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
and a personal union Can God appear in our nature without taking our nature Can God be seen as a Man without being made Flesh The application of Joh. 1.14 a dreadful Text to these Gentlemen is not all answer'd The Dean says that even the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Tabernacl'd amongst us fullfill'd that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle or Temple in Jerusalem by his dwelling personally in our humane nature They run here to their Crambe recocta their wild explication of that place of which we shall see the poverty hereafter The Dean having said that the lamb slain from the foundation of the world could not be understood of God's decree the ordinary evasion of these Gentlemer ...... But that it was slain in Types and Figures ever since the fall of Adam in those early sacrifices offer'd after the fall which were Typical and Figurative of the sacrifice of Christ They cannot deny the matter of fact But maintain pag. 48. that they were of humane institution and no Types or Figures of the sacrifice of Christ The reason they say is that the scripture is silent about it Such a reason from such Men is surprising who know that the Religion of the first Men being all traditional no account could be given in scripture of any positive Precept But that those sacrifices were no Figures of the sacrifice of Christ is very strange if it be granted that there is no redemption but by Christ That no sin is forgiven but by the vertue of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross That all men have sinned and come short of the Glory of God That as it is natural to men to adore the Majesty of God it is also natural to implore of him pardon of Sin That both these were the design of Sacrificing in the first Men and consequently that as their Sacrifices were of no validity but in respect of the great Sacrifice offer'd by the Son of God so they must of themselves have been Typical and Figurative The Dean has said that which is the Doctrine of the Fathers and generally of all Christians His notion is true and genuine and those Gentlemen have not answer'd it He asks again what account can be given of the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices which is becoming God if God is propitiated by a Man subject to the same Sins and Infirmites The difficulty is solid For the High Priest of the old dispensation being a meer Man He was a Metaphorical Priest He must be then the figure of a Priesthood and of a Priest more perfect and if the High Priest of the new dispensation was no more than a Man for this these Gentlemen suppose notwithstanding the great addition of Grace and Glory made to him This High Priest is still Metaphorical and Typical as well as the other This contradicts the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 7. v. 2. and foll The law made Men Priests which had Infirmities and offer'd daily for their own sins and then for the people's But Christ our High Priest was holy undefil'd separate from sinners and made Higher than the Heavens That is above any created being He is able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by him Nothing that is a meer Man is able to save Nothing that is a meer Man is without Infirmities the very notion of a Creature implying deficiency and want Therefore if he is no more he is still Typical and Figurative This objection is not nor can be answer'd with all the turns of Wit and Eloquence in the World The union of the two natures in that one adorable Person answers it presently and wholly They are not willing to come up to this But yet this truth is so clear and the Argument so pressing that it has extorted from them in the same place that God has made Christ as it were God by his unspeakable gifts What is all this what has he made him half a God or three parts God or nine parts in ten God If Christ is no more then a meer Man how is he made as it were God If he is God How is he made as it were God Is this jargon or gibbrish I understand how a man can be made as it were a King and yet be no King I apprehend how Moses could be a God to Pharo by working in him with his wonders an awful sence of him from whom he spoke But how a man can save his fellow creatures to the uttermost a meer man satisfy for the sins of mankind be made as it were a God and yet be no God do those things which none but God can do and are the inseparable properties of his Divine nature and yet be no God is to me wholly incomprehensible Let these Gentlemen who are so strangely afraid of an imaginary Idolatry have a care lest they lead their few followers into a real one I leave this to your serious considerarion and remain SIR Your Humble and faithful Servant L. THE Second LETTER SIR IF the Old Testament seems express in the assertion of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and if the Prophets have shew'd that the expected Messias was God It must be expected that the New is positive in it and that the Evangelists and Apostles clearly deliver that great truth I hope that you will be made sensible of it and that the answers of your Friends will appear as unsatisfactory to the Texts of the one as I humbly conceive they are to those of the other I ever thought that if this Doctrine is not fully expres't there we must not think any more to see with our Eyes or to hear with our Ears All must be resolv'd into a monstruous uncertainty and we have no ground left where to rest if this is not firm and solid That these Gentlemen should be so Zealous against it and agreeing with us in the truth of the holy Scriptures should use so much learning and industry not to see that which is so visible is to me no small cause of admiration We must in this adore the judgments of God and pray to him that he would give them Grace to employ their excellent parts to a better use and do as much for the truth as they have done against it They have been led to this by the presumptious assertion of some in the Roman communion and in particular by Dyonisius Petavius a better Chronologist than a Divine who to raise not so much Tradition as these Gentlemen mistake him as the power of the Church in deciding Controversies have thought that our mysteries could not be prov'd by the plain authority of Scripture If this is true the Primitive Christians could give no account of their Faith before the determination of Councels and were left unarm'd and without defence against the insults of Hereticks which is unreasonable to the highest degree and a thought unworthy of that Providence which makes the Church its peculiar care No Sir
it and therefore they forsake the allegory and come to the matter of fact that Christ was actually in Heaven before he came to preach the Gospel You see what it is to espouse a wrong notion They are resolv'd upon asserting that Christ had no being before he he was conceiv'd in the Blessed Virgin The objection made to them is so plain that they can by no means evade or deny it But yet rather than submit they run themselves into a groundless I must beg their pardon If I say a senceless supposition of our Saviour being taken up to Heaven about the 30th Year of his Age. 1st There is not one word of it in the writings of either the Evangelists or Apostles 2ly There is not so much as a Father or an Ecclesiastical Writer ever made that conjecture no not Hebion the Jew not Marcellus of Ancyra nor Theodore of Mopswest not Photinus himself 3ly There never was any Ascension of Christ into Heaven taught or believ'd in the Church but that which follow'd the Resurrection nor no other coming from thence but when he took our Flesh and when he will come to judge the World 4ly I appeal to any one who will judge equitably of things whether it is probable that the Evangelists who have descended to so many minute and particular actions of Jesus Christ would ever have omitted a circumstance of so mighty a weight as this of so great a necessity and a glorious introduction to all the rest No say these Gentlemen but they did not know it This was done before he had call'd them to be his Apostles Oh stange was not the adoration of the wise Men His sitting in the midst of the Doctors His being Baptis'd of John His prodigious Fast His Temptation in the Wilderness and so many other parts of His Life before his calling them to that Office How came they to know all this and not this imaginary Ascension found out sixteen hundred Years after the preaching of the Gospel But though Christ did say nothing to them of it yet he hinted it I deny that he did His coming from Heaven had no relation but to his being there before his assuming our nature But supposing that he did which is false For if these Gentlemen cannot prove a thing they will endeavour to hint it I ask of them whether Religion can be built upon a Hint and what account we can give of the Hope which is in us if it is resolv'd into Hints This Pre-existence of Christ is fully prov'd from Joh. 8.56 and foll v. He tells the Jews that Abraham rejoiced to see his day that he saw it and was glad They presently come to the How can it be Abraham himself being dead so many hundred Years before and himself not yet fifty Years Old Jesus answers that for all that it was as he said He assures it with a repeated asseveration Verily Verily I say to you before Abraham was I am or as the Syriack and other Translations read I was If Christ Jesus had no other existence but from the Virgin Mary How comes he to say that he was before Abraham He could not be before Abraham as he was the Son of Mary He could not exist according to the human nature before he was a Man If he existed then as he says positively that he did it must be as he was that God who in the fullness of time was pleas'd to appear to us Thus Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on this place You are much mistaken in the reckoning of my Age for I have a being from all Eternity and so before Abraham was born c. I cite this Reverend Person by reason of an aspersion laid on him by these Gentlemen in a letter to a loving Cosen pag. 14. They make the Doctor to look upon the mystery of the Holy Trinity as a thing altogether useless and uncapable of moving the heart of Man He could not find says the Author a place in his large practical Catechism for the great spring of the Trinity That the sence given to this Text is true and genuine appears from the behaviour of the Jews at v. 59. Then they took up stones to cast at him Had the assertion been capable of a figurative sence it would never have mov'd them to such a degree They certainly understood him of a real and actual existence Their objection thou art not yet fifty Years Old was of that natural Age which they thought Christ had not yet attain'd They took the answer to be litteral and therefore judging the thing to be blasphemous and impossible they would have ston'd him And that the answer was litteral is undenyable Notwithstanding my Years says Christ I have seen Abraham This were indeed impossible to see him who has been dead above 1800 Years if I had no other being but what you see It would be Blasphemous if I were no more then a Man born in time to take that upon me which belongs only to God and to call the things that are not as though they were But I tell you that I was before Abraham I had a being of my own and I did actually exist before he was born I take this to be evident and conclusive This Text is one of those dangerous places which are like to overthrow the Socinian Fabrick and therefore these Gentlemen do all that they can to elude its force They have been so judicious as to forsake the ruinous and impertinent answers of Chrellius and their other outlandish Friends and have reduc't themselves to this The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 29. allows the reading I was Grotius owns it and therefore it could not be handsomely deny'd To the rest he says 1st That Abraham saw Christ's day in the spirit of Prophecy He saw it not as coming but as present He foresaw as he desir'd the time when it should be 2ly That Christ is here said to be before Abraham not actually but in the councel decree and ordination of God And that St. Austin has confess'd it He cites for this 1 Pet. 1.20 The lamb slain from the foundation of the World and Rev. 13.8 The lamb slain from the foundation of the World He adds That the Jews did not apprehend in what sence Christ spoke But neither did he intend or care they should ..... They being averse from Truth and Piety he often so spake to some of them as to perplex and affront their blindness .... and not to instruct them He alledges for this Luk. 8.10 The 1st Part of the Answer is to no purpose Who doubts but that Abraham saw Christ in the spirit of Prophecy The question is not how Abraham did see his day and rejoiced but How he could exist before Abraham Before Abraham was I was I had a being before Abraham was born That 's the point to be insisted on The 2d Part that Christ was before Abraham in God's decree and ordination is also to no purpose The question is
and working the Heavens Do created beings perish and decay really or Metaphorically Is the World's destruction real or only Figurative No Man ever indulg'd his fancy to that degree as to call this an Allegory It is then a real and actual Creation Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth It was done in the beginning before any thing did exist or began to be The consequence then is as bright as the sun that as he who has given a beginning to any thing is before that thing which he has given a beginning to so Christ is pre-existent and before all created beings since it appears by the express Authority of the Scripture that he has given a being to the whole Creation I pass by that Elegant Description of an Eternal Being who is always the same incapable of change and not mov'd even in the general destruction of all things But hold says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 17. You are in a mighty mistake This seems indeed appli'd to Christ Heb. 1.10 But Thomas Aquinas observes that it may be understood of God only not Christ Grotius tells you and so do Estius and Camerarius that this Text must be referr'd to v. 13. Hold again says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 10 11. This is an Allegory and must be understood as the new Heavens and the new Earth spoken of Esay 65.17 and 66.22 2 Pet. 3.13 Revel 21.1 which all the Trinitarian Interpreters have understood of the Gospel state of things in opposition to the Jewish which is antiquated and done away agreeable to the assertion of Christ Matt. 24. If this is not satisfactory there is another shift ready He tells you That others of his party take this as an Apostrophe conversion and devout address to God not intended of our Saviour The Allegory has so much the more weight that it comes from the Allegorical Hugo Grotius to whom may be appli'd what the 5th General Council said of Theodore of Mopswest that rather than be convinc't He would turn the plainest truths into Allegories But for all that these Gentlemen are in the wrong St. Peter speaks of the end of the World and of the destruction of all things in the last day The 24th of St. Matthew is of the same strain and though several learned Men have understood these places of the destruction of Jerusalem yet they have agreed that it contains also that of the whole World Christ answers his disciples first says Tertullian de Resurr car follow'd in this by very many of the Fathers of the time of the ruine of Jerusalem and then of the end of the World The notion of the Apostrophe or address to God is scarce worth any notice and time is too precious to spend it in answering trifles of that nature It is like that of Socinus and I believe flows from it that these words are not spoken of the Son because with the conjunctive particle and there was not rursum again An ordinary measure of common sence will shew the vanity of this Let ten thousand People read this Chapter and these two Verses in particular But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God ... and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid but will think them to be spoken to the same Person No not that plain Countryman who hearing his Parson read these words of St. Paul thought it not robbery did fancy that the It was not in the Original Ans to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. I must beg these Gentlemens Pardon If I am forc't to say that they are guilty in their Disputes of an unparallel'd Injustice The Scripture speaks of a real Creation It mentions one also which is Allegorical Some Interpreters and not all the Interpreters according to their large way of talking have understood the places which they have cited out of Isaias and the Revelation of this last Therefore right or wrong they must be appli'd to the first Rather than give up the Argument they will give over the litteral sence of a Text which is capable of no other and run to the Metaphorical which by no means can agree with it It is confest on all hands that the Prophet in the words in dispute speaks of a real actual Creation and of a real actual Destruction of the Word It is also confest that the words are addrest to the real actual Creator of the World to that Eternal God who in the change and alteration of all things is himself incapable of change This they themselves do not deny The Apostle brings in the Father speaking to his Son attributing to him that real actual Creation as to the real actual Creator and because this is plain evident and unanswerable then the Apostle must be made to speak in an Allegorical and Figurative way This is such a method of arguing which I durst almost say is scandalous I honour Grotius but I would borrow an impertinence of no Man to elude a visible Truth That this Doctrine of the real and actual Creation of all things by Christ is not deliver'd obscurely or by the by but is the constant and universal Doctrine of Scripture appears from Colos 1.15 and foll v. Who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they by Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers All things were created by him and for him and be is before all things and by him all things consist There is not a word in this but what invincibly proves the question and this after so clear a manner that it leaves no room for Allegories figures or any such poor shifts Passing by the first expression the image of the invisible God of which we shall have a further occasion to speak The Apostle says positively of Christ that he is the first born of every Creature that is born before all Created Beings which is the true rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primogenitus omnis Creaturae reads the old latin that is genitus ante omnem creaturam says Tertullian lib. de Trin. born before any creature The passage of that Father is home to the thing It was before any of these disputes and shews exactly the sence of the Western Church in the Primitive Times Quomodo Primogenitus esse potuit nisi quoniam secundum Divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre sermo processit How could he be the first born but that in respect of his Divine nature The word proceeded from God the Father before any thing was created Origen lib. 2. contr Cels to an objection made by Celsus that he whom we assure to be God and suppose to suffer so willingly could not forbear cryes and lamentations answers That he does not discern the difference of the Scriptures Expressions That Christ speaks sometimes as Man and sometimes as God We have laid down says
God and the word was God But the Divine Nature is one and incapable of division It cannot be multipli'd without destruction Therefore if the Father is God as it is confest of all hands and if the word is God as the Evangelist fully and plainly asserts it there must be more than one Person in that one single and indivisible Deity These persons must be Co-eval Coeternal Consubstantial This shews how mean and low how strange and far from the Question is the Answer or rather the Subterfuge of these Gentlemen which they are never weary of obtruding that Christ is call'd God as Moses and Solomon were and as Magistrates and Princes I beg the favour if we do nothing but catch at the word God as they are pleas'd to say we do to shew me in the sacred Writings some such place as this for Solomon and Moses Does any of the Evangelists or Prophets say in the beginning was Moses and Moses was with God and Moses was God In the beginning was Solomon and Solomon was with God and Solomon was God They cannot but be sensible how such reasonings might be expos'd But though what St. John has said is enough to prevent all objections against the Sacred Doctrine and leave no room for Arrianism Sabellianism and Socinianism yet he prosecutes the Argument and gives us sensible proofs of his Divinity whom he asserts so positively to be God The same was in the beginning with God A repetition of great weight which unites all that has been said before to what is to be said after The word who was in the beginning The word who was with God The word who was God is the same who made all things v. 3. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made The Creation of the World that is of all spiritual and material substances and in a word of all that is is a most sensible and convincing Argument of a Deity A work so transcending all finite capacities that the true God is distinguisht by this from them who pretended to be but are really no Gods Isay 45.12 18. The assertion of Heb. 3.4 is true both in Divinity and Philosophy He that built all things is God None but the supream God can do it Now in what more litteral and accurate way of expression than this can this creating power be attributed to the word 1st You have an affirmation of as great an extent as the whole World it self All things were made by him 2ly Even to prevent the least imagination that perhaps something was which might have another Author and be the emanation of some other being there is the most pregnant positive and particular Negation that can be and without him was not any thing made that was made How long shall Men give the lye to their own reason and so far espouse an Opinion as to contradict the clearest truth He that made all things is truly God Therefore since we are assur'd that Christ made all things and that nothing was made without him he is truly and really God V. 4 5. St. John says In him was life and the life was the light of men To live is the prerogative of the most High for whereas all other beings borrow their life from him he lives independently from them In this sence he is call'd eminently the Living God Christ then is the principle of life and of light whatsoever lives lives by him He is original Life in the order of nature because by him Man was made Gen. 1.26 He is truly Life in the order of Grace Joh. 14.6 I am the life He is our Life even when we are dead Joh. 11.25 I am the Resurrection and the Life He is our life in the order of Glory 2 Joh. 5.20 The true God and Eternal Life A place we shall examine further V. 6 7. The Evangelist adds that the greatest amongst the Sons of Men the other John Matt. 11.11 was sent by God to bear witness that he was come into the World and for fear Men should be apt to mistake this Messenger of God for the God himself whose Messenger he was having so many qualifications above other Men He tells us v. 8. that John was not that light But v. 9. that the word of whom he has made such an admirable description was that true light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that original that essential light that was to come which has no beginning suffers no decay and diffuses it self so as in some measure or other to enlighten every Man V. 10. He tells us that he made himself visible to the World He was in the world He repeats again that the World was made by him and to shew the blindness and ingratitude of the World he says that though he was the Maker and Creator of the World yet the world knew him not He aggravates this v. 10. He came into his own amongst those very Men whom he had made who were his by a must undoubted title even that of Creation and yet his own receiv'd him not refusing the adoration and obedince due to him V. 12. To such as receiv'd him even to them that believe in his name gave he power to become the Sons of God He who is the Eternal Son by Nature assum'd them to the dignity of Sons by Adoption From all that the Evangelist has said the Eternity and Divinity of the word are clear That he is the supreme God the Creator of all things the Universal and only good of Man is plain and evident All the difficulty is how he was in the World came into the World is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he who was to come to appear to be seen in the World the title given him both by the Prophets and Apostles This the Evangelist resolves v. 14. And the word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth These Gentlemen who ask us with so much earnestness to shew them in the Scripture the words Godman and Incarnation may Easily satisfie themselves here The word who was in the beginning before the World was who was with God who was God who has made all things The word who is the true light the original life of all that is who was announc't by the Prophets ever since the World began who had for his Messenger the greatest amongst the Sons of Men who is full of Grace and Truth and of whose fullness we have all receiv'd That word was made Flesh assum'd our Nature and became Man I will end the Explication of this place by these two remarks 1st St. John says he dwelt the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Tabernacl'd amongst us A plain allusion to the Tabernacle to which God was pleas'd to be present or according to the Hebrew to inhabit In this sence the new Jerusalem is call'd Rev. 1.3 The Tabernacle of God with
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
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
of Mark 16.19 He was receiv'd up into Heaven This Text is express for the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures A Mystery truly great and incomprehensible God made Man An admirable instance of the love of God to us and a most powerfull motive of our Obedience to him These Gentlemen have made two sorts of Objections to this The one they have taken from Chrellius and their other profess't Friends the other from Erasmus and Grotius For the 1st the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 40. says That if we will make sence of this Text we must translate Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested by Flesh i. e. God's nature and will was manifested by Flesh that is by Man by Jesus Christ and his Apostles to us Gentiles Was justify'd in the spirit i. e. the same will and nature of God was verify'd by miracles done by the spirit or power of God Was seen of Angels i. e. was known to the Angels who were desirous to understand this new revelation Believ'd on in the world receiv'd with Glory or Gloriously and not receiv'd up into Glory The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says That by Godwe may understand here as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themselves do not the Person but the will and mind of God This was manifested to us by Flesh that is by Christ and his Apostles They have as much reason to translate by instead of in Flesh as we have to translate by the spirit instead of in the spirit It ought not to be translated receiv'd up into Glory but receiv'd gloriously i. e. extoll'd magnify'd lifted up He gives this reason for understanding the word God not of God himself but of his will and mind that we interpret it thus Gal. 1.10 do I now perswade men or God Do I seek to perswade human invention ..... or the very will and commands of God Thus silly and bold Criticisms are made use of to undermine the Christian Faith The poverty of this new translation will be evident from this very observation that God to express the mind and the will of God is a dialect which they may have us'd themselves to but is wholly unknown and unpractis'd in Scripture They are desir'd to give any one single instance of it but clear plain and lyable to no exception Gal. 1.10 is far from being of that nature Men do not signify there human inventions nor God the will and commands of God The Generality of Interpreters and indeed the nature of the thing it self leading us to this sence of the place Do I seek to approve my self to men or to â—od ..... For if yet I pleas'd men I should not be the Servant of Christ Their translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Flesh is contrary to the original to the Faith of all translations and to the sence of Manknd The reason which they give for it that we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the spirit is wholly false But the last part of this Text receiv'd gloriously that is as they say extoll'd magnify'd and not receiv'd up into glory is an insufferable attempt on the Eyes and sence of men They should have imitated Erasmus who having strain'd as much as possible every part of this Text was so struck with the evidence of this last expression that though a great Wit and a great Critick he thought it the best way to let it alone and say nothing to it He saw clearly that the will and mind of God taken up to Heaven is a barbarous way of expression He was sensible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dialect of the Scripture Mark 16.19 Act. 1.11 Act. 1.22 is an actual real personal being taken up of Christ into Heaven He knew that this is the language of both the Testaments and that the same is us'd of Enoch of Moses and of Elias The first part then of their answer is not solid and if they had no more to say than this they must be look't upon as unreasonable and obstinate men Indeed the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn has made a pretty paraphrase and very intelligible It has only that unhappiness that he has given us his sence and not the sence of the Apostle and absolutely departed from the truth and meaning of the Text which a Paraphrast ought not to do It is very diverting to read these Gentlemen's Paraphrases They make what words they will and give them what sence they please Then they muster all up and end in a pretty Speech What they have borrow'd of Grotius consists in this That the word God is not in the Text. Brief Hist pag. 44. This appears by the Syriack Latin Ethiopick Armenian Arabick and most ancient Greek Bibles by great many citations out of the Greek and Latin Fathers who read not God was manifested but which was manifested Macedonius was the first who corrupted this Text by substituting the word God instead of the word which and for this and other matters he was depos'd by the Emperour Anastasius about the Year 512. The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 2 3. says That the Latin Syriack and Armenian Translations the Council of Nice and St. Jerom himself a bigotted Trinitarian read which and not God Erasmus says that Multa vetera exemplaria many but not very many as the answerer has translated it of the ancient Copies read which a reading approv'd by Erasmus himself Grotius cites Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes saying that the Nestorians substituted God in the room of which the better to defend themselves from the Eutychians Liberatus the Archdeacon of Carthage assures us that Macedonius was depos'd for so doing This and some heats against Mr. Milbourn is the sum of what he has to say What Erasmus says of his many or as this Author will have it very many ancient Greek Copies that read which and not God with the leave of that great Man is a real mistake Beza examining himself this very place of Erasmus answers plainly Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci codices But All the Greek Copies with an universal consent give him the lye All the Greek Copies do agree in the word God says one of the best and most learned Prelates this Nation ever had The joint consent says he in another place of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the Authority of these two Translations He means the Latin and Syriack But to examine this most particularly Grotius does not condemn or reject but only insinuates that he has some cause to suspect the reading God The Latin Interpreter as the most ancient is the great objection for all the rest Armenian Ethiopick Arabick are names serve only to fill the Page and make the simple Reader to stare But it will prove at last no Objection For if a thousand Translations read contrary to the Original Text we ought not to depart from it if the Text is true genuine and indisputable But