the Almighty can assume He alone being the source of power and from whom all other power is deriv'd All this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. pretends to evade by saying that v. 11. is not in the Latin nor in any good Greek Copy It is true that it is not in the Latin and that it is wanting in some few Greek Copies But being that it is in so many other places in all the Greek and Latin Manuscripts It is disingenuous to accuse this particular place and a candid opposer should have judg'd that it can be Attributed to nothing but the neglect of the Transcriber It is in all the aforesaid places and besides Rev. 2.8 spoken by him who was dead and is alive who lives and was dead and is alive for evermore A second Evasion and really much worse than the first is what he says pag. 20. of the Brief Hist to the 17. v. That Christ is the first and most honourable with good Men and the last the most despis'd by bad Men. He cites for this Hugo Cardinalis from whom Grotius and Erasmus have borrow'd it It is very diverting to see a learned Man as the Author of this History to cite in these disputes Hugo Cardinalis but what if the Cardinal if Grotius if Erasmus have understood these words in a manner so contrary to their real and natural sence I ask what is it to the matter in hand Is it less true because Erasmus and Grotius say that it is not so Will these Gentlemen be contented if instead of these three names we produce three hundred of a contrary Opinion a whole Body of Scripture Interpreters who understand the words in their litteral sence Briefly says the Author again pag. 21. Both Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ are the first and the last but in different sences Why does he not alledge those sences What corner of the Earth hides the precious Treasure A Text is produc't which is express cogent self-evident liable to no little Criticisms A title Attributed to Christ in its utmost latitude without any exception or restriction capable of no reasonable sence but the literal and instead of a substantial answer they tell us that a certain Author understands it so and so that it is capable of different sences and so bid us good night Thus any shift is made an Answer and a bare assertion becomes an Argument I have often endeavour'd to find out what might be the cause of so unfair a dealing in an Author who is certainly a Man of learning and is as sensible as my self that the Interpretation of Hugo is ridiculous and impertinent and that a general Allegation is no Answer The true reason I take to be this They have espous'd this notion that the Trinity and Incarnation are contradictory and impossible read this Author pag. 44 45. that is not so much the thing as the manner The How can it be Thus when we who are satisfy'd that if the thing is plainly and clearly reveal'd it becomes the object of our Faith and excludes any further inquiry into the manner when we bring those Texts on which no impression can be made by denying a word excepting against a Translation exclaiming against an Article or a punctuation citing any orthodox who by chance favours their explication of some particular Text though otherwise an utter Enemy to their Doctrine they leave no stone unturn'd But when a Text is alledg'd which as this stares in the face then any thing will serve they think that their strength is to sit still and rather say nothing then not to the purpose What they say to this place Rev. 19.16 King of Kings and Lord of Lords is of the same nature It is not only a magnificent description of the Almighty but a notion also so universal so innate to all Mankind that from this the most illiterate see the necessity of their Obedience to his Laws The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. says to this that Christ is so Lord of Lords as