redemption of the World They must forgive me if I say that this is a meer trifle God's own Lamb is the Lamb of God God's own Son is the Son of God And God's own blood is the blood of him who is God Tit. 2.13 was urg'd by the Fathers against the Arrians as a clear proof of the Divinity of Christ Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ The Author of the Brief Histor pag. says to this 1st That nothing hinders that we may believe that not only the Lord Christ but God himself will appear at the last judgment 2ly That the Glory of the Great God is the Pomp Power and Angels that God even the Father will cause to accompany Christ in that day Matt. 16.27 The Son shall appear in the Glory of his Father with his the Father's Angels The first of these two assertions is contrary to the Gospel Joh. 5.22 The Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son The second is as contrary as the first Matt. 25.31 When the Son of man shall come in his Glory .... Then shall he sit upon the Throne of his Glory But all this is nothing to the purpose and diverts instead of resolving the question The only difficulty which can be propos'd the Author of the History has declin'd We prove from this Text that the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ is the same Person That the Great God and Saviour are predicated or say'd of Christ This ought to have been deny'd and reasons given for it and this would have been to the purpose But This Author saw it was not possible and that the Greek dialect excludes in this place all the little Criticisms which come in heaps in other places I wonder that those great Masters of the Greek Tongue who did presume in the Text disputed of before this to put the blood of his own Son in the room of his own blood have not here added an Article and read The Great God and the Saviour J. C. and pretended some ancient Copies that Curcellaeus or some body else had seen This Text then is undoubtedly ours The Great God and Saviour of us is the same way of speaking as The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ The conjunctive Particle which unites God and Father uniting also God and Saviour Nor can they so much as dream here of a deputed God since there is an Article here and the Epithet Great added to it But nothing shews so much how far these Gentlemen are prejudic'd against the plainest evidence than their answers to Joh. 20.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord of me and the God of me Socinus says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 32 and 34. with two more learned Unitarians contend That it was the intention of Thomas to call our Saviour His Lord and his God but it is in no other sense than Solomon Ps 45. Moses and Samuel That God is us'd amongst the Eastern People as the word Lord is us'd amongst us who do not design to make a Man a God because we speak to him with a name which we also use to God Yet though this comes from Socinus this Author is not willing to stand to it He says This interpretation is likely to be true but that divers learned Persons amongst their Opposers and even of old Nestorius and Theodore of Mopswest were of opinion that My Lord and My God are only words of admiration and thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God They are an exclamation expressing the Apostle's amazement to find his Master was risen He sends us to the Brief History The Author of that History is so little taken with the deputed God of Socinus that he has not one Syllable of it He says pag. 32. That Nestorius was of opinion that the words were not design'd to Christ but to God For though the Evangelist says Thomas answer'd and say'd to him yet the exclamation might be adress'd to God as its object and the answer to our Saviour ...... It may be admitted as true what others say O my Lord are words of congratulation to our Saviour O my God words of admiration and praise to God Thus these Gentlemen cut and slash the Scripture and shew how men who depart from the truth are inconsistent with themselves Socinus overcome by the evidence of the thing acknowledges the words to be spoken to Christ but contrary to his own rule though the words are with an Article and so must belong to the true God will have them to be understood of a deputed God or a God by Office Nestorius Theodore and these Gentlemen are convinc't that the God spoken of here is the Almighty But though the Text expressly says and â—homas answer'd and say'd to him My Lord and My God yet it must not be to him but to God himself They separate what the spirit of God has join'd and though it is as clear as the Sun that the word My God is say'd to him to whom the word My Lord is spoken being both join'd by the Particle and yet this will not do one part must be a Compliment to Christ the other a Prayer to God These Gentlemen would fain have new Bibles The Author of the Answer to My Lord of Sarum pag. 30. There will be no need of our Answers or Defences if there were but an honest Edition of the Bible ..... We have no reform'd Bibles none that have been corrected to speak the Doctrines of the Church rather than of the Gospel But 't is above 1200 Years that others have been Modelling the common Bibles by the Doctrines and Articles of our Holy Mother Church I think they do not ask enough I would have them also find out a new Language new ways for men to express themselves by I would have them procure an Act of Parliament by which it shall be Enacted that to Answer and to speak to a Man shall not be to answer and to speak to him but to some body else I would have them take such vulgar notions as these out of men's heads and create in them new methods of thinking and receving impressions from what they hear by being perswaded that though they receive an answer yet it is not to them that it is given Truly had I been in the Fifth General Council where this answer of Theodore was condemn'd by the Fathers syn 5. coll 4. I would not only have Anathematis'd the Impiety but also the folly and impertinence of the Opinion These two answers then invincibly consute one another Sâ—cinus confutes that part which would not have the words to be spoken to the Saviour and these Gentlemen confute that part which makes the God who is spoken to to be a deputed God They lead us to the true sence of this Text that Thomas an Apostle has fully acknowledg'd that Christ is truly and really God This
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
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
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
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
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
Sacred and Divine Mysteries The Church of Rome and some others have presum'd to go further and to six the manner of Christ's being in the Sacrament I demand then with what equity these Gentlemen can make that Objection and repeat it with as much earnestness as if they reason'd upon an undisputed Principle The Trinity and Incarnation we believe The How can it be we acknowledge incomprehensible We do the same of Christ's presence in the Sacrament The Revelation concerning all this is plain and express We pretend to no more It is disingenuous and obstinate to deny that any thing is because we cannot shew how it is Had we deny'd the presence of Christ in the Sacrament the Objection had been of some force But denying only Transubstantiation that is the manner of that presence it is altogether wide of the question Having done with this Author I pass to that of the Brief History who did not think this Answer of Mr. Milbourn's Adversary solid enough to embrace it But after some cursory animadversions on the Churche's Exposition shelters himself under Grotius's Wings and delivers that learned Man's Opinion It is needless to transcribe it all that he says pag. 26 27 28. amounting to this Grotius understands as we do the Creation here spoken of to be that of the Natural World He explains the words in the beginning as we do when God created all things or when all things began to exist He makes as we do that word to be not only Pre-existent but Eternal He understands as we do the word to be with God and to be God He reads as we do all things were made by him and for him He renders as we do The word was made Flesh acknowledging that Flesh is the usual Scripture Phrase for Man and saying also in the Explication of the 10th Verse that in process of time the word come to be Incarnate You will say then where does he differ from the Orthodox For as yet nothing appears contrary to the sence receiv'd in the Christian World He differs only in this that he makes this word to be only a property and an Attribute of God i. e. his Wisdom and Power but not a Divine Person I wonder that this Author would embrace an Exposition which really ruines all their little Criticisms their charming Allegories and brings the question to this only difficulty whether the word is no more than an Attribute or whether he is a Person Whatever Grotius in other places has done for these Gentlemen he has certainly given up the cause here by cleaving to the litteral sence of the words which indeed he could by no means avoid I will only propose these difficulties 1st If the word here is no more than an Attribute or Property how is he constantly spoken of here by he and him The world was made by him The world knew him not It is ridiculous to say that it is in the same manner that Prov. 9.1 Wisdom is said to build her House and David calls God's Commandments his Councellers Since in those places is a visible and a design'd Metaphor But Grotius owns here a real actual natural Creation of the World which admits of nothing Figurative 2ly If the word is no more than an Attribute of God what can be the meaning of the Evangelist In the beginning was the word and the word was God What is there in this so singular and to what can this lead us The Wisdom of God was before all things and the Wisdom of God was with God That is God was wise before the World was Created Certainly St. John means somewhat more than this Why not in the beginning was the Power the Mercy the Truth the Holiness of God For all this God was before things began to be 3ly What can be the design of this and the word was God Who ever heard any one say that Wisdom is God and Power is God Nor will it serve here to say as the Author of the History That all the Attributes of God are God or that the name Jehovah is attributed to Angels and that Moses is call'd God Either of these answers destroys the other For if the Attributes of God are God then Wisdom is the supreme God and not as the Angels or Moses Or if Wisdom is call'd Jehovah as the Angels and God as Moses then all the Attributes of God are not the Supreme God 4ly If the word is no more than an Attribute what can be made of this He was in the world and the world knew him not He came unto his own and his own receiv'd him not Living in the World unknown to the World coming to and rejected by Men cannot be said of Wisdom If it could bear that sence the Evangelist says nothing since before the Gospel before Moses before the Flood the Wisdom of God was despis'd by Men. 5ly The following words can never be spoken in the sence of an Attribute So many as receiv'd him to them gave he power to become the Sons of God even to them who believe on his name Can sence be made of wisdom giving us power or believing in the name of wisdom 6ly If wisdom is no more than a qualification how comes this and the word was made Flesh I remember that these Gentlemen value themselves much upon this notion of the Author of the Impartial Account of the word Mystery that they cannot believe the Trinity because they can have no notion of a Trinity I humbly beg a notion of Justice Prudence Holiness or as here Wisdom made Flesh I humbly beg a notion of an Attribute made Flesh 7ly And we beheld his glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father I again humbly beg to know whether the Attribute Wisdom is the only begotten Son of the Father I beg a notion of the Glory of God's Wisdom to be seen by human Eyes No says the Author you mistake it is the Glory of the Man on whom the word did abide But I must beg his pardon and tell him that this is too great an imposition on the sence of Mankind Any one who knows somewhat more than his A. B. C. knows that The word is the subject of all that is said here It is of the word that it is said that he was in the beginning that he was God that he was with God that he made the World that he was made Flesh that his Glory was seen as of the only begotten Son of God He must not He cannot admit the word to be the subject of all the other Propositions and deny him to be the subject of this I beg your pardon for having been so long on this Text. But the Answers of your Friends being of so great an extent though of so different a nature it was fit to shew how weak and unsatisfactory they appear I then prosecute the Argument and offer some others to your consideration I think that nothing proves the Eternity of God so
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
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
and born before any created substance but the Father who has begot him Nor can any know the Father after the same manner but his living word who is both his wisdom and truth I remain SIR Your humble c. THE Fourth LETTER SIR HAving prov'd the Pre-Existence and Pre-Eternity of Christ his Antemundane and Eternal Being with God before he assum'd our Nature and shew'd how deficient or to use the very words of your Friends in the Brief Hist pag. 23. how harsh and strain'd their answers seem to be to the Texts produc't against them it remains to make good that Christ is God by a communication of the Divine Essence and that the Scriptures represent him to be God after a manner applicable to no Creature The first of these two assertions is grounded on Phil. 2.6 and foll v. The Apostle proposes Christ to the Philippians as a Divine instance of Humility and Obedience He makes both to consist in this that being really God and equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation but became Man and humbl'd himself to the Death of the Cross The words of the Text are clearer than any Commentary v. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God The form of God is here the Nature and Essence of God For though in some other places of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Form signifies no more than an Image or a personal appearance yet in this it is determin'd to this sence of Nature and Essence by the next Verse where the form of a Servant is certainly the Nature and Essence of a Servant The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting rather than being in the form of God as these Gentlemen will not deny that it should have been translated implies a real and an actual in-being in the Divine Nature St. Paul having asserted that Christ subsisted in the form of God says that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God an expression which crumbles to dust the poor notion of a God by deputation as Socinus has contriv'd and an inferior though an excellent God as Arrius For what inferior or deputed God dares claim an equality with the God of Heaven and Earth audet pariari Deo says Tertullian What Moses Solomon what Lord Lieutenant of a County or Mayor of a Town because the Scripture calls Magistrates Gods would pretend it to be no robbery to equal themselves with God The excessive humility of Christ appears then in this that though God and equal with God yet v. 7. He made himself of no reputation semetipsum exinanivit reads the Old Latin exhausted himself says Tertullian contr Marci more agreeable to the Original he lessen'd he empty'd himself He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men both so Highly Disproportionate to the Infinite Being of God v. 8. He carry'd yet the humiliation to a more stupendious degree For being found in fashion as a man he humbl'd himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross There is then not only a plain assertion but a visible Union of the two Natures There is a God becoming a Servant and a Man and suffering for us in that humanity which he was pleas'd to assume The Author of the Brief History pag. 37. excepts against this He says 1st That it cannot be the design of the former part of these words to intimate that Christ is God because 't is added at last that God has exalted him and given him a name that is above every name These words plainly distinguish Christ from God as one who is not himself God but exalted by God 2ly That this has oblig'd several judicious and learned Trinitarians to interpret the whole Context of Christ as he is a Man 3ly He explains pag. 38. being in the form of God only to be like God by a communication of the Divine Power 4ly He does not translate as we do thought it not robbery to be equal with God but committed not robbery to be equal with God i. e. did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. and foll says almost the same things only he brings in a Tale and a Proverb The Tale is of a Countryman who without a remnant of Greek or Latin did yet puzzle his Vicar by asking whether It was in the Original whether the true reading was thought it not robbery or only thought not robbery to which last the Vicar yielding the Countryman was satisfy'd that this Text did destroy the Divinity of Christ The Proverb is that every like is not the same and therefore that since Christ was in the form of God that is like God as Adam and all other Men he cannot be God He says further that it is both Morally and Physically impossible that God should do any of these things and undergo any of these changes He observes and that Socinus had done before that if Christ is equal with God he cannot be God since nothing can be equal to it self He cites Christopher Sandius who has made a considerable Collection of Authors Fathers as well as modern who confess that this Text is to be understood of Christ as Man and not as God The Answerer to two Discourses of one Monsieur la Motté done out of French repeats all this in other words Only he is so confident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be translated thought it not robbery that pag. 11. he sends us to the School Boys and pag. 8. to the Lexicon I hope they are Persons of too much judgment to take this for an Answer that Christ is not God because God has exalted him and God cannot exalt God For all that is or ever was pretended from thence is not that God has exalted God But God has exalted that humane nature that Man Christ Jesus assum'd by the word to the participation of the honour due to God That other sort of reasoning is as bad as this that if he is equal with God He cannot be God because nothing can be equal to it self I suppose they mean because equality implies comparison and comparison excludes identity This is certainly false in Geometry and false again in Divinity But admitting the Proposition as it lyes It is nothing at all to the Question The design of the Apostle is not to compare Christ with God or a God with another God But only to shew that Christ is that supreme God who humbled himself to that degree as to take upon him the form of a Servant Now what more significant sort of expression could be us'd than this that though he was God and had reason to think all the perfections and glory of the Divine Nature to be his own which is the full and only importance of being equal with God yet he humbl'd himself to death c. I hope also that they are
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
it is not so replies the Author Grotius affirms that Hincmarus a Prelate so famous in his time is positive that the word God was thrust into the Text by the Nestorians and in particular by Macedonius who corrupted the sincere reading of that very place I never saw either Mr. Milbourn or his Book but he might have told his Answerer that Grotius is strangely mistaken and so must the Learned Prelate be whom he has cited All the World cannot make me apprehend how the Nestorians should thrust the word God into a Text by which they ruin'd themselves and their Doctrines to all intents and purposes Nestorius says this very Author in his Answer to the late Archbishop pag. 61. said That God was not Hypostatically united or after the manner of a Person to the Man Christ Jesus But only dwelt in him by a more plentiful effusion or exertion of the Divine Presence and Attributes than in former Prophets This led him to say that our Saviour ought to be call'd Christ and not God He deny'd that he could call him God c. I ask then How it can be conceiv'd that it should come into the head of the Nestorians to change the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the only thing that could favour their Doctrine into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the only word that could ruine it Is it rational to think that a Sect of men who are professedly bent against the Incarnation of Christ shall alter a plain Text to put in a word which will make it undisputable Will it be believ'd in the next Age if Socinianism is so long liv'd that the Socinians would alter a Text which does not prove the Divinity of Christ and add words to it by which it may clearly be prov'd It is a great mistake to say that Macedonius was turn'd out of the Sea of Constantinople for falsifying this Text. It is true that Anastasius turn'd him out but it does not appear that it was upon any such account That that makes this to be undeniable is that this Text is read by the Fathers with the word God before Macedonius was born and even long before the Heresy of Nestorius St. Chrysostom Patriarch himself of Constantinople long before Nestorius reads in this place God was manifested c. So does Theodoret so does St. Cyril even against this very Nestorius so do several other Fathers too tedious to insert I will add that whoever reads attentively the place of Hincmarus which these Gentlemen have not cited but is Opusc 55. cap. 18. Liberatus cap. 19. and he will find even in their own account the addition of the word God to have been impossible Another Objection is that of the Council of Nice of next Authority with us says the Author and with a great deal of truth to the sacred Scriptures One having repeated this Text with the word God taken probably out of some Marginal note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word which in the Text was answer'd by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading the words being which was manifested in the flesh This makes nothing against us It proves that this reading was ancienter than the Council of Nice It proves if the Author 's wild conjecture may be admitted that if there was even any Copy where the word God was not that the which by the force of the following parts of the Verse and the sence of that age having put to it that marginal note was to be understood of God It proves that the Arrians had begun early to corrupt those Texts which were plainest for the Divinity of Christ Had this Author shew'd that upon this allegation of Macarius the sacred Council had rejected this Text it would have been of some weight but the mistake of that Bishop appears by the unanimous consent of the Greek Fathers using this Text with the word God in the time of and after the Council But even in the Latin Church where the Interpreter reads which The Fathers understood that Mystery which the Apostle calls confessedly so great of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Nor is the assumptum est in gloria of the vulgar Latin taken up into Glory capable of any other sence These Gentlemen have a great disadvantage that when they have never so finely shap't an interpretation and put it in never so pretty a dress not only the new but also the old Christian World rises against it It was the wish no doubt of a good Man that his Soul might rest with the Philosophers Let mine rest with the Primitive Fathers and Councils of the Church In all Arts and Sciences the further we go the greater are our improvements But in the case of Religion the nearer we return to the Spring the more purity and truth we meet with Rom. 9.5 is another staring Text. Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen That the title of blessed over all for ever is only due and was only given to the Almighty is evident from the Old and New Testament and the constant practices of Jews and Christians If the word God was not in this Text it would lose nothing of its force The blessed over all implying with all the Jewish Doctors that Essential Happiness that Absolute Dominion that Incomprehensible Greatness which belong to none but him who is God by nature But since all this is said of Christ in plain and express words the consequence is easy he must be that God Should all Mankind conspire to find words clear and positive to represent the two natures and God made Man they must come short of this Apostle who shews the one in this part of the Text of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came and the other in that who is over all God blessed for ever Proclus in his Book de fid looks on this Text alone as a confutation of all the Heresies concerning Christ Athanasius and the Catholick Fathers urg'd it with vehemence against the Arrians Theophilact the great Admirer and even the Transcriber of St. Chrysostom says in this place that St. Paul by Proclaiming Christ God over all has publisht the shame of Arrius who deny'd it to all the World The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 35. says to this 1st That it is very probable by the Syriack and some passages in Ignatius and other Fathers that the word God was not originally in this Text. For they read it without 2ly Admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek Erasmus and Curcellaeus observe that it should have been thus translated Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came God who is over all be blessed for ever 3ly That these words according to the Flesh or concerning the Flesh never signify according to his human nature as if he had also a Divine Nature Rom. 9.3 My Kinsman according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham