CHAP. I. Containing an accurate Examination of 1 Tim. 3.16.

YOUR (particular) Friend Mr. Milb. has begun his Attack on Socinianism, with a Text of St. Paul; in the Explication and Vindication of which, he wastes no fewer than 82 Pages; The Text is this, Great is the Mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in the Flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, be­lieved on in the World, received up into Glory. 1 Tim. 3.16. He saith hereupon, that in­deed some Translators read here, Great is the Mystery of Godliness, WHICH (which My­stery) was manifested by Flesh: that is, the Law was given by Angels, but the Gospel by the Ministry of Men, (even by Jesus Christ, and his Apostles) called Flesh here, in op­position to Angels who are Spirit; and be­cause Flesh is the usual Scripture-Term for Man: but all the Greek Copies (he saith) agree in reading this Text, as we read it in our English Bibles; as also does the famous Manuscript in the King of England's Library, which is about 1300 Years old.

And if (saith he) the Providence of God, as the Socinians contend, is concerned to preserve his own holy Word from Cor­ruptions and Falsifications; 'tis reasonable to think, such Providence has been exercised rather about the Original Greek, than about Translations. But neither, saith he, do all the old Translations read here, as the Soci­nians do; for the Arabick reads as we do, GOD was manifested in the Flesh.

Further more, Macedonius, to whom the Socinians impute the Corruption of this Text, was too late in time; for he lived in the Year 512. to attempt an Innovation in Scripture: And besides, he could have no design in so doing; because he had no pecu­liar Opinions about our Saviour.

Finally, the word God in the first Clause of this Verse, makes that Clause to accord with all that follow it; for all of them [Page 2]together will make this most proper Sense. ‘The Eternal Son of God, God equal with his Father, and Creator of the World, took upon him, and was manifested in our weak and passible Nature, being incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus: He was justified to be God, notwithstanding his mean outward Appearance, by divers glorious Actions and Miracles, done on that be­half by the Holy Spirit: He was seen (i. e. known) by Angels, to be the Eternal Son of God, and God, thô covered with the Veil of Flesh: He was preached as such, by the Apostles to the Gentiles; was be­lieved on generally in the World, where­ever they came: and after his Resurrecti­on He was received up into the Glories of Heaven.’

But if, saith our Author, we read here, as the Socinians do; Great is the Mystery of Godliness, WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh, that is, by Men; what Sense shall we make of the other Clauses? Will it be Sense to say, The Mystery of Godliness (the Gospel) was seen by Angels? Or will it be true, that it was received up into the Glory of Heaven? The Socinians indeed here answer, That instead of these words, received up into Glory, it should have been said by our Translators, was gloriously extolled, was mag­nified and lifted up: but this, saith our Au­thor, is false; for on the contrary, the Gospel was despised and derided both by Jews and Gentiles.

This is the Sum and Force of what he has transcribed out of Authors, in behalf of his Opinion, from the words of this Text. He might, if he had pleased, have given us too the full and solid Answer, made by the Socinians, to these Pretences of his Party: for I see, he has quoted the Books, in which those Answers are to be found: but that was not the way, he thought, to mend his Fortunes in the World; which is what he aims at, and the cause of his wri­ting his Book.

I will (briefly) evince these two things. 1. This Text of St. Paul has been falsified by those, who affirm the Ante-mundan Existence, and Divinity of our Saviour. 2. This Corruption has been so unskilfully performed, that the Attempt serves, only to betray their Unfaithfulness and Partiality, but does not a whit avail their Cause.

1. This Text, has been most certainly falsified, by substitution of the word God, instead of Which, WHICH (Mystery) was manifested by Flesh.

The first time I meet with this Text, read with the word God, among the Antients, is in the Acts of the first Council of Nice; a Council of next Authority to the Scriptures themselves, in the Opinion of our Opposers. In this Council, a Person repeated the words of St. Paul, as they are now read by Tri­nitarians; God was manifested in Flesh: the Person who made this Mistake, probably from some Marginal Note, where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word Which in the Text, was answered by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem; that he mis­took the reading, for St. Paul's words are, Great is the Mystery of Godliness, WHICH was manifested by Flesh.

Mr. Milbourn will not say, that the Au­thors of the Old Translations, the Latin, Syriac and Armenian, were Unitarians; be sure St. Jerom (Author of the Latin) was a bigotted Trinitarian: yet they and he read with the Nicene Council, WHICH was manifested by Flesh, not GOD was manifested in Flesh. I appeal to any Man, of ordina­ry sense, whether he can think, those Tran­slators and Fathers would have corrupted the Bible in favour, and to the advantage of their Adversaries the Unitarians, by saying (not GOD, but) WHICH was manifested by Flesh: and whether their so translating (WHICH was manifested by Flesh) be not a Demonstrative Proof, that the Greek Co­pies of those ancient Times did read, as the Socinians now do?

But he saith, the Arabic Version of Scrip­ture is on his side. I am not now in a place, where I have many Books; and parti­cularly none of the Polyglots; but I see, that [Page 3] Grotius and other Criticks (in Mr. Pool's Collection) do all allow, that the Arabic reads here, as the Syriac and Latin do, WHICH was manifested by Flesh. Therefore I suppose, that our Author makes use of a Polyglot that has been conformed (i. e. corrupted) by the Publishers, to the pre­sent Greek Editions: for not only the Ara­bic, but the Syriac and Latin have been so used in divers places, by later Publishers; as Father Simon often observes. Besides, the question is, concerning the Old Translati­ons, made before Trinitarians were become absolute Masters of Christendom; such as the Latin, Armenian and Syriac: the Arabic is much later; all the Arabic Versions having been made, but only since the Conquest of the Eastern Provinces by the Turks. F. Simon Crit. Hist. on the Old Test. l. 2. c. 16. p. 109, &c.

'Tis by the Trinitarians themselves, that we are informed of divers Editions of the Greek Copies; in which the Publishers have corruptly, say they themselves, put God for Which in this Text. Thus Grotius (in lib.) cites Hincmarus, confessing, that the Nestori­an Trinitarians corruptly substituted God for Which in these words of St. Paul; so much the better to defend themselves against the Eutychians. And Liberatus assures us, that Macedonius (Patriarch of Constantinople) was deposed in a Council summoned by the Emperor Anastasius, Anno 512. for publish­ing a Greek Edition of the Bible, in which he corrupted this Text, by causing all the Co­piers to write God in the place of Which. Of these two Authors, Hincmarus was a Person of great Dignity, being Archbishop of Rhemes, and (by Confession of our Opposers) not only altogether Orthodox, but very Learned and Pious: the other, Liberatus, was Arch­deacon of Carthage; and besides the Qua­lities of Orthodox and Learned, was also contemporary to the matter of which he writes, the Deposition of Macedonius for corrupting this Text.

What now does Mr. Milbourn oppose to these Authentick Histories? He opposes only two silly Conjectures. He saith, he doth not think, Macedonius would attempt such a thing; because he had no peculiar Opinions of his own about our Saviour; and because he seems too late in Time, to hope reaso­nably that the Forgery could pass unob­served.

But does not Mr. Milbourn know, that this Macedonius was a Trinitarian? Do not all the Church-Historians call him Orthodox? And was not this cause enough, with an ill Man, as the Council judged him to be, to adventure on such an Undertaking? Nor was this Corruption so late in Time, but that it has been the cause, that many Publishers have followed his Copies; and his pretence (without doubt) was, that he found the word God in the Margins of some Bibles, which he took to be a Correction, not an Explication (as indeed it was) of the word Which in the Body of the Text.

But here, Sir, you your self will perhaps object, that these Corruptions being thus noted by Learned Men, and even by Coun­cils, would not have been followed by all the Copiers and Publishers of the Bible: but we see, so Mr. Milb. says, that all the Greek Copies, especially the famous one in the King's Library (about 1300 Years old, and therefore older than Macedonius) read here, GOD was manifested in the Flesh.

To this, I say, I believe all the Greek Copies that Mr. Milbourn has seen, may so read; for he has seen ('tis likely) some one; but he ought to have consulted Learned Men, before he was so confident, that all (absolutely All) Greek Copies read as 'tis in his Book. Erasmus, somewhat learneder than our Author, says, Multa vetera exem­plaria, i. e. a great many of the ancient Copies read, WHICH was manifested by Flesh: and saith Erasmus further, I approve of that reading. Our Author may see these words of Erasmus in Mr. Pool's Collection of Criticks in L. And if Mr. Milbourn had look'd into the Margin of Curcellaeus his most correct Edition of the Greek Testament, he would have seen there, that the ancient Greek Copies used by that Critick, read WHICH [Page 4]was manifested by Flesh: and so also Morinus, another famous Critick, acknowledges.

I know not how old the Copy in the King's Library may be, Mr. Milbourn is po­sitive, that 'tis about 1300 Years old, and older than Macedonius: when his hand was in, he might have said, 'tis now precisely 1592. Years old; and is the very Auto­graphal Copy of St. John the Evangelist; he may say so, if he pleases; for the Book has no Date, nor any certain Circumstance, by which we may judg 'tis 1300 Years old, rather than 1000 or 1100, and therefore younger than Macedonius.

But our Author says, we cannot make Sense and Truth of the other Clauses in this Verse; if we read this governing Clause by, WHICH was manifested by Flesh; for how was this Mystery of the Gospel seen by Angels, and how was it received up into Glory?

He is a forward Man at censuring, but he should have had more Manners, when the Writers of Holy Scripture were concerned. We affirm, that St. Paul doth here say, the Mystery of the Gospel was seen by Angels: Why should not this be Truth and Sense; when another Apostle hath expresly told us, that the Angels desire to look into it? 1 Pet. 1.12.

Instead of received up into Glory, he knows, that we translate by was received gloriously, was magnified, extolled, lifted up. But tho he dares not deny, that the original words are capable of this Translation, he finds fault with it as a false Sense; because (saith he) on the contrary, the Gospel was derided and despised, both by the Jews and Gentiles. We deny not, that wicked and interessed Per­sons, both of the Jews and Gentiles, op­posed the Gospel: but we certainly know, it was so received in most places, if not in all; that St. Paul had reason here to say, it was gloriously entertained and magnified. Himself tells us, that having preached the Mystery of the Gospel, to the Galatian Na­tion; they were so affected with it, that they would have given to him their very Eyes; Gal. 4.15. St. Luke in his Acts of the Apo­stles, witnesses that throughout all Asia, the Name of the Lord Jesus was magnified; Acts 19.10, 17. As concerning the Jews, 'tis said of them, at Acts 21.20. that many thousands (in the Greek 'tis many ten thousands) of them be­lieved: and what is more marvellous, at Acts 6.7. A great Company (even) of the Priests were obedient to the Faith.

Our Author therefore might have spared his false and impious Scurrility upon the Gospel, when he saith at Pag. 68. It was scorned and derided, both by Jews and Gentiles. Had he no way to defend his Cause, but by an Insult on the Gospel it self?

I know not, Sir, what stronger or clearer Proofs any Man can require, that this Text was anciently read, by WHICH (which Mystery of Godliness) was manifested by Flesh: i. e. by Man, as the Law had been by Angels? For you see, we have for this read­ing, first all the ancient Translations, the Latin, Armenian and Syriac; then the Coun­cil of Nice, so much extolled and reverenced by our Opposers: besides these, the Testi­mony of Trinitarian Historians, Men of Learning and Dignity, and contemporary to the Corruption of this Text; also a vast number of the best and oldest Copies of the Original Greek, and the Judgment of the ablest Criticks upon them.

If all this does not amount to a Demonstrati­on on our side, in the Judgment of indifferent Persons; yet there is no Man of common Prudence and Caution, but will allow, that the reading for which our Adversaries con­tend, (GOD was manifested in Flesh) is too uncertain, doubtful and precarious, to build on it (as the Trinitarians do) an Article of Faith; or to innovate in the Doctrine of the Unity of God, dictated to us by Na­tural Light, and the principal Design of both the Testaments.

2. But supposing now this Point were yielded to them, that we are to read here, GOD was manifested in (or by) Flesh; it will nothing avail the Trinitarian Cause. For by GOD here we may understand, as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians them­selves [Page 5]do, not the Person, but the Will and Mind of God: this was manifested to us by Flesh, that is, by Men, by Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

'Tis true, our Translators render the words by, was manifested IN Flesh; but they will not deny, that they might have been rendred, Manifested BY Flesh: for themselves so interpret the Greek Particle, in the very next Clause of this Verse, was justified IN the Spirit; that is, say They, was Justified (or Proved) by the Spirit, by Miracles done by the Spirit of God.

That the word God may be sometimes in­terpreted, not of the Person, but of the Will or Mind of God; is not denied by the Trini­tarian Interpreters; nay themselves, as I said before, so interpret. Thus, for Ex­ample; when St. Paul saith, Gal. 1.10. Do I now perswade Men, or God? Our Opposers interpret it, thus; Do I seek to perswade Human Inventions, the Devices and Fig­ments of Men, or the very Will and Commands of God? The like on divers other Texts.

Therefore, Sir, if Mr. Milb. has prevailed with you, to read this first Clause by, God was manifested; you may for all that, abide in your Sentiment about the Unity of God; and interpret to him the whole Verse, after this manner.

‘Without Controversy, Great and Glo­rious is the Mystery of Godliness, even the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus; for 'tis no less or other, than the Will and Na­ture of God manifested to us, by the A­greeable and sutable Ministry of Men, of Flesh and Blood like to our selves: not as the Law was, by the Amazing and Terri­ble appearance of Flaming Ministers, even the Spirits and Angels of Heaven. This Will of God (or this Revelation of his Nature and Will) has been justified (i. e. proved) by the Spirit; by Mira­cles done by the Spirit, Energy or Power of God: it has been seen and admired by Angels, who desire to look more accu­rately into this New Revelation, which (in part) supersedes the Revelation of the Divine Will that was delivered by them: it has been Preached to the Gen­tiles; and Believed on in the World. Did I say, it has been Believed on? it has not been Barely Believed, but received (generally speaking) with great Honour and Glory.’

From P. 82. where our Author takes leave of this famous Text, to P. 309. He mortifies his Reader, with a long Imperti­nence, concerning the Reasonableness and Ʋse­fulness of Mysteries, in Religion: and that, 'twas Necessary the Messias should be the Son of God.

We are not concerned, in the Truth or Falshood of either of these Affirmations of our Author: be it, as He says; thô his Allegations (or any He can bring) prove neither of them; What are they to his Purpose?

If Mysteries are indeed so useful in Re­ligion, as he contends they are; it will not follow from thence, that we must admit, as parts of our Religion, all the Mysteries that fanciful or ignorant Men have devised; much less that we are obliged, to let all the Non­sense and Contradictions, that Any may seek to impose on our Faith, pass for Holy and Divine Mysteries.

That 'twas Necessary, that the Messias should be the Son of God, I doubt very much; and I think, our Author has of­fer'd nothing in proof of it, that is Con­siderable or Material: but that de Facto it was so, that our Lord Christ was indeed the Son of God, the Socinians have always Gran­ted and Affirmed; because he was begotten by the Divine Power on a pure Virgin.

Therefore overpassing so much useless. Scrible of this Author, I come to his second Particular (as He calls it) at P. 309. That the Blessed Jesus was so the Son of God, as to be God equal with his Father; or, was really and truly God, as well as real Man.

CHAP. II.

THAT our Lord Jesus Christ was true God, Equal with his Father; our Au­thor undertakes to prove, 1. From Texts of the Old Testament. 2. From Texts of the New Testament. 3. By the Actions and Miracles, done by the said our Lord Jesus. 4. From the Consent of the Primi­tive Church. 5. From the Common and (as he saith) on every hand Approved practice, of worshipping and praying to him.

CHAP. III. Continuation of the Examination of the Texts, objected from the Old Testament.

OUR Author's fifth Objection is from Heb. 1.10, 11, 12. (words taken from Psal. 102.25, 26, 27.) And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth; and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest: they shall wax old as does a Garment; And as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy Years fail not. Let us add the next words, at ver. 13. But to which of the Angels said he at any time, Sit at my Right-hand, until I make thine enemies the Foot-stool?

He saith, these words here cited, to v. 13. are intended of the Son our Lord Christ; and that by ascribing to him the Creation of the Heavens and Earth, they assure us, both of the Pre-eternity and the Divinity of the said our Lord Christ.

We have seen before, that the Writers of the New Testament do accommodate divers Passages and Expressions of the Old Testament to our Saviour; tho originally, and in their primary Intention, they were meant of other Persons; because such Passa­ges and Expressions had another, and a second Completion, in the Person of the Lord Christ. Thus, what was said of Solomon, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, is ap­plied to our Saviour, because he also has an everlasting Throne: and what was said of Israel, Out of Egypt I have called my Son, is too accommodated to Christ; because he likewise was called out of Egypt, after the Death of Herod. In like sort, in this Context to the Hebrews, what had been said by the Psalmist, of God, and of the old or first Creation, (Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands, &c.) is accommodated to the Lord Christ, and to the new Creation which he hath made, even the new Heavens and the new Earth, in which (as St. Peter says of them) dwelleth Righteousness.

The Gospel-state and Times, or the Church in opposition to the Synagogue and Jewish Oeconomy, is described very often in Scrip­ture, under the Names of the New Hea­vens and New Earth. Isa. 65.17. Behold, I create new Heavens, and a new Earth; and the former shall be remembred no more. Isa. 66.22. As the new Heavens and the new Earth, which I will make, shall remain before me; so shall your Seed and your Name remain. St. Peter, after he had described the fearful Dissolution of the Jewish Oeconomy and State, in terms much like those used by our Saviour on the same occasion and Subject, at Mat. 24. adds, 2 Pet. 3.13. Nevertheless, according to his Pro­mise, we look for new Heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth Righteousness. That is, a new Oeconomy and State, in which not so much a Ceremonial, as a Moral and true Righ­teousness, shall be taught and practised. Rev. 21.1. I saw a new Heaven, and a new Earth; for the first Heaven and the first Earth were passed away. i. e. He saw the Church, or Christian Oeconomy begin; the Jewish or old Oeconomy, or Law was abolished.

All the Trinitarian Interpreters do thus understand these Texts; namely, that by [Page 11]the New Heavens and New Earth is meant the Gospel-state of things, in opposition to the Jewish, which is antiquated and done away. This is the Earth, and these the Heavens, of which the Lord Christ is the Maker, under God; partly by Himself, partly by his Apostles and other true Mini­sters of the Gospel: and these the Author to the Hebrews meaneth, when he says here, of our Lord Christ; Thou, Lord, in the be­ginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth, and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands: they shall be changed, (from their state of Probation and Trial, to a state of Perfecti­on and Enjoyment) but thou remainest for ever the same.

The most Learned Grotius, whose Inter­pretation this is, rightly observes; that the Hebrews, to whom this Epistle was written, did commonly speak of the Times of the Messias (or Christ) in these very terms here used: namely, that He should make a­nother World, New Heavens and Earth; meaning thereby, a Total change of the face of things, in the Church and Religion. And those Forms of speaking, they borrowed from the Prophet Isaiah; whose words I have before quoted. Therefore in writing to them, it was no surprize to them; that this Epistle should accommodate the words of the Prophetical Psalmist, used by him concerning God and the first Creation, to the Messias and the New Creation; because in him they had Another, and Second Com­pletion.

Others of our Party, give other Accounts of this Text; this for one; that the words, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the Founda­tions of the Earth, &c. are not at all (in any sense) intended of our Saviour; but are a devout Apostrophe Conversion or Address to God, that is, to the Father; so as to make this sense. ‘And truly thou, Lord, who hast thus anointed and exalted thy Son, art the God who hast laid the Foun­dations of the Earth; and the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands: — But to which of his Angels, hath this Glorious and Ʋnchangeable Creator at any time said; as He doth by the Inspired and Prophetical Psalmist to the Son our Lord Christ; Sit on my right Hand, till I make thy Enemies thy Foot-stool?’ Here we ought to note, that the words, Sit at my right Hand, till I make thy Enemies thy Foot­stool, are originally and primarily intended of David; as is owned by the Trinitarian Interpreters: but they are applied to Christ in this Context to the Hebrews, because they are also a Prophecy of him; and of what God would do for him. In a word, their mean­ing, with respect to the Lord Christ, is this; God hath (in his Decree) said concerning the Messias or Christ, who shall in due time be manifested, Sit on my right hand, till I make thy Enemies thy Footstool: This is the Sense of the words, as they stand in the Psalm. See the Learned Dr. Patrick's Pa­raphrase and Notes, on Psal. 110.1.

I do not wonder, Sir, that our Opposer took no notice of these two Interpretations of these words, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth, &c. they were too Rational and Probable, to be set in the same Light and View with the Wild Construction, that He and his Party make of this Context. For they make this Author to the Hebrews, to say; that the Lord Christ is the Creator of the Visible Earth and Heavens: and yet that 'tis Ano­ther Person,, that must subdue to him the Enemies of his Kingdom, and make them his Foot-stool.

I had almost forgot, Sir, to tell you; that as Grotius is the Author of the first Interpre­tation, which I have given of this Context; so 'tis Thomas Aquinas, sirnamed the Angeli­cal Doctor, thus has observed and suggested the other.

He alledgeth next (thô not out of the Old Testament, according to his proposed Method) Heb. 1.1, 2. God who at sun­dry times—spake to the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son; by whom also He made the Worlds. Our Au­thor is not pleased to take notice, that Gro­tius [Page 12]renders the last Clause by, For whom al­so He made the Worlds: i. e. the World was at first made, with intention to subject it (in the fulness of Time) to the Messias and his Law. And the Author to the Hebrews, rather chose to say here, The World was made for the Messias; because it was a common Saying among the Jews, a part of their Do­ctrine and Belief concerning the Messias: there is nothing more common in their Books, than this Saying, The World was made for the Messih, who shall be.

Nor has our Opposer thought fit to ob­serve, that some of the best Critics of his own Party, have thus rendred the objected Text; By whom also he made the AGES: and that they interpret the AGES to be the Gospel-Ages; which were made by the Mi­nistry of our Lord Christ. No, these were Interpretations, which 'twas better for him to overlook, than to attempt, in vain, to refute them.

His seventh Proof is from Isa. 9.6. Ʋnto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given;— his Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

He saith, this Text is universally applied to the Blessed Jesus; and that 'tis strange, that he should be called the Mighty God, if He is not God at all. He saith farther, that Everlasting Father could not without Absur­dity be applied to the Lord Christ; if as the Socinians say of him, there was a time when He was not.

To this, the Author of the Brief History hath Answered, that this Text of the Pro­phet is Never applied to our Saviour, by any Writer of the New Testament: thô Mr. Milb. is pleased here to say, 'tis uni­versally applied to him. The Historian shows the Reason, why the Writers of the New Testament have not applied this Text to the Lord Christ; because it apparently speaks of one, actually born at that time when the Prophet wrote; Ʋnto us a Child IS born, unto us a Son IS given; but the Prophet wrote about 700 Years before the Birth of our Saviour. He adds, that Gro­tius and divers others (Christian and Or­thodox, as well as Jewish Interpreters) understand the Text, of Hezekiah, after­wards King of Judah; and that it hath been Translated very extravagantly into English.

The truth is, there are almost as many Translations of this Verse, as there are In­terpreters. Instead of the words, Counsel­lor, the Mighty God; the LXX Interpreters say, the Angel (or Messenger) of Great Counsel; i. e. the Wise Messenger: they wholly omit the following words, even these, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, &c. those words (it should seem) have been added since their time, to the Hebrew Copies of the Bible.

The Fathers generally follow this Tran­slation of the LXX. M. Luther, who un­derstood the Hebrew very well, instead of Mighty God, saith, the Mighty Heroe, or War­riour. Grotius saith, the Consulter of the Mighty God; and interprets thus, Hezekiah shall consult with God, not with the Idols of his Father Ahaz, both in his Enterprises and his Troubles. For Everlasting Father, St. Hierom and other Critics read, the Fa­ther of the Age; and for the Prince of Peace, they read the Peaceable Prince: because He­zekiah would not enterprize Needless Wars; but seek to maintain the Peace, Property and Plenty of his People.

When the words in the Original (He­brew or Greek) are of such doubtful and ambiguous Construction; 'tis the manner of our Opposers, to take that Occasion, to set up their Wonders: We, on the contrary, af­fect not Monstrosities; but are governed by the obvious Reason and Possibilities of things. We think, 'tis enough to deter­mine us to some or other of the Reasonable and Possible Senses, before-mentioned; that the Writers of the New Testament never apply this Text to our Saviour; and be­cause the Prophet so plainly speaks of a Child then born, Ʋnto us a Child IS born, un­to us a Son IS given.

[Page 13]His eighth Text from the Old Testament, is, Jerem. 23.5, 6. The days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up to David a Righteous Branch;—in his days, Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is the Name whereby He shall be called, The LORD our Righteousness. This BRANCH, saith our Author, is by Rabbins and Fathers interpre­ted to be the Messias or Christ: and that He is God, appears by the Name here gi­ven to him, Jehovah Tsidkenn, or the Lord our Righteousness. And agreeable to this Inter­pretation, the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 1.30. The Lord Christ is of God made to us, Wis­dom and Righteousness, Sanctification and Re­demption.

Our Author's first and great Mistake here, is this; that on Supposition, that 'tis the Lord Christ who is here called the Lord our Righteousness, He must needs be true God. For let us hear another Text of this Pro­phet, Jerem. 33.16. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the Name wherewith SHE (Jerusalem) shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. We see by this last Text, that the Lord our Righteousness in the other Text, is not meant of the Branch, (whe­ther that Branch be the Lord Christ, as our Author thinks; or Zorobabel, as Grotius has proved) but Israel, the Nation of Israel: So that we ought to understand the objected Text, after this manner. ‘In those days, I will raise up to David, a Righteous Branch;—and in his time Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is the Name, wherewith He (Israel, not the Branch) shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.’

'Tis promised here in these Texts, that Israel and Jerusalem shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness; in the days of Zorobabel, who was their Governour (Vice-King for the King of Babylon) immediately after the return from the Captivity: because it would then please God, to pardon all the past Sins of that People, and to deal with them as a Righteous People; notwithstanding their former Transgressions, and National Revolts from him.

Others have observed, that the words in both Contexts, may be rendred the Lord our Justifier; or the Lord is our Justifier: and so they make this Sense; In the Days of the Branch, in the Government of Zorobabel of the House of David; God will justify and deliver us, from all our Adversaries and Persecutors.

His last Old Testament Text, is Mich. 5.2. Thou Bethlehem,—out of thee shall come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from Old, from Ever­lasting; or, from the Days of Eternity. He noteth, that this Text is Interpreted of the Lord Christ; even by the chief Priests and Scribes of the Jews, Matth. 2.4, 5, 6.

Thô our Author had not Designed to take notice, what the Heterodox Socinians An­swer, in defence of their Doctrine of the Ʋnity of God; or how They interpret the Texts, objected to that Heresy of theirs: yet at least Mr. Calvin was worthy to be heard. This famous Reformer owns, that the Prophet's meaning is only this; the Go­ings forth of the Lord Christ have been De­creed by God, from the Days of Eternity.

But Grotius instead of From Everlasting, or from the Days of Eternity, hath Transla­ted here from ancient Days; and so (All know) the words may be rendred: there­fore he maketh the Sense to be this; Whose Goings forth (i. e. whose Descent, Original, or Pedigree) is of Old, from Ancient Times. For Christ is come of that most Ancient Stock of David, of the Town of Bethlehem.

Our Author may please, in his next, to try his Skill on these Solutions: in the mean time, I pass to what He hath objected from the New Testament.

CHAP. IV. On his Texts out of the Gospels.

THEY are not many Texts, Sir, on which our Author has insisted to prove his Proposition, that our Lord Christ is true God; but He assures us (at P. 309.) they are Choice Ones: We have considered those He alledges from the Old Testament, let us now examine what He hath urged out of the New.

CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel.

OUR Author's next Effort, is from that well-known Context, even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel: The Clauses by him urged, are these; In the Beginning was the WORD; and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. All things were made by Him, namely by the WORD; and with­out Him was not any thing made, that was made.—He was in the World, and the World was made by him, and the World knew him not. Others have added to these; And the WORD was made Flesh, and dwelt among us. Also that Testimony of the Baptist, He that cometh after me, is preferred before me, for He was before me.

Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses, by Misrepresenting it; and by con­cealing the remarkable and probable Proofs, which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation.

He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond; which, he saith, is a full Explication, and the Sense of the Catholic Church. Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church, so called; and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John: but that's the very thing in question, whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses.

Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly, in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel, that I am not willing to be seen, maintaining a Scuffle with him. Others of his Party have known, how to make a vigorous Opposi­tion, from this Context; the sum of what they say, is;

Every Clause here objected, is a several Argument against the Socinian Heresy: The First declares the Real Divinity of our Savi­our, by asserting his Eternity; in these words, In the Beginning (as who should say, from the very First, or from all Eternity) was the WORD. The second Clause saith, The WORD was with God, to signify the continu­al and perpetual Generation of the WORD or Son; and also the mutual Inexistence of these two Divine Persons in one another. The next yet more Directly, and even Expresly, contradicts the Socinians; by saying, the WORD was God: They say, He was a Man, and no more than a Man. 'Tis true, they allow He may be called God, in such sense as Moses is called a God, (and that by God himself) at Exod. 7.1. in that He was to represent the Person of God, being to deli­ver God's Commands to Pharaob; to Israel, and to the Egyptians: But our Evangelist has been careful to prevent these Evasions, by telling us what kind of God the WORD was; All things (saith he) were made by him, and without him was not any thing made, that was made.

And lest Incredulous and Obstinate Men should interpret all things in these words, to be only All things belonging to the Gospel­state; or the whole Oeconomy and Do­ctrine of the Gospel; as the Socinians would now wrest St. John's words: To pre­vent (I say) this Elusion, he adds yet far­ther; He was in the World, and the World was made by him. But this Holy Evangelist has not yet done with them; He says, at V. 14. The Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us: 'Twere Nonsense to speak so, of a Per­son who was only a Man; Who ever said, Pe­ter or James were made Flesh, and dwelt among us? Would it not be Ridiculous so to speak? Therefore the Lord Jesus was more than a Man, He was God made Flesh, that is to say, Man; for Flesh is a very usual [Page 20]Scripture-Term for Man. He was made Man, by being Incarnate in an Human Na­ture, by an Hypostatical Union to a Body of Flesh and a Rational Soul. This Evangelist has given us too, the Testimony of the other John, even John the Baptist, concerning the Prae-existence or Prae-eternity of our Savi­our; He that cometh after me, is preferred be­fore me, for be was before me. We are ex­presly told by St. Luke, that John Baptist was six Months older than our Lord Christ, as Man: Therefore when St. John says, Christ was before him; it must be thus understood, that as God He was before John, thô as Man He was younger than John.

It is true, the Socinians have strained their Wits, to give other Senses of these Verses; or so to interpret them, as to make their Saviour nothing but a Man; not God, not a Creatour, no not so much as an Angel, but a meer Man. Now when Ex­pressions may have divers Senses, it some­times happens, that there are no Primitive Acts, to ascertain one of the Senses above, or rather than another of them: but Pro­vidence has been watchful on behalf of the true Faith, and the Catholic Interpretation of these Verses, by preserving to us Ancient Acts, and such as must needs satisfy sincere and teachable Persons; the Church is in possession of most certain Records, by which she indubitably proves the Catholic Inter­pretation of this Context.

The Socinians are not the First Authors of this Heresy, that there is but one Divine Person, (even the God and Father of our Lord Christ) and that the Lord Christ was nothing else but a Prophet, and the Holy Spirit only the Power and Inspiration of God. The Nazarens, and Cerinthus, and Ebi­on, immediately after the Death of the A­postles, began to propagate this Heresy, to the great Offence and Scandal of the Chur­ches: And it so hapned, that many heark­ued to them; insomuch that the Bishops and Churches of Asia importuned St. John, to write somewhat more expresly concern­ing the Divinity of our Saviour, than had been yet done by any of the Apostles.

St. John was at length prevailed on, to do as they desired; only he requested, that a General Fast might be held, to invoke the Aid of God on his Undertaking. The Fast being ended, the Holy Ghost fell upon him; and He began his Gospel with these words, which came to him from Heaven; In the Begin­ning was the WORD, and the Word was with God, and the WORD was God; All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made, that was made. This Relati­on is made by St. Jerom, Proem. Com. in Matth. And he declares in the same place; that this was no uncertain Rumour, nor a thing of Hear-say; Sed ita narrat Ecclesiasti­ca Historia, The Church-History so tells us.

The Socinians therefore sweat to no pur­pose, in devising Comments or Elusions on this Context, which was designedly written against them: 'tis in vain for them to op­pose their own Inventions to Primitive Acts, which tell us plainly; that this Gospel was written on purpose against their Here­sy; nay, that the words of it, with which we pretend to confute them, came down from Heaven, or were spoken against them from Heaven; St. John being only the Penman, not the Author of them.

Thus it is, Sir, that the Socinians are Baffled, by false and Senseless Translations, supported by Fictions and Legends. There never was a Greater Flamm, than this Tale of St. Jerom out of an Ecclesiastical Histo­ry, never seen by any body but Himself. Irenaeus, two Hundred Years older than St. Jerom, and therefore so much nearer to matter of Fact, could say nothing of St. John's Gospel; but this: He publish'd it at Ephesus, in Asia, Advers. Haeres. Lib. 3. c. 1. Origen, who had made so diligent a search among all the Monuments of Antiquity, that He might be able to give an exact Ac­count of the Writers of Holy Scriptures; says, ‘Concerning the four Evangelists, we have received by Tradition, as follows. St. Matthew, first a Publican, afterwards an Apostle, wrote his Gospel in Hebrew; [Page 21]for the sake of the Jews who believed. St. mark wrote his Gospel, as St. Peter declared it to him. The third is the Gospel of Luke, approved by St. Paul; and written for the sake of the Heathens. Lastly, St. John's Gospel.’ Had St. Jerom seen an Ecclesiastical History that Origen never saw: or would Origen have omitted such a Famous Occasion, and Confirmation of St. John's Gospel, when he tells us the Oc­casions, and Approvers of the other Go­spels? The words of Origen, before quoted, were extant in his Fourth Book of Comments on St. Matthew; they are preserved by Eu­sebius. Hist. Lib. 6. c. 25. Eusebius spends a whole Chapter, concerning the Order of the Evangelists; and declares the true Occa­sion and Cause of St. John's Writing: which, according to him, was this. It being, saith he, observed; that the other Evangelists had wrote only that part of the Actions and Sayings of our Saviour, which he did and spoke after the Imprisonment of John the Bap­tist. To supply this Defect, St. John was desired to commit to writing, what he re­membred of our Saviour, before the Bap­tist was imprison'd. In a word, he wrote his Gospel, to supply the Omissions of the other Three Evangelists. Euseb. Lib. 3. c. 24. Eu­sebius had read Hegesippus, and whatever Church-History St. Jerom could have read; and he has made it his Business, to make Extracts out of all ancient Books, concern­ing the Writers and Writings of the New Testament: the diligence and exactness of this Historian, is much admired and praised by all Learned Men; nor will any such be­lieve, that St. Jerom had seen an Eccesiasti­cal History, which Eusebius had not seen. St. Jerom says, St. John wrote to oppose the Unitarian Heresy; and that the first words of his Gospel, were pronounced to him from Heaven. Eusebius says, John had written his Gospel, because the other Evangelists had omitted the Gests and Sayings of our Sa­viour, that were before the Imprisonment of the Baptist. St. Jerom refers, for what he says, to an Ecclesiastical History, un­known to all the Ancients but Himself. Eu­sebius proves the Account he gives, by solid and convincing Arguments. His words, in the Chapter before quoted, are these. ‘It is evident, that the other three Evange­lists have committed to writing, only the Gests of our Saviour during one Year's space; namely, after John the Baptist's be­ing shut in Prison. Matthew sets forth the time of his writing, in these words; When Jesus had heard that John was put in Prison, He came into Galilee. In like man­ner, Mark saith; Now after that John was put in Prison, Jesus came into Galilee. Luke also maketh this Remark; Herod adding this to all the Evils he had done, shut up John in Prison. Therefore they say, that the Apostle John, being for this Cause thereto requested, has declared in a Gospel according to him, the time that was passed over in silence by the other Evangelists, and what was done by our Saviour therein.’ This is a probable Ac­count; that of St. Jerom is Miraculous, and therefore pleases them who are taken with Marvellous things.

What shall we say then, that St. Jerom devised, or that he dreamt of an Ecclesiasti­cal History; which was never seen before nor since: neither of them; for I doubt not, that his Tale is nothing else but an Improvement, and a stretch of some words of Clemens Alexander, which he found re­corded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eu­sebius, Lib. 6. c. 14. The words were ta­ken by Eusebius, out of the Institutions of Clemens Alexander, which Institutions are now lost: but Photius (Cod. 105, and 111.) has left us this Character of them; that they contained very many [...], Fabulous and Impious Tales. Of these Tales, this is one; ‘John, the last of the Evangelists, seeing that what appertain'd to Christ's Humanity, was manifested in the other Gospels; being thereto moved by his Acquaintance, and inspired by the Spirit, wrote a Gospel concerning Christ's Divinity.’

[Page 22]But to return to our Opposers; They commonly say, St. John wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus and Ebion, and the Heresy of the Unitarians: We have seen, they have no solid ground for this Pretence, in the History of the Church; Irenaeus and O­rigon (the most Learned of the Ancients) knew nothing of it; and Eusebius gives a contrary Account. But the Gospel it self, written by St. John, will best decide this Question: if he has more confirmed this (pretended) Heresy, than any other Wri­ter of Holy Scripture; He did not, with­out doubt, write his Gospel against it. Therefore let us (briefly) see, what the Unitarian Doctrine is; and how St. John hath delivered his Mind concerning it.

We say; that only the Father is true God, that the Lord Christ is his Prophet and Messenger to Man; that therefore what the Lord Christ said, was not from himself, or by his own Authority, but by particular Com­mand and Charge from God; that all the Miracles he did, were not properly done by him, but by the Spirit or Power of the Fa­ther given to him, as to former Prophets. Let us hear, how St. John in his Gospel, written designedly against us, confutes this impious Heresy: John 17.1, 2, 3. Father, —this is Life Eternal, to know thee [the on­ly true God] and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent: Or Jesus Christ thy Messenger. John 7.16. My Doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. John 12.49. The Father which sent me, He gave me a Commandment what I should say. John 14.31. As the Father gave me Command­ment, so do I. John 5.30. I can do nothing of my self. John 14.10 The Father that dwelleth in me, (by his Spirit, Energy or Power) He doth the Works.

I know not what could be said more effe­ctually, to evince, that the Lord Christ is not God, but the Ambassador only, and Messen­ger of God; speaking, according to the Instru­ctions and Charge given to him; and Acting by a Power (not of his own, but) be­stowed on him, as on former Prophets and Messengers of God. If the Texts before cited were not the very words of Scripture; were they found in any other Book, they should be Anathematiz'd as most Gross So­cinianism, as the very Heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion, against whom (as saith St. Je­rom's Ecclesiastical History) they were written.

And what wretched Subterfuges do our Opposers make use of, to decline these plain Testimonies, that were suggested by the Holy Ghost against them: for we dare not, like them, feign Ecclesiastical Histories, which say, they were spoken against them from Heaven. First, They tell us; St. John doth not say, that only the Father is God, but the Father is the only true God. They say, the Socinians have not had the Wit, to perceive the vast difference between those two Ex­pressions: It may be true, they say, and is true, that the Father is the only true God, as St. John in the alledged Text says; and yet the Son too is true God, nay the on­ly true God; and the like of the Holy Ghost.

And when John says; neither the Doctrine nor the Actions of our Saviour were his own; but the Commandments of the Fa­ther given to him, and the Works of the Father dwelling in him: By the Father in those Texts, they say, we are to understand Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Nay, when our Saviour saith; Of that Day and Hour (the Excision of Je­rusalem, and the Dissolution of the Jewish Polity) none knoweth; not the Angels, neither the Son, but the Father only; 'Tis not true for all that, that the Father only (or only the Father) knoweth that Day and Hour, for then only the Father were true God; but the Father only in those words, is not the Fa­ther only, but also the Son, (who is there expresly denied to know that Day and Hour) and besides him the Holy Ghost.

Well, but however these things are, St. John has paid us off (they say) in his Proem, or first Verses of his Gospel, in those words which came to him from Heaven.

[Page 23]But if the Heavenly Words were but honestly translated, the Socinians would not fear any Inference that would be drawn from them. Our Protestant Opposers value themselves very much on this account, that they have given to the People the holy Bible in the Vulgar Languages: it may how­ever be said, that they have only been more crafty than the Papists in imposing upon the People. The Papists have sillily raised against themselves a Clamour for with-holding the Bible from the People, and keeping it lock'd up in only the Learned Languages; and in those Coun­tries where they have been constrained to translate the Bible, they have been so jealous, as to forbid the Commonalty of their Communion the use of their own Translations. The Protestants have been wiser, tho not a whit more sincere; for they have made Translations of the Bible into all Languages, and so far have they been from forbidding the use of them, that they incourage it with all their Might, well knowing the Benefit that must arise to them­selves thereby; for they know they have printed all the Bibles that are in the Ori­ginal Greek Tongue, from only such Ma­nuscript Copies, as have been corrected to speak the Language of the Church; and from Bibles so corrected and printed, they have made their Translations: nor has the Fraud stopp'd here, for wheresoever there is an Ambiguity in the Original Hebrew or Greek, they have always so translated, as to confirm their own Doctrines. This was the right method to establish their Opinions, not that unjudicious impolitick course taken by the Papists, which begets suspicion of them, and has therefore been a great means of their Overthrow: there has been nothing so plausibly and effectually urged against them, as this, that they have been afraid to let the People have the Word of God, and that their Opposers desire and endea­vour nothing more. But if those who boast so much of this Service done by them to the People, had meant as well, or if they would be owned for Persons that have be­stowed the Word of God on their Flocks, they should have put into the Margin of their Translations, those other Translations of which (they know) the Original Greek and Hebrew Text is capable, and with those Translarions, the other Readings in the Manuscript Copies. This had been plain dealing: but you must excuse them, 'twould have have hazarded those Remains of Po­pery, (and which indeed are the principal parts of Popery) that they thought fit still to retain: those other Readings of the Manu­script Copies, and the other Translations of famous Criticks, would have enabled even the common People to perfect the Reforma­tion beyond the Standard intended by these Translators. The People would have been questioning the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Original Sin, the Servi­tude of our Wills to Evil only, and other such like Doctrines, against which they can­not now so much as once open. The Translators were aware, that such a Transla­tion and Edition of our Bibles would have made all Men Divines; because to under­stand, and to be able to judg, is not peculiar to Men that know Greek or Latin, but is common and natural to all Mankind, and to every Man, tho he understands but one Lan­guage. But 'tis time to give the sense of this so much controverted Beginning of St. John's Gospel: I must crave leave how­ever to premise this one thing.

'Tis a Rule of Criticism approved, and urged also by the Learnedest of our Op­posers; that the Writers of the New Te­stament have a particular regard to the Notions and Opinious of the Jewish Church; as also to the Customs, and Forms of Speech in use among that People; so that such as happen to be altogether ignorant, either of the Doctrines current among the Jews, or of their Customs and Forms of speaking; such will sometimes widely mistake in in­terpreting the New Testament. To in­stance in only such Opinions and Forms of Speech as were frequent among them con­cerning [Page 24]the Messias, or Christ; 'tis certain, they called him the WORD; this is seen in divers places of their Chaldee Paraphrases, which they used to read in their Synagogues; and in very many places of Philo-Judaeus, who was contemporary to the Apostles. They said also of the Messias who was to come, that the World was made for him; meaning thereby, that the World was at first made by God, with intention to subject it, in the fulness of time, to the Messias and his Law: See Grotius on Heb. 1.2. and on Heb. 1.10, 11, 12. They added, as the same Grotius there observes, that the Messias should make a new and a better World. In what sense they meant this, and how they proved it, I have shewn before at Chap. 3. where I give an account of Heb. 1.10, 11. Moreover, they used the words El and Elo­him (which the Greeks render by [...], the English by the word God) of Angels, Kings and Magistrates, and of all such as are extraordinary Messengers and Ministers of God: I need not to prove this, our Op­posers confess it, and 'tis an Observation made by our Saviour himself, at John 10.35. These Keys will let us into the sense of the Verses about which we are con­tending, without multiplying Divine Persons, or Gods, as the Trinitarians do, or Creators, as is here done by the Arians.

In the beginning. That is, say our Op­posers, From the very first, from for ever, or from all Eternity. But when Moses says, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, does he mean from for ever, from the very first, or from Eternity? Why do they not perceive, that both Moses and St. John must be understood, as refer­ring (in those words, In the beginning) to the Subjects of which they are writing: John's Subject is the Gospel-state and Occo­nomy; the Subject of Moses is the Creation and the first Ages of Mankind; therefore Moses means only, in the beginning of the World; John means, in the beginning of the Gospel-state.

In the beginning was the WORD. He in­tends here to say, In the beginning was the Messias, or Christ, whom the Jews, and from them we also have used to call the WORD.

'Tis not so easy to determine, with Cer­tainty, why the Jews called the Messias, whom they expected, the WORD; but 'tis evident why St. John has been willing to comply with them, in giving that Name to the Messias: for as at ver. 7, 8, & 9. he calls our Saviour the Light, because he was the Bringer of the Gospel-light; so for the same reason he is content also to call him the WORD, because he was the Messenger of Glad-Tidings, the Bringer of the Gospel-Word, or of that new Revelation of the Divine Will, which is indifferently to be called the Gospel, or the Word of God.

This reason of the Name the WORD, given to our Saviour, is observed by Origen, and after him by St. Chrysostom, and is ap­proved by Maldonat, Beza, Gomarus, Dr. Ham­mond, and other principal Interpreters among our Opposers.

The WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. Our Opposers themselves will not deny, because every Novice in Gram­mar knows it, that the original words should have been thus rendred, The WORD was with the God, and the WORD was a God. We claim this Translation as absolutely ne­cessary for clearing the meaning of the E­vangelist in this place. He saith not, the Word was with God, but with the God; because [...] (or the God) is always used to signify the true God, or him who is God by way of Excellence and Appropriation, as Grammarians speak: but [...] a God, is in Holy Scripture applied to Angels, to Kings, to Prophets, and to all such as any way represent the Person of him who is indeed God. Thus Moses is called and named a God, and that by God himself, Exod. 7.1. because he was to represent the Person, and bring the Commands or Word of God to Pharaoh, and to the People of Israel and Egypt. Moses being called (by Coufession of our Opposers) a God, on [Page 25]the fore-mentioned account; we ought not to be surprized, that this Evangelist has called the WORD, or Messias, a God, see­ing he had the very same reason to call him so, that there was for Moses his being so called; for the Messias was no less than Moses, the Ambassador and Representative of God, and that also not to one or two Nations, but to all Mankind.

But whereas he is here said to be (or have been) with the God; the meaning is, that before he entred on his Office, he was taken up into Heaven, to be fully instructed and informed in the nature and quality of his Office, and of that whole Charge which he was to deliver to Men. 'Tis in vain here, that our present Opposer Mr. Milb. demands, after a scoffing manner, at what time this Assumption into Heaven did hap­pen; 'tis enough that we are told the thing by this Evangelist, and by our Saviour; we are not obliged to guess at the time, which the Scriptures have thought sit to conceal. The thing it self is plainly enough intimated in divers Texts of this Evangelist, John 3.13. No Man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that is come down from Heaven; even the Son of Man, who WAS in Heaven. So that Text is translated by Beza, Erasmus, Came­rarius, and other Criticks. John 6.62. What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where be was before? John 8.38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father. See also John 6.38, 51. It is true, the Evangelists have not recorded the par­ticular Time or History of our Saviour's first Assumption unto God, as they have of his Transfiguration, his second Assumption, and other remarkable Passages of his Life: but the reason of that is, because they were Eye-witnesses of the latter, but the other happened before they were called to be Disciples, or to attend on him; and he him­self never (as it should seem) told them of it, but only hinted it in some Discourses and Defences which he made to his Op­posers. You see, Sir, there is no need of a Chimerical and imaginary, perpetual and continual Generation of the Son, nor yet of an impossible mutual In-being of the Father and Son, for our understanding these words, the WORD was with God: the Difficulty is solved, after a natural and intelligible way; for the WORD was indeed with God, be­cause he was taken up into Heaven, to be informed of all thigns appertaining to the Gospel-Dispensation; as Moses was called up into the Mountain, to be instructed in the Particulars of the Legal Dispensation; and as St. Paul was caught up into the third Hea­ven, to have Revelations and Visions ne­cessary for the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Our Opposers do not find what to object to this Explication of the words, the WORD was with God; but to the other Interpreta­tion, that the WORD was called a God, in the same sense only (or chiefly) that Moses was so called at Exod. 7.1. they re­ply, this Evasion of the Socinians is set a­side by the Description which St. John here adds, for he describes the WORD to be God, or a God, not as Moses was, by Re­presentation and Mission, but because All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; and because the World was made by him.

This was a bold Translation, they should at least have signified in the Margin, that the words might have been rendred; For him were all things made, and without respect to him there was nothing made that was made; the World was made for him. They know very well, I make Challenge to them to de­ny it, that the Greek Preposition which they have rendred by, might have been ren­dred for; so as to make the sense before­said even this, For him were all things made, the World was made for him. There is no Greek Lexicon but owns this Significa­tion of that Preposition, when 'tis put (as here) before a Genitive.

'Tis enough to determine us which of the aforesaid Translations we ought to fol­low; that we know 'twas the Belief of the Jews, and is a most certain and undeniable Truth, that all things were made for the Messias; [Page 26]that is, were at first made with intention to subject them in the fulness of Time, to the Messias and his Law, both which God decreed before he actually made the World. But we have besides for it this irrefragable Ar­gument; that 'tis certain, there is but one Creator, and the one Creator is no other but God: seeing therefore the WORD is here distinguished from the God, (and thereby denied to be the God) we are ob­liged to translate here, All things were made for him, the World was made for him; not the World was made by him, or all things by him.

I say, we are obliged thus to translate, or this Translation is necessary, on supposi­tion that St. John speaks here of the old or first Creation, and the visible or mate­rial World. But the Socinians have hither­to supposed, that he speaks here of the new Creation and the Spiritual World; even that great Change of Affairs in the World, which hath been so considerable, that the Scriptures have divers times called it the New Heavens and the New Earth, as has been shown on Heb. 1.10, 11. If these are the All things, and this the World intended by St. John; we admit the Translation of our Opposers, that All things were made by the WORD: for 'twas by his Ministry, that great Change of Affairs, called by the Jews, the World of the Messias, was effected. If to this Interpretation, it be objected, that 'tis not very likely, that this Evange­list would lay such an occasion of Error in our way, as to say, all things were made by the WORD, and the World was made by him, if the WORD were not indeed the Maker of the World: because very few would apprehend that he spoke of a new Creation; and I know not what World of the Messias. I confess the Objection is weighty, but it may be (reasonably) answered, that the New Creation, the Spiritual World, and the World of the Messias, was so univer­sally known to the Jews, and also to the Christians of those Times, who were all converted by Jewish Preachers, that St. John reasonably expected to be readily under­stood by them. Especially considering, that but one God, and one only Creator, was then so well known to be the Doctrine of Christianity and of Judaism; that no one, who was at all acquainted with those Reli­gions, would understand a Writer of either of those Perswasions, of any other Creation or World, but the World of the Messias and the new Creation, when he attribu­ted a Creation or World to any Person but God. In a word, St. John supposed; that he spoke safely and intelligibly, because writing his Gospel for the use of Jews and Christians, who knew the Doctrines of the Jewish Church concerning the Messias; such must needs perfectly understand of what World he spake, when he should say, the World was made by the WORD.

The short is, either St. John speaks here of the old Creation, and the visible World, and then we ought to render his words, All things were made for him, the World was made for him; which is an Allusion to a known saying of the Jews, that the World was made for the Messias, namely, to subject it (in the fulness of Time) to the Messias and his Law, [...] great and certain Truth: Or, he speaks of the new Creation, and the World which all Men expected the Messias should make; and if so, we understand him as saying, All things were made by him, and the World was made by him.

The rest is easy; The WORD was made Flesh, and dwelt among us. And, He that cometh after me, is preferred before me, for he was before me.

It will not be denied, Sir, by any of our Opposers, that instead of The Word was made Flesh, (that is, say they, was made Man) we may render the Greek by the Word WAS Flesh, that is to say, was Man, or a Man. The Greek Word which, to serve the present turn, they render here by was made, is by themselves in this very Chapter rendred WAS, Ver. 6. There WAS a Man sent from God, whose Name was John.

[Page 27]'Tis plain enough, why our Opposers would take no notice, that St. John's words might be rendred the Word WAS Flesh; or, was a Man, and dwelt among us: for this Translation would have turned the whole Context against them. It would have been perceived by All, that when the Word is before called a God, the meaning must be, he is a God as he represented the true God; and because (like Moses, who on the same Account is called a God, at Exod. 7.1.) he is the Ambassador and Messenger of God, the bringer of the Commands and Word of God. Men would have discerned too, that they must not interpret St. John, as saying that the World (the Visible World) and All things were made by the WORD, but only for the WORD: Nay, this Translation, the WORD was a Man, would have contradicted them Directly and Expresly; for though they say Jesus Christ was a Man, yet the WORD (to which He was personally united) was God, and not Man, according to them.

But John Baptist has testified of the WORD; He is preferred before me, for He was before me. Here again the Translators have favoured themselves, by rendring the Greek words WAS before me; they might have been rendred, IS before me: But al­lowing their Translation, Was before me; Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, Maldonat, and o­ther Crities observe, that the words are to be understood, of a priority of Dignity, not a priority of Time; so as to make this Sense, He is preferred before me, thô in regard of Time I am before Him, because He was indeed before me in Excellence of Merit, and Dignity of Person and Office.

It is a very common thing with our Op­posers, to pretend, that the Socinians can­not paraphrase this beginning of St. John's Gospel, without making such an harsh sense, as is next to ridiculous: therefore let us put all that has been said, into one view, in this following Paraphrase; and do you, Sir, and all Men judg, whether it be Harsh or Uncouth. ‘In the beginning of the Gospel-State, was the Messiah; whom the Jews have used to call the WORD: and we also may so call him, because He is the Great Messenger and Preacher of the Gospel-Word. This WORD was assumed into Heaven, and was there with God; to be instructed in all that he was to say and do, in the execution of the Office of the Messiah. He was with the God; and He himself was a God, being to represent the Person of God as his Ambassador, and to deliver his Commands and Word to Men: On which account very Many, and particularly Moses, are called Gods in Holy Scripture. The Messias was decreed before the World was; nay, the World was at first made, with inten­tion to subject it, in the fulness of Time, to the Messias and his Law: So that the World, and all things may be said, to have been made for him; and that without re­spect or regard had to him, nothing was made that was made. Yet as Great a Person as the Messias is, this is always to be remem­bred, that He was Flesh, or Man, Man like to us, and that dwelt among us.’

‘I will say no more of him, at this time, but this; that John the Baptist, whom all Men took to be a Prophet, bore this Te­stimony of him: That thô the WORD came after him, in respect of Time; yet the WORD was indeed before him, in the Excellence of his Person, the Dignity of his Office, and the Miraculous Power over Diseases and Devils, bestowed on him.’

What is there, Sir, in all this Paraphrase, that is not intelligible and easy? And for its Agreement with the Greek Text of St. John, we prove it by Rules of Criticism, not only not deniable by our Opposers, but advan­ced and urged by themselves.

It all depends upon these two Observati­ons. First, Sometimes such as are meer Men, are, on the account of their Deputation and Mission from God, honoured with the Name of God: which we prove by the Example of Moses, (the Lawgiver of the Old Testa­ment, [Page 28]as the Lord Christ is of the New) and from the Mouth of our Saviour himself, at Joh. 10.35. Secondly, That the Preposition [...], and the Verb [...], may be rendred by the English words For and Was: which we show by all the Greek Lexicons, and by their own Translations of other Texts of Seripture.

Our Opposers alledg this Context, as the principal Evidence they have to produce, that there is more than one Divine Person, and more than one who is Creator of the World: We answer, we are taught in the First and Fourth Commandments, that there is but one who is God, and but one Maker of the Visible and Material World; and therefore this Context ought to be interpreted, in consistence with those two Great Command­ments spoken by God himself. Sure it must be evident hereupon, that they ought not to re­lie on a dubious Context, against two such Proofs as are those two Commandments. When Points of Faith are turned into Com­mandments or Laws, it argues the great Importance of those Articles of our Faith: And it must needs be very dangerous to ad­vance a contrary Faith, and very foolish to advance a contrary Faith on the Credit of a Context, which at best is of doubtful and uncertain Construction; of so doubtful Construction, that if it may be Translated and Interpreted, in favour of their Opini­on, yet it may be also so Rendred and Inter­preted, as Flatly to contradict it, and Per­fectly destroy and overthrow it.

You will perhaps say, Sir; but in this Dispute concerning the Truth of Transla­tions, What can an Unlearned Man do; which side can he take? or rather, How can he take any Side at all; being not able to judg between the contending Parties? ought he not in prudence, wholly to suspend his Judgment?

I answer; He must consult his Reason, concerning the thing in Question. If he con­sults his own Reason, he will find an absolute Impossibility in the Trinitarian Doctrine; his Reason will assure him, that an Almigh­ty Father, and an Almighty Son, are most certainly Two Gods; and that two Creators can be no other but two Gods: therefore he may, and he must infer; that the Ex­plication of this Context of St. John, which advances such a Doctrine, is certainly false, and such a Mistake as subverts Christianity. God forbid, that our Faith should depend, on the Quarrels and Debates of Learned Men; or on an uncertain Criticism; or on the contrary Traditions of contending Parties: No no, Faith has a certain Rule, even Holy Scripture interpreted in consistence with evident Reason; this is the Infallible Rule, and of this the Unlearned are as competent Judges, as he that has all the Learning in the World. That cannot be true, which is contrary to clear Reason; for Clear Reason is nothing else but clear Truth: Therefore if the Unitarians have made it appear, that the Doctrines which they oppose, are Manifest Contra­dictions to Reason; and Unlearned Man is as sure as the most Learned, that such Doctrines are not the meaning of Holy Scripture, or of any Context therein.

Our Opposers tell the People, they are not to believe the Transubstantiation, tho grounded on those express Words of Scrip­ture, This is my Body; because that Doctrine implies several Contradictions to clear Rea­son: Why do they not keep to this Rule, to which they would oblige their People? Why do they not renounce the Errors of the Trinity and Incarnation, which imply so many more Contradictions to Reason, than can be pretended of the Transubstantiati­on? While they argue against the Common Enemy the Papists, about Transubstantia­on; or against the Lutherans, about Consub­stantion; Reason is all in all with them, and you can get nothing out of them, but Rea­son and the Judgment of Sense: But when the Dispute is with the Socinians, the Tables are turned; then you hear nothing from them, but the necessity of submitting Reason to Revelation; then they give in their Cata­logues of things, which (they say) are contradictory to our Reason, and yet must be believed. Thus while they Argue against [Page 29]the Papists, 'tis on Socinian Principles, that the Scripture must be interpreted in consi­stence with Evident Reason; which is a yielding all the Controverted Points to the Socinians: But when they think fit to fall foul on the Socinians, 'tis on Popish Principles, that the Scripture must be interpreted by the Determinations and Decisions of Holy Mother-Church, as she is represented in Ge­neral Councils, which are directed by the Holy Ghost: Which implies the yielding Transubstantiation, and many other Points, to the Papists, who can show for them Coun­cils as truly General, as any that can be al­ledged for the Trinity or Incarnation.

In fine, such of our Opposers as are Pro­testants, must either come over to Ʋs, or re­volt to Rome: If they will not be obliged to interpret Scripture by Reason, they are obliged to turn Papists; for the Decisions of the Church in Councils, and the meer Letter of Scripture, are against them: but if they admit no Interpretation of Scripture, but what is consistent with Reason, both They and the Papists must be Unitarians, because the Trinity and the Incarnation are contra­ry to, and inconsistent with Reason, much more than the Transubstantiation is.

CHAP. VI. On the other Texts of St. John.

NEXT, He takes notice of some words of our Saviour, at John 10.30, 36, 38. I and my Father are one.—I am the Son of God.—The Father is in me, and I in him. He saith; the Jews, from those words, I and my Father are one, did infer after this manner; Thou being a Man, makest thy self God. He adds; if the Jews mistook in the Inference they made, from those words; nothing can excuse, either our Saviour or his Apostles, from extream Unkindness; since they would take no pains to rectify a Mistake, which in all appearance was Invo­luntary.

A little more Deference would have be­come our Author, in making a Judgment, concerning what our Saviour or his Apostles ought to have done, towards rectifying the Mistakes of the Jews: And I think too, he needed not to be so concerned, on behalf of the poor Innocent Lambs the Jews; who only mistook (true Hearts,) and did not designedly pervert the words of our Savi­our. On the contrary, I take it to be cer­tain; that the Mistake of the Jews, was not Involuntary, but Affected and Malicious; and however that be, yet our Saviour hath said enough, both in that Context and else­where, to rectify the Mistakes of any whom­soever, concerning his words, I and the Fa­ther are one; I am the Son of God; the Father is in me, and I in him.

Our Opposers ordinarily object to us; that the Jews understood those Expressions of our Saviour, as themselves do: namely, as signifying, that he professed himself to be God. But the Jews put a malicious Con­struction on our Saviour's words; that they might expose him to Hatred and Persecution. To be satisfied of this, we need only to con­sider, that they came to him, with design to ensnare him in his words; as they had done oft-times before, and did many times afterwards. Let us hear what they say, v. 24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said to him; How long dost thou make us to doubt? if thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. To comprehend the true meaning of their putting this Question, we must look back to the foregoing Chapter, where, at V. 22. [Page 30]we are told, The Jews had agreed already, that if any Man should confess, that He (Je­sus) was the Christ, He should be put out of the Synagogue: i. e. He should be Excom­municated. We may add to this Observa­tion; that by the Constitutions of that Church, every Person professing himself to be a Prophet, and not being really so, was to be put to death; much more if he pre­tended to be the Great Prophet of all, the Messiah or Christ. I say now, seeing they so perfectly perswaded themselves, that Je­sus was not the Christ; that they resolved to Excommunicate any of their own Number, who should acknowledg him for the Christ; 'tis evident enough, that their Question, Art thou the Christ? was insidious, and de­signed only to get something from his own Mouth, on which they might Excommuni­cate him; nay, and proceed against him as a false Pretender, to be a Prophet and Christ. Can any one wonder, or reasonably doubt, that such Persons put a malicious Interpreta­tion, on the words of his Answer to them? And is it for Christians, to draw Arguments, nay, build Articles of Faith on the sense that such Persons made of our Saviour's words? and yet this is the great Argument of our Op­posers, from this Context; The Jews, say they, understood our Saviour as saying, that He was God. Why do They not take notice, that the Jews assembled about him for no other Pur­pose, but to find Occasion against him, either by his own express Words, or by the Con­struction they could make of his Words?

But they say farther; our Saviour did not rectify the Mistake of the Jews. I know not, how it would help the Cause of our Opposers; if indeed it were so, that our Saviour had left the Jews in the hands of their own Malice, without caring to answer their groundless Cavils; provided He hath been careful, clearly to explain his Meaning to his Disciples, or others who in time to come might (happily) mistake him. But the Truth is, He doth in this very Context deny the Calumny of the Jews, that He made Himself (so 'tis in the Original) a God. For He answers them at Vers. 26. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World; Thou blasphemest, because I faid, I am the Son of God? The Unicarians may argue as strongly, from this Answer of our Saviour, as their Opposers have argued weakly, from the malicious Construction that his Adversaries made of his former words, I and my Father are one. 'Tis a weak Argument, to say, The Lord Christ is true God, for his Inveterate Adversaries (who sought his Life) charged him with making himself a God: But we reason Unanswera­bly, when we say, the Lord Christ is the Messenger whom God has sent into the World, and not God himself; because He replies to the Jews, that God sanctified him indeed, and sent him into the World; and that He had never said of himself any higher thing, than this which is true of every good Man, I am the Son of God.

I will not now enter into a particular Dis­cussion, what is the very Meaning of that whole Defence, which our Saviour hore makes of himself in this Context; I con­ceive, that neither the Trinitarians nor Uni­tarians have hitherto comprehended all that our Saviour intended to say: But 'tis not necessary to inquire into a Matter, that will require a very long Discourse to clear it; because elsewhere our Saviour has in­terpreted all the Expressions, to which the Jews excepted, and at which others have so dangerously stumbled. They are these Three, I and my Father are one; I am the Son of God; the Father is in me, and I in him.

I and my Father are one. He saith as much of his Disciples; and explains to us, what we are to understand by the words, Joh. 17.22. The Glory which thou gavest me, (i. e. the Glory, or Honour of being the Ambassador of God to Men) I have given to them, (to my Disciples) that they may be One, as we are One. Here our Lord declares to us, these Three Points; that He is One with the Fa­ther; that He hath made his Disciples also, to be One with the Father, and with him­self; and in what regard it is, that He and [Page 31]They are one with the Father; not by an Oneness, or Unity of Person, as the Sabelli­ans held; nor by an Oneness of Nature or Godhead, as the Trinitarians hold; but by such an Unity or Oneness as is between the Sinder and the Sent, the Ambassador and his Principal; namely, an Oneness of Design and Intention: For the sense of our Saviour there is plainly this; As thou hast made me to be one with thy self, even a Partner and Sharer in the same Design, the Design of reconcising Men to God; so have I made my Disciples to be one with us both, and with one another, by substituting them in my Place, and by imploying and ingaging them in the same Design. Again, he saith at Ver. 11. Keep those whom thou hast given me, that they may be out, as we are. As who should say, As thou Father and I are one, by our Mutual Love; so keep Those whom thou hast given me, in a like Unity, both with Us and among Themselves.

Thus it is then, that our Saviour is one with the Father (that is, with God) by an Oneness of Affection and Love, and by an Oneness of Design and Intention: and he reaches us at the same time, that there is the same Unity or Oneness, not only between the Father and Himself on the one part, and all faithful Disciples on the other part; but also among the Faithful themselves.

Our Saviour having given us these Rational and Natural Senses of his words, I and the Fa­ther are one; the Socinians acquiesce in them, without erecting impossible and impious Schemes, such as an Unity of more Per­sons in one and the same numerical God­head; they leave those things to such as are not contented with Scripture-Explica­tions, or with a Faith which is Rational, In­telligible and Plain, but must have Mysteries to amaze and confound their Understand­ings, as if Faith were nothing but Igno­rance, or Brutality, whereas the Apostle (on the contrary) defines or describes it to be Evidence.

The Father is in me, and I in him. It is true, but he prays that all the Faithful may have the same Privilege, John 17.21, 22. I pray—that they all may be one, at thou, Father, art in me, and I in ther; that they may be one in us. And the Criticks have ob­served this following reading in ancient Co­pies, at John 6.56. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; as the Father is in me, and I in the Fa­ther. Why and in what sense our Saviour saith, He was in the Father, and the Fa­ther in Him; and in what regard and re­spect, He desires and prays; that all such as believe in his Name, may be one in Him and in the Father, is explained by this Evangelist, in his first Epistle, 1 John 3.24. He that keepeth his (God's) Commandments, dwelleth in Him; and He in him. 1 John 4.16. He that dwelleth in Love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Our Saviour therefore, and all the Faith­ful, are said to be in the Father or God, by their Obedlinet and Love, and God is in them, by his mutual Love to them. This is the Interpretation which the Scripture gives of it self; we ought not to heed the Dreams or Fancies of Mystical Divines, who think nothing is Religion, but what no body understands, and what contradicts Reason and good Sense.

Last of all, our Saviour also said, I am the Son of God. Every one confesses that he was so, because he was generated by the Divine Power, on a Virgin, without the Concurrence of any other Father but God; yet even this, as great a matter as it is, is not so great a Glory to him, as that he was the Son of God in such sense, as all the Faithful are called God's Children, Sons and Daughters of God, begotten of God; namely, because of their Similitude and Likeness to God in Holiness or Purity, to which they have been begotten by him, by his Word, and other Means sutable and adapted to their Rational Natures. Mat. 5.45. That ye may be the Children of your Father which is in Heaven. 1 John 5.18. Whosoever is born of God, sinneth not; he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself.

[Page 32]Whereas therefore the Lord Christ is sometimes called the only begotten of the Fa­ther, it is to be understood, as when Isaac is called the only Son, and the only begotten Son of Abraham, at Gen. 22.2, 12. Heb. 11.17. Abraham had other Sons begotten by himself, yet Isaac is called his only begotten in regard of his Father's particular and espe­cial Love to him, even such as Parents usu­sually have for an only Child. And in this sense the Greek word (used concerning our Saviour) which we render only begotten, is frequently used in Greek Authors, and not only of such Person or Persons, as are strictly and in proper speaking only begotten.

In these Interpretations of the objected Clauses, I and the Father are one; I am the Son of God; the Father is in me, and I in him; we have the concurring Judgment of the principal Criticks and Interpreters a­mong the Trinitarians: some of them do blame the Fathers for urging such Scripture-Expressions as these, against the Arians and Photinians; and they call the Interpreta­tions of the Fathers, and of some Modern Writers of Controversies, Violent Glosses.

Our present Opposer was aware of this, and therefore is forced to say at P. 354. We are not bound to regard what some Men of great Names say, or boldly assert: It is true, but the Authority of such Men whose Names are (deservedly) great in Critical Learning, and especially in the sacred Criticism, doth at least evince thus much, that the Texts which They give up to their Opposers, ought to be placed in a Class by themselves, they ought to be reckoned among the Proofs that are brought for show, and Ostentation of Number, or to fill up the spare Pages of a Book, or in a popular Sermon, not in such a Book, wherein the Author professes to deal only with the Learned, and to urge no other Text but what is indeed an Argu­ment on his behalf.

The short is, our Opposers litigate with us concerning the sense of these Expressi­ons, I and the Father are one; God is my Fa­ther; I am in the Father, and the Father in me: We show hereupon, from express Scrip­tures, that all these things are true of all the Faithful, and are said of them, no less than of our Saviour: We show farther, that they are interpreted in Holy Scripture, to be an Oneness of Design and Love, an In-Being by Obedience and Love on the part of the Lord Christ and Believers, and of Protection and Love on the part of God; and that the Lord Christ may be so the Son of God, and his only Begotten, as that still he is but a Man, and not God: We show that all this is confest, tho not by the wrangling Pulpit, and trifling Systematicks and Cate­chists; yet by the chief Interpreters and Criticks, and first Reformers, even among our Opposers themselves. On the contrary, those that interpret the before-mentioned Expressions of our Saviour, as if in them he meant to say, that he is God; such do advance an Interpretation that destroys the Unity of God, contradicts manifest Reason, and has no Vouchers but the Jews; I say, none but the Jews; for Trinitarians can produce no Text of Scripture, nor any Profane Author that can possibly be under­stood to mean by such Expressions what they mean, namely, a numerical Oneness of Nature, an In-being by Mixture of Persons, and a Natural Generation out of the very Essence of God. Upon these Texts therefore we have as much advantage against them, as possibly we can have, even Reason, the Current of Scripture, the Authority of their own Cri­ticks, and of all Profane Writers.

The next Trouble he gives us out of the New Testament, is, from John 20.28. Thomas answered, and said unto him (unto Jesus) My Lord, and my God.

Socinus himself, Wolzogenius and Slichtin­gius, learned Unitarians, do not only grant, but they contend, that it was indeed the Intention of Thomas, to call our Saviour his Lord, and his God; but 'tis in no other sense than the Author of the 45th Psalm, calls Solomon God; Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: To which he adds, speaking to [Page 33]the Queen concerning her Husband Solomon, Hearken, O Daughter, forget thy own People, and thy Father's House: So shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty; for he is thy Lord God, and worship thou him. So 'tis in the Version of the Psalms, in the Book of Common-Prayer; which Translation, I judg, our Author will not disclaim. And so also St. Jerome translates, Ipse est Dominus Deus taus, & adorabunt eum: but the Translators imployed by King James, have left out the word God, from those words to the Queen, He is the Lord thy God. But seeing Solomon had before been called God, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever; 'tis undeniable that in this Psalm he is called both Lord and God; and his Queen is bid to worship him, that is, to honour him; for such was the Language of the Eastern Nations to their Kings, and Persons in Eminent Dignity. The Prophets Moses and Samuel are called Elobim, or God, Exod. 7.1. 1 Sam. 28.11, 13, 14. In that last Context, King Saul ordered the Wo­man to call up Samuel; and Samuel appear­ing, she called to Saul and told him, that now she saw Elohim (God) ascending up. Saul thereupon asks her, What form is he of? the Woman replies, He is an old Man. It appears by this, that besides their Kings and Magistrates, the Jews gave also the Name Elohim to the Prophets. But that was the very word used by the Apostle Thomas to our Saviour; the Greeks tran­slate it by [...], the English by the word God. Therefore when 'tis used of a Man, we are not to suppose, that the Speaker in­tends to call such Man God; or that he owns him for a Person who is true God; but he uses it in such sense, as the Jews and other Eastern Nations used it; for a Person of Eminent Dignity, or worth. The Woman said of Samuel, then rising out of the Earth, I see Elohim, God: Thomas says of our Saviour, newly also risen, Eloi, Eloi, my God, my God; they both use the same word, and one no more than the other in­tended to call the Person of whom he spake, the true God, but only a venerable, or dignified Person. To be short, the He­brew words El and Elohim, the Syriac and Chaldaic Elohi, Eloi, and the Greek [...], all which we render by the English God, are words of just such a Latitude in Holy Scripture, and among the Jews and other Oriental Nations, as the word LORD, is with us; for we use that word indifferently, sometimes of God, sometimes of Persons in Dignity, and leave our meaning to be judged by the true and known Quality of the Person to whom we speak. We do not think or fear we shall be understood, as making a Man to be God, because we call him by a Name by which also we call God. This is the very case before us, Thomas says to our Saviour Eloi, a Name used of God and of Persons in Dignity; and he expected not to be mistaken, be­cause the Person to whom he spoke was known to be a Man, and not God.

'Tis likely the before-mentioned is the true Interpretation of the objected Texts; and 'tis certainly so, if Thomas meant those words to our Saviour: But divers Learned Persons, even among our Opposers, have been of Opinion, that My Lord, and my God (or, O my Lord! O 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 Wonder and Amazement to find that his Master was indeed risen. Of this Opinion was Nestorius Archbishop of Con­stantinople, and that most Learned Person Theodorus of Mopsuest. 'Tis true, the Evan­gelist saith, Thomas answered, and said unto him, (unto Christ) My Lord, and my God! or, O my Lord! O my God! but this hin­ders not, but that the Exclamation was ad­dressed to God as its Object, tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour, and to what he had said at ver. 27. See the Brief History of the Ʋnitarians, on John 20.28.

CHAP. VII. On the Texts out of the Epistles.

HE thinks much weight may be laid on Rom. 9.5. Of whom, as concerning the Flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Like to which Text is Rom. 1.3. Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the Seed of David, according to the Flesh.

He saith hereupon, that these words, Ac­cording to the Flesh, and, as concerning the Flesh, intimate plainly, that according to something else the Lord Christ had another Original, and was not wholly of the Jews. This something else is the (supposed) Di­vine Nature of our Saviour; according to which, say they, he is derived from God; as according to the Flesh, he is from the Jews.

Our present Author notes farther, that the Lord Christ in the former of the before­quoted Texts, is not only expresly called God, but God over all, blessed for evermore; so all the Original Greek Copies read. And as for Translations, if there are any which favour the Socinians, they are not however much to be regarded. I answer,

1. As to the words, As concerning the Flesh, and According to the Flesh, they never sig­nify, as Trinitarians would here interpret, according to the Human Nature, as if Christ had also a Divine Nature. We shall easily find the meaning of those Phrases, by some other Texts of Scripture, in which there is no Ambiguity: Rom. 9.3. My Kinsmen ac­cording to the Flesh. Rom. 4.1. Abraham our Father, as pertaining to the Flesh. Col. 3.22. Servants, obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh. Will our Opposers say here, that Abraham, or Paul's Kinsmen, or Masters, must be supposed to have a Divine Nature, because of these words, According to the Flesh, and As concerning the Flesh? 'Tis easy to see, that these Expressi­ons are only as much as to say, According to the Body; and that they signify to us, that Abraham is the Father of the Jews, accor­ding to their Bodies, as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits; and the Jews were Paul's Kinsmen, according to the Body, but not of Kin to him in respect of Likeness in Faith or Manners: also that Masters are Masters over our Bodies, not of our Spi­rits and Minds. Therefore in the other Texts also, where Christ is said to be the Seed of Abraham, of Israel and of David, according to the Flesh: the real and whole meaning is this, That according to his Body or outward Man, he descended of the House of David, and of the Stock of Israel and Abraham, as had been promised con­cerning him in the Prophets, but his Spirit or Soul was from God. Here again we in­terpret Scripture by it self: let our Op­posers shew a Reason why they decline an Interpretation which the Scripture it self affords to us, and how it comes to be He­resy, to understand the meaning of one Text, by the help of such other Texts as are confest to be clear and evident?

2. He saith, the former of these Texts expresly calls the Lord Christ God, and God over all, blessed for ever; and that all Greek Copies agree in this reading. But he might have taken notice out of Grotius, that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac, had not the word God; they only say of our Saviour here, the Blessed, over all. The same illustrious Interpreter observes, that Erasmus had noted, that the Copies of St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, and St. Chrysostom, had only the Blessed over all, or above all, without the word God. These are Obser­vations which destroy our Author's Argu­ment from this Text; but because he knew [Page 35]not what to say to them, he took no notice of them: But it is an impious thing for a Writer, to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such Que­stions as these. When it appears by so great Authorities, that the Antient Reading was other ways than we read in our present Co­pies; or that the reading was then various and uncertain; how can such Texts, or such Expressions be admitted as Proofs, in so great a Question as this before us? Is it ad­visable or safe, to argue against the Unity of God, or to build Articles of Faith on su­spected Texts? the Reading ought to be in­dubitable, else the Inference drawn from it, will also be uncertain. An Article of Faith must have a sure Foundation, else 'tis not Faith, but a precarious Conjecture.

3. But allowing now, that the Word God is rightly read in this Text; two of the most eminent Critics, and principal Masters in the Greek Tongue, have observed, that St. Paul's words should have been pointed, and read af­ter this manner: Of whom as concerning the Flesh, Christ is come; The God over all be bles­sed for ever. Amen. So Curcellaeus and Eras­mus translate here. According to this Ren­dring, our Saviour is not here called God over all; but the Apostle gives Thanks to God over all, for his unspeakable Gift, our Lord Christ.

Our Author saith, that if there be any Translations of this Text, which favour the Socinians, they are not much to be regarded: But this is an Answer, fitter for an Old Wo­man to make, than for a Writer in these Questions. Seeing He undertakes to con­fute the Socinians, he ought to have shown, that the Translation which confirms their Do­ctrine, is some-way faulty: He should have answered the Critical Reason, which Eras­mus and Curcellaeus give of their Translation. They observe, that if the words [God over all] had been intended of our Lord Christ; the Apostle should have said in the Greek, [...], not [...]: and I doubt not that our Au­thor was aware that those Critics were in the right; and therefore he willingly over­look'd both the Translation, and the Rea­son of it.

If you, Sir, say to me, this being a Cri­tical Dispute, how should an Ʋnlearned Man be able to judg, which of the two Sen­ses was intended by the Apostle? What Ground can such a one have to say, the Trinitarian Translation is not Good? Yes, he is as much qualified to judg, as the most Learned. For seeing the words may be (confessedly by both Parcies) rendred two ways, he may be sure, that is the true Reading and Rendring, which agrees with Evident Reason, and with the rest of Scrip­ture: both which allow of but one Person, who is God over all; and if there were more such Persons, there must of necessity be more Gods. This Reasoning directs him, which Side he is to take; not only in this Question, but in all other Questions: What­soever the Question is, if a Text or Texts be alledged, that may be translated several ways; that is the true Translation, which is firmed by evident Reason, and other clear Texts; and that is a false Translation, which would introduce an Opinion contrary to Reason, or to other indisputable Texts. Therefore the Faith of the Unlearned, may be as certain and well-grounded, as the Faith of the greatest Critic: for either other clear and indisputable Texts, or a demon­strative Reason, presents it self, and dissolves the Difficulties.

And if this were not so, it would not be the Duty of the Unlearned; nay, 'twould be contrary to their Duty, to be of any Per­swasion or Party at all; such must neither be Protestants nor Papists, Socinians nor Trinitarians, Remonstrants nor Calvinists, nor of any other Sect, because of this Pre­tence, that they cannot make a critical Judg­ment of different Translations. But no Par­ty will dare to say this: therefore say I, the Unlearned may, and have a right to be of a particular Side and Perswasion; on this Account, that by help of clear Texts, or of evident Reason, they may in all Questi­ons easily discern, which side they ought to take. I will add, that oft-times the Ʋn­prejudiced and Judicious unlearned Person, [Page 36]sees farther and clearer, than the Interessed, Prejudiced and Ʋnjudicious Critic, or other Learned Person. But of this I have said enough, in that General Preface to some of our Pamphlets; which has this Title, An Ex­hortation to a Serious and Impartial Enquiry: where I show, that this is the very Princi­ple on which the Reformation proceeded; and that in taking it away, the Reforma­tion must fall, and we must all return to Rome.

His last Scripture-Allegation is from Phil. 2.5, &c. Let this Mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus: who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took on him the Form of a Servant; and was made in the Likeness of Man; and being found in fashion as a Man, he humbled himself, and became obe­dient unto Death, even the Death of the Cross. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a Name above every Name.

Mr. Misb. has said but very little on this Context; Others of his Parcy have made advantage of almost every Clause thereof. The Lord Christ, say they, was in the Form of God: What can that mean, but that He was God? for the Form of a thing, is the very Nature of it. And that this is a true In­terpretation, we certainly know by the next words, which say; He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Had He not been God, it had been the greatest Robbery and Sacri­lege possible, to think himself equal with God. 'Tis true, He humbled himself, and took on him the Form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of Men, and was found in fashion as a Man, and became obedient to the Death of the Cross. But even these very Expressions are such, as plainly intimate, that all this was nothing else but his Condescension; He sloop'd to these things, only because for great and weighty Reasons He was pleased so to do. Of those Reasons (or Ends) the Apostle here mentions one, to set us an Example: Let that Mind (saith he) be in you, which was in Christ Jesus; who being so Great a Person, yet humbled himself to take the Form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of Man.

I will here, Sir, tell you a Story. A certain Country-man that hapned to live in a Parish, where the Minister used to insist ve­ry often on these Questions, about the Divi­nity and the Incarnation of our Saviour, tur­ned down in his Bible the Proofs alledged by his Minister; and being a Man, though of no Learning, yet of a Good Capacity, he found at length how to satisfy himself of the Insufficiency of all the Minister's Proofs, on be half of the Divinity of our Saviour: on­ly he was puzled with this Context out of the Philippians, that Christ was in the Form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, &c. After much thinking, he imagined that he could give a reasonable Account even of this Context, all but that one Expression, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Here he stuck; for if Christ be equal with God, sure he is (as the Church says) a Person of God, or of the Deity, and the Trinitarian Doctrine must be true. At length, it came into his mind, that there might be some Error in the Tran­slation; and therefore he ask'd his Mini­ster, Whether the words were altogether so in the true Bible, (so he called the Origi­nal Greek) as they are in the English. Bi­ble: I suspect, says he, that the word It (in this Clause, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God) is not in what you use to call the Original, and out of which you often correct our way of reading in the English Bibles; I judg that the Apostle said only, He (Christ) thought not robbery to be equal with God. The Minister was for­ced to confess, that It was not in the Greek; and that it should have been prin­ted, as the words of Supplement usually are, in a different Character from the rest of the Verse. But then, Sir, says the Coun­try-man; If the Apostle says, that Christ thought not robbery to be equal with God, it should feem, it would indeed have been robbery, if he had thought himself equal with God: So that the Apostle's meaning [Page 37]will be this; ‘Jesus Christ conceived not this thing (this Robbery and Sacrilege, in his mind, to be equal with God, or that he was equal with God.’

This is my Tale; I assure you, Sir, I do not make it, I had it from a Friend of Yours, whose Veracity you will not que­stion: So true is it, that after all the wretched Disguisings of Holy Scripture, by Translations grosly false, an industrious and sagacious Enquirer, though Unlearned, may by himself enquire out the great Truth of Christianity, the Ʋnity of God. I confess, such have an hard Task, because our Op­posers have never owned in their Margin, any other Reading or Rendring in the Texts controverted between them and us, but on­ly that which they have contrived to serve their own Turns: But by the Story I have told you, it appears not to be impossible to find Truth, even without the help of a bet­ter Translation.

Mr. Milbourn says, at Pag. 374. that this Context of the Apostle to the Philippians, is so clear for the Divinity of our Saviour, that Trinitarians may refer themselves con­cerning this Matter, to the meerest Stran­ger to Christianity, that has but read this Context. For what can be more plain? He was in the Form of God, He thought it not robbery to be Equal with God; He humbled himself to take the Form of a Ser­vant, and the Likeness and Fashion of a Man. In short, a Heathen would say, that the Person of whom these things are spoken, must undoubtedly be more than Man or Crea­ture.

This (he thinks) is a home Charge on the Socinians; but our Country-man would have made our Author to abate a great deal of his Assurance: He would tell him, 'tis true, Sir, the Lord Christ was in the Form of God; but so also are all other Men; the Holy Scriptures inform us, that Adam and all other Men, are made in the Similitude, Form or Likeness of God. Which is so far from proving, that Adam, or Christ, are God, or a Person of God, that it de­monstratively proves, that neither of them is God; because what are like, are never the same. 'Tis true, our Blessed Saviour was more in the Form, Fashion, or Likeness of God, than any other Man: for besides all that Resemblance that we have to God, by our Reason, our Superiority over the Crea­tures, the immortal undying Nature of our Souls; besides all this, He had a more per­fect Holiness, and a Power and Authority over Devils, Diseases, the Winds and Seas; and this Form of God was given to the Lord Christ, that he might confirm by his Miracles that Holy Doctrine which he was to deliver from God to Men. Thus the Coun­try-man would inlighten Mr. Milbourn's Hea­then; concerning the first Expression, He was in the Form (or Likeness) of God.

But then the Heathen would say farther; He (Christ) thought it not robbery to be Equal to God.

You are mistaken, good Sir, says the Country-man, for our Apostle's words are, He thought not robbery to be Equal with God: Of which, the plain meaning is; He was not so Sacrilegious, as to think in his Mind, that because he had some likeness to God, a far greater than any Man, or (perhaps) Angels, therefore He was Equal with God. Because though He was so highly in the Form of God, yet he remembreth what he saith elsewhere, All Power is GIVEN to me, Matth. 28.18. But on the contrary, the Power of him who is true God, is not given, but is originally his own, the result of his own Eternal Nature.

As for those Expressions, He made himself of no Reputation, and took on him the Form (or Likeness) of a Servant; they are thus to be understood: He deelined the Esteem and Reputation of this World, by conceal­ing the Miracles which he did; charging (oft-times) those that were healed, not to divulge the Matter: Nay, He took on him the Form of a Servant, by suffering Injury and Reproach, without answering again; When he was reviled, he reviled not again.

[Page 38]The Apostle adds, That being in the like­ness of Men, and found in fashion as a Man, he humbled himself to the Death of the Cross. At these words begins a new sense, neither is the word [And] prefixed to them in the Greek; their meaning is this. ‘Farther, tho Christ was in the Likeness or Form of God, by the extraordinary Power and Authority granted to him; yet because he remembred, that he was made in eve­ry respect in the common Likeness and Fashion of all other Men, Like to his Bre­thren in all things, Sin excepted; therefore upon all occasions he readily humbled himself; He even submitted himself to be taken, and crucified by the Jewish and Roman Magistracy, tho He could most easily have delivered himself from them, because He knew that by that kind of Death God should be greatly glorified, and the Gospel confirmed. On this ac­count, as well as on some others, God has highly exalted him, and given to him the Name above every Name, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Rev. 19.16.’

Mr. Milb. craftily supposes, that his Hea­then should conclude for the Divinity of our Saviour, from this only Context to the Philippians, without being before acquainted with Christianity, or with Scripture: but why is He afraid to let his Heathen be ac­quainted with Christianity and with Scrip­ture, but only with this Text? is it not because the Christian Profession of but one God, and the express words of our Saviour, My Father is greater than I; and again, I ascend to my Father and you Father, to my God and your God: Is it not (I say) because the knowledg of these other Texts, and very many the like, would make his Hea­then to interpret this place to the Philippians, as the Country-man did? But he knows be­sides, that some of the principal Interpre­ters and Criticks of his own Party, have given up to the Unitarians this Context of St. Paul to the Philippians; they ingenuously own, that this whole Discourse of the Apo­stle was by him intended of our Lord Christ, as Man, and not as God: He may see a considerable Collection of Authors, Fathers as well as Moderns, who make this honest Confession: In Chr. Sandius his Interpret. Paradox, p. 359, 360. Among the rest there cited, M. Luther (de dupl. Justitiâ) is very express and clear.

Let us, if you please, Sir, lay the whole Interpretation before given into one view, that the Reader may more easily make a Judgment of it. ‘Let such a Mind be in you, O Philippians! as was in the glorious Head and Captain of our Salvation, the Lord Christ. For He being in the Like­ness or Form of God, by an extraordina­ry Sanctity, and a miraculous Power over Diseases and Devils, conferred on him by God; He did not (like Lucifer) con­ceive in his Mind that Impiety and Rob­bery to be equal with God: but (on the contrary) He made himself of no Re­putation, and took the Likeness of a Man of Servile Condition, by concealing the great Miracles which he did, and by bearing Injuries and Reproaches, with­out answering again. Being made in the Likeness of all other Men, and found in the common Fashion of a Man; He sub­mitted to be taken by the Jews, and to undergo the Death of the Cross, for the Glory of God, and the Salvation of Men. And because He was thus affected to­wards God's Honour, and the Good of Men; therefore has God highly exalted him, making him Head of the Church, both that in Heaven, and that on Earth; and giving to him that Name above eve­ry Name, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.’ But hitherto of the Concerta­tion between Mr. Milbourn's Heathen and our Country man; I submit to the Reader, which of them has best understood St. Paul.

But I desire you, Sir, to consider, what wild Work our Opposers make with these Words and this Context of St. Paul; and how they make no scruple to render him guilty of the most palpable Self-Contradicti­ons in one and the same Breath. The Lord [Page 39]Christ, saith this Apostle, was in the Form of God; that is, say our Opposers, he had the very Nature of God, or was truly and really God; and He thought it not Robbery (so They make the Apostle to speak) to be equal with God. Now, if He was God, how could He be equal with God? for no­thing is ever said to be equal with it self: Equality and Likeness must be between se­veral and divers things.

Well, He was God, and was equal with God, and yet made himself of no Reputation, took on him the Form of a Servant, was made in the likeness and fashion of Men; nay, hum­bled himself to Death, even the Death of the Cross. But 'tis both Morally and Physically, or naturally impossible, that God should do any of these things, undergo any of these Changes. Why do they not perceive, that. He who is true God, cannot make himself of no Reputation; or take the Form of a Servant, the Likeness and Fashion of Men; or submit himself to Death?

The Apostle goes on, Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a Name which is above every Name. O strange! God exalts God, and gives to him (which im­plies that He had it not before) a Name a­bove every Name. I would know, what Name could be given to him above the Name he had before?

I do not pretend, Sir, that they own this Interpretation in the very terms I have here set it down: but this I say, that ad­mitting their Hypothesis, that the Lord Christ is true God; this and no other was, I must not say the Apostle's Sense, but his meaning it was. You may please, Sir, to compare it with that easy and natural Para­phrase of the Socinians, which was before mentioned, and then tell me, which of them would be chosen even by a (sensible) Heathen, to whom our Opposer has thought fit to make his Appeal.

CHAP. VIII. On what he objects from the Actions or Miracles of our Saviour.

AFter he has done with particular Texts, our Author (from P. 381.) spends some Sheets in recounting certain Actions of our Saviour, by which it may appear that he was true God, that one true God whom the Scriptures every where propound to us, as the only legitimate Object of Faith and Worship. He saith, for instance, our Saviour did many wonderful Miracles, and that too in his own Name, not as the Minister or Instrument of another, but in a commanding way; as when he rebuked the Winds and Waves, and cast out Devils. He healed Diseases by a Virtue issuing from himself; as ap­pears by the Woman who was cured by only touching his Garment, and by his own words thereupon, Virtue is gone out of me. Nor did he cure only the Distempers of the Body, but those of the Mind and Soul; for he invited to him the weary and heavy-laden, promising that he would give them Rest; which is a sort of Language never used by any Prophet, or meer Man: nay, he for­gave to divers their Sins, which ('tis cer­tain) only God can do.

As a farther Display of his Divinity, 'tis said of him, He knew what was in Man; and he saith of himself, I am He which searcheth the Reins and Heart. There can be no greater Omniscience than this, nor can Om­niscience belong to any but God.

[Page 40]After his Resurrection, He openid the Ʋn­derstandings of his Disciples.

He breathed on them, and thereby confer­red the Holy Spirit, which being God's Inspiration, even in the Opinion of the Soci­nians, How can it be given by any but God?

Afterwards He himself shed on them the same Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner, when he caused the Spirit to descend on them, in the likeness of cloven Tongues: but if he were not God, how should he give the Spirit of God to others?

They are his own words to his Disciples, As my Father sent me, so send I you; but that could not be said by him, if he had not the same Authority (or were not equal) with the Father.

After his Ascension his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name, or only by Faith in him; but no meer Man can enable another to do Miracles; nor can Faith in a meer Man avail to that purpose.

Lastly, He sent St. Paul to be a Minister to the Gentiles, to convert them to God; that so, saith he, they may have Remission of Sins, and an Inheritance among those who are sanctified by Faith in me; or by be­lieving in me. And in doing all this, saith he farther to that Apostle, I will deliver thee from the People, and the Gentiles, to whom I send thee; Acts 26.16, 17, 18. Mr. Milb. seems to think there is a great Force in these Allegations, towards the evincing that the Lord Christ was indeed God; and with these Proofs he concludes his present Ar­gument from Scripture. Let us examine what he hath said, part by part.

He saith, first, our Saviour did Miracles, in his own Name, not as the Minister or Instru­ment of another. But this is not the Language of Scripture; the express words of our Saviour, and the whole current of Scrip­ture are against it. John 17.28. I am not come of my self. John 5.43. I am come in my Father's Name. John 5.30. I can do no­thing of my self. Mat. 12.28. I cast out De­vils by the Spirit of God. John 14.10. The Father that dwilleth in me (to wit, by his Spirit) be doth the Works. Acts 2.22. Je­sus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God a­mong you, by Miracles, Wonders and Signs which God did by him in the midst of you. Assuredly these Texts declare as evidently as in words can be done, that the Lord Christ was no more than the Instrument and Minister of God, and of his Spirit, in work­ing Miracles; and that it was in the Father's Name, not in his own, that he appeared and acted.

But he healed Diseases by a Virtue issuing from himself; for he said, Virtue is gone out of me. That there was a Balsamick and Sana­tive Virtue in the Body of our Saviour, I will not deny; but neither can it be denied, that the like Virtue was also given by God to the Bodies of some of the Apostles: for Handkerchiefs from their Bodies, and their Shadows healed many, Acts 5.15. & 19.12.

Nor is there any more Force in that, that the Lord Christ invites to him the Heavy-laden, promising to give them Rest to their Souls. For he gave Rest to Souls sensible of the Guilt and Burden of Sin, by his Doctrine; which every Gospel-Preacher may do, nay, ought to do. A Gospel-Preacher is to declare to the Sensible and Penitent, the Forgiveness and Absolution of God, and thereby gives them Rest and Peace.

But 'tis marvellous that this Author should urge it as a Proof of our Saviour's Divini­ty, that He declared to some Persons, whose Faith appeared in visible Acts of Piety and Trust in God, that their Sins were for­given; for sure he knows what is said to the Apostles at John 20.23. Whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose Sins ye retain, they are retained. Let him show, if he can, that our Saviour ever claimed any higher Authority or Power than the Apo­stles are here vested with, by Command from God. But I think it were not hard to prove, that in all these Texts, the word Sins is put for the Effect of Sins, even Diseases, so as to make this sense; that our [Page 41]Saviour and his Apostles had Authority and Power, either to loose Men from their In­firmities and Ails, or to leave them in them, as they should see reason and cause, either for the Spiritual Benefit of the Person, or for Confirmation of the Gospel, by such Signs and Wonders.

Our Lord Christ knew what was in Man, saith the Evangelist St. John. But he doth not say, that he knew it of himself, by a Natural Omniscience, without Revelation from God.

The Prophet Ahijah knew what was in the Mind of the Queen of Israel, 1 Kings 14.6. Elisha knew what his Servant Gehazi had done, and what he purposed, 2 Kings 5.22. The same Prophet knew the Counsels that the King of Syria took against the King of Israel, 2 Kings 6.9, 12. He told Hazael, not only what was in his Heart, but what should be there in time to come, 2 Kings 8.12. The Holy Scriptures do not expresly say, that the Knowledg which these Prophets had of what was in Man; or, what is the same thing, the secret Thoughts of their Hearts, was only derivative, or by God's Revelation: They supposed there was no need to instruct or warn the Reader con­cerning a matter that was self-evident. But, as if foreseeing the monstrous Doctrine that some would advance concerning the great Minister and Prophet of the New Te­stament, the Lord Christ; and designing to arm the Faithful against it; they have been careful to tell us directly and explicitly, that the Prophetick Knowledg that was in him, was derivative, or by Revelation from God, not from himself, or by a Natural Omni­science of his own. Rev. 1.1. The Revela­tion of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew unto his Servants things that must shortly come to pass. And He (Christ) sent and signified it by his Angel (or, by his Messenger) to his Servant John. How can a considering Man doubt, that if our Savi­our knew the things which must very shortly come to pass, only by God's Reve­lation of them to him; that his Knowledg too of what was in the Hearts and Minds of Men, must be also by God's Revelation, or the Inhabitation of the Spirit of God in him?

But our Author urgeth, that the Lord Christ saith, I am He which searcheth the Reins and Hearts: Rev. 2.23.

He ought to know, that to search the Heart and Reins, is an Hebrew and Scripture Phrase and form of speaking, and signifies no more but this, to know the most secret Thoughts and Purposes of the Mind and Heart. This is a Property that can belong only to God, to know (or, as the Hebrew speaks, to search) the Hearts and Thoughts, if you mean there­by, originally, or of himself, or by his own na­tural and proper Omniscience: but the Prophets, and more especially the Lord Christ, know the Hearts and Reins by God's Revelation to them, and search the Thoughts by the inhabi­ting Spirit of God in them. When therefore our Saviour saith here, I search the Hearts, he meant this, I know the Thoughts of the Heart, by God's Revelation to me, or by his In­habiting Spirit in me. In a word, God only knoweth the Thoughts of the Heart, and what is in Man, originally, of himself, or by his own proper and natural Omnisci­ence: But Prophets search or know the Hearts, and what is in Man, secondarily, de­rivatively, by God's Revelation to them, by his inhabiting Spirit in them. We are assured that this last only was our Saviour's mean­ing, in these words, I search the Hearts; by the first words of this Book of Revelation, before quoted, even these, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him. There could be no need that God should make a Revelation to him, if he himself knew the Reins and Hearts by a natural Omniscience of his own.

We are not therefore to stick at the meet words, I search the Heart, but to consider the Import or Sense of that Phrase in the Scripture-Language; which signifying only this, to know the Thoughts of the Heart or Mind; they do not prove the Person of whom they are spoken, to be [Page 42]Omniscient, or God, unless it had been said He searcheth (or He knoweth) the Hearts by his own Omniscience, and not (as 'tis said of our Saviour) by Revelation from God, or God's inhabiting Spirit.

When the Lord Christ opened the Ʋnder­standings of the two Disciples, that they might understand the Scriptures; this was not an Act of his Power, but the Effect of the Discourse he made to them: He opened their Understandings, to understand the Prophetic Scriptures, by explaining those Scrip­tures to them.

He conferred a Measure of the Holy Spi­rit, by the External Sign of breathing on the Disciples. We can no more infer from hence that he was God, than that the Apostles al­so were so many Gods, because they gave the Spirit by the External Sign of laying on their Hands, Acts 19.6. The latter was as great a Miracle as the former, and both of them the effect of God's Power, not of Man's.

But 'tis false, what our Author here adds; that our Lord Christ did Himself shed on them the Holy Spirit, when he caused the Spirit to descend on them in the form of Cloven Tongues. The Apostle indeed saith, He (Christ) hath shed forth this (this miracu­lous Participation of the Spirit) which ye now see and hear: But he saith not, as our Author reports his words, He himself hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear; for it was not He himself, but He by the Gift of God, that shed forth the Spirit on them. Let us hear the whole Verse, Acts 2.23. Therefore He (Christ) being by the right Hand of God exalted; and having received (or ob­tained) of the Father, his Promise of the Ho­ly Ghost; He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Here indeed the Spirit is said to be shed forth by the Lord Christ on the Apostles, but not by Him himself; but He shed it forth, having (saith the Text) re­ceived it of the Father. As who should say, having received this Power from the Fa­ther, which afterwards the Apostles also received of the Father, even the Power of conferring the Spirit: He now shed it forth on them; not He himself, by his own Au­thority or Power, but by the Warrant, Order, Grant or Commission of the Father. If our Saviour had conferred the Spirit on his Disciples, by his own Power or Autho­rity, it would not have been said; that having received of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost, he shed it abroad on his Follow­ers.

Let our Opposers show, that the Lord Christ was more than the Instrument, Mini­ster and Mediator, by Whom, and at whose Instance, God shed forth the Spirit: neither this, nor any other Context ascribes more to him; and as much as is elsewhere a­scribed to the Apostles, Acts 10.44. Acts 19.6.

They are words which our Saviour speaks to his Disciples; As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. But it follows not from hence, that the Authority and Power of Christ, was equal to the Power and Authority of the Father: nay, the contrary rather follows; for the Messen­ger is but the Minister and Servant of the Sender.

After Jesus was ascended into Heaven, his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name; and by Faith in him. Acts 3.6. In the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk. Ver. 16. His Name, through Faith in his Name, hath made this Man strong.

We confess hereupon, that Miracles were done by the Name, or in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and through Faith in his Name: But how does this prove that he was God? Such Miracles prove indeed, that the Per­son in whose Name they are done, is a most Powerful and Effectual Mediator with God, but not that He himself is God; they prove, that he is acceptable to God; and that what he desireth, that also God willeth; but not that he is the true & proper Author of those Miracles. 'Tis a particular Honour that God is pleased to do to the Lord Christ, that in his Name Wonders should be done; and that some who believed in his Name, [Page 43]should on that account be enabled to do Miracles: But when our Opposers infer from hence, therefore Christ is God, this is no Necessary or Natural Consequence; be­cause nothing hinders but that God may confer the same Honour on any other Per­son or Thing. Nor, secondly, is it a true Consequence; because we are assured, by innumerable express and clear Testimo­nies, that the Lord Christ is not God. As, 1 Tim. 2.5. There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Je­sus Christ.

Finally; Our Lord promis'd, that he would deliver his Apostle from the People, and from the Gentiles; and declares, that we are sanctified by Faith in his Name, or by be­lieving in him, Acts 26.17, 18, &c. He delivered indeed that Apostle, from very many Machinations of the Jews, and Con­spiracies of the Gentiles; but all this as Mediator, not as God: by his Intercession, which (as this Apostle saith) he ever liveth to make, on behalf of all the Faithful; and more especially of such as are extraordinarily commissioned to the Work of propagating the Gospel in Heathen Nations, as St. Paul was.

As to our being sanctified (i. e. made Holy) by Faith in Christ, or by believing in him, it was never questioned, I think, by any; but the meaning of the Expression is only this, that such as sincerely believe the Lord Christ, and the Gospel or Doctrine by him delivered, do sanctify themselves; they refrain from every Evil Work and Word; their Faith does dispose and incline them, of its own Nature and Tendency, to Sanctification and Holiness; this is the on­ly meaning of our being sanctified by Faith in Christ.

CHAP. IX. On what is alledged from the Fathers.

OUR Author passes from sacred Autho­rities, to Ecclesiastical and Profane, for proving the Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Divinity and Incarnation of our Savi­our.

He quotes the Account which Pliny gives to the Emperor Trajan, concerning the Chri­stians; that they were wont to meet before Day, Et Carmen Christo canere ut Deo, To sing Psalms to Christ as if he were a God.

He cites also a Dialogue, supposed to be Lucian's, in which that Author jeers the God who is Three and One. These two Au­thors were very Ancient, within about 100 Years after Christ; and their words (be­fore quoted) show, How early the belief of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of our Saviour was found among Christians.

For Ecclesiastical Writers, he brings some Fragments out of Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Arno­bius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Gregory Thaumatur­gus, Faelix; also out of the Councils of Nice, Antioch, and Constantinople.

He saith; the Socinians are apt to appeal in these Questions, to the Ante-Nicen Fathers before-named; and that several great Men, such as Erasmus, Grotius, Petavius, and others, yield this Point to Us.

I will make no Advantage of our Author's Ignorance in this Matter; I will freely own to you, Sir, that the Socinians never Ap­peal (in these Questions) to the Fathers, whether Ante-Nicen, or others, who are now extant. We grant, they were in Sentiments very different from ours, all the Ante-Nicen [Page 44]Fathers, I mean, whose works have been suffer'd to come down to our Times, were in the Opi­nion (concerning God and the Lord Christ) afterwards called Arrianism; except (per­haps) Clemens Alexandrinus, who seems to have held the same with Savellius.

Nor do Erasmus, Petavius, Grotius, and other Criticks grant to us, as he supposes, that the Ante-Nicen Fathers were of our O­pinion; they have granted those Fathers, not to us, but to the Arrians. They grant, those Fathers did not hold the Doctrine of the Trinity, or of the Divinity of our Savi­our, in such manner as 'tis now held by the Church; for the Church holds a Trinity of Three Coequal and Coeternal Persons, all of them jointly and equally Creators, none of them Creatures: but those Fathers held a Trinity, in which only the First Person is truly God, or the most high God; the Second and Third are Creatures, though also they were the Creators (according to these Fa­thets) of the other Creatures. They say in­ded sometimes, that the Son is Coeternal, and a Creator: but by Coeternal they mean only, that he was not made in Time, but in that Eternity which did precede Time, and the Creation of the World. They call that Duration, Time, which began with the World, and which is both Made and Mea­sured by the Motion of the Sun, and other Heavenly Bodies; and that Duration is by them called Eternity, which preceded those Bodies, and the Motions which make Time. Therefore when they call the Son, Coeter­nal; which (I think) is not found in all their Writings above once or twice; they do not mean, that He was Really and Actu­ally Coexistent with the Father from all E­ternity: But 'tis their Intention to say, He was made by the Father in that Duration which Philosophy calls Eternity, some space before the World was made, that he might be the Father's Instrument and Minister in creating all things. Hereby they acknow­ledg, that the Son was in some sense a Crea­tor, and God; but it was only as He was the Father's Minister, Instrument and Servant (those are the Terms they use) in making all things: He was a Creator and God, with respect to all other Creatures, but with re­spect (say they) to the true and most high God, He is only a Servant and a Crea­ture.

In a word, the Ante-Nicen Fathers (i. e. those of the first 325 Years) whose Works have been suffered to be extant, neither held as the Unitarians do, that the Lord Christ be­gan to have a Being, when He was born of the Virgin; nor as the Church now does, that He was true God, and always actually Coexistent with God: but they held with the Arrians, that He was Created, Begotten, or Made, (for these are, with them, equiva­lent Terms) in that Tract or Duration which is called, not Time, but Eternity; and that He was the Father's Servant and In­strument, in making first the Holy Ghost, then the rest of the Creation.

This is that which is granted by Petavius, Huetius, Mornay, Erasmus, Grotius, and other Criticks on the Fathers; not (as our Au­thor supposes) that those Fathers held the Doctrine concerning God, and our Lord Christ, that is now called Socinia­nism.

But though this be so, yet we doubt not that we are able to prove, that the general Body of Christians, and an incomp [...]able majority of their Learned Men, believed as the Unitarians now do, till about the Times of Victor and Zephi [...]in. Bishops of Rome; that is, till toward the Year of our Lord 180.

It has not availed our Opposers, that they have suppress'd the works of those most Ancient Fathers, who are known and con­fess'd to have been Unitarians, such as A­quila, Symmachus, and Theadotion, who so ex­cellently translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek; and Lucianus, who restored the Greek Copiet to their first Integrity: Arte­mas and Theodorus, Men (noted by their Adversaries to have been) incomparably Learned, and ancienter than any of the Or­thodox Fathers, as we now call them. Paul [Page 45]also Patriarch of Antioch, Photinus Archbishop of Sirmium, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra: I say, it has not advantaged our Opposers, that they have destroyed the Writings of these Fathers; for the Fathers that are still extant, give us an account of the Opinion of those other Fathers, thô concealing their Arguments. Moreover, they confess, that those first Uni­tarians claimed to be the true Successors and Descendents of the Apostles, and that they de­rived their Doctrine from them. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28.

Besides this, the only Creed of all the Churches till the Council of Nice, and which is called the Aposties Creed (because it contains the true Apostolick Tradition) is confest on all hands to be wholly Ʋnita­rian. That Creed acknowledges but one God, the Father Almighty; and but one only Son of God; even him (saith this Creed) who was conceived, generated or begotten by the Holy Ghost on the Virgin Mary; not (as our Opposers feign) an Eternal Son, begotten of the Essence of God his Father. But I will not, Sir, now dilate on these things, it shall be done in a Treatise by it self, if it please God to give me Leisure and Opportunity: in the mean time I appeal to those Learned Criticks, Petavius and others before mentioned, that the ordinary pretence of such Scriblers and Sciolists as our Author, is utterly false and ungrounded, even this, that the Ante-nicen Fathers held the Doctrine of the Trinity, as the Church now does.

As for the Scoffs of Lucian on the God who is Three and One, One and Three, not having the Book by me, I cannot tell, whe­ther he meant to jeer the Trinity of the Platonick Philosophers, or of the Christi­ans; I conjecture he means the former.

Neither was he so ancient as some give out; the best Criticks make him to have flourish'd about the Year of our Lord 176, when the new Doctrines were grown very rise and common.

The Account that Pliny gives of the Christians to the Emperor Trajan, is ancient; but (in the particular objected to us) ve­ry uncertain. The Copies of Pliny in Ter­tullian's Time, exprest the matter thus, Ad canendum Christo & Deo, They sang Psalms of Praise to Christ and to God; not (ut Deo) to Christ as God. The very words of Tertullian are these; ‘Pliny in his Letter to Trajan, objects nothing else to them, but that they were obstinate in refusing to sactifice: and that they held (caetus ante lucanos, ad canendam Christo & Dio) Meetings before day, to sing to Christ and to God.’ Tertul. Apol. adv. Gentes, c. 3. I make use of an Edition of Tertullian, with the Notes of all the Criticks, published by Rigaltius at Paris; yet none of them dislikes the Reading by Tertullian, or prefers to it the Modern Reading.

But admitting now, that we were to read ut Deo, as to a God: Pliny in these words might speak only his own Opinion, not the Opinion of the Christians: He might con­jecture, that because the Christians sang cer­tain Compositions in Praise of the Lord Christ in their Meetings, therefore they held him to be a God. Or, ut Deo, may be translated, as if he were a God; so as to make this sense: ‘They sing Psalms and Hymns to Christ, as if he were a God, whom them­selves confess to have been a Man; for Hymns are not usually sung but only to the Gods.’ However it be, this Citation makes not much to the purpose; at most, it only proves, that even in Pliny's time, some began to corrupt the Evangelical Doctrine concerning the Unity of God.

CHPA. X. On divers Passages out of the Evangelists and Epistles.

FRom the Fathers, our Author returns again to the Scriptures, and advances an Argument to prove our Saviour's Divi­nity from those Texts which seem to inti­mate, that the Lord Christ is to be prayed unto; and also from others, in which 'tis said, that even while he was upon Earth, he was worshipped by some, and did not re­fuse the worship paid to him.

He saith, no Person can be the proper Object of Divine Worship, such as Prayer is, but He who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent; and that if the Socinians ascribe these Properties to our Saviour, they make him to be true God.

That Jesus Christ was worshipped, and that he ought to be worshipped, he proves from these Texts; Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. God hath highly exalted him, and given to him a Name above every Name: That at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things on Earth, and things under the Earth; And that every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Mat. 28.16, 17. The eleven Disciples went away into Galilee, into a Mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him. With others the like.

Then for praying to him, there are these Texts: Mat. 8.25. Lord, save us, or we pe­rish. Luke 17.5. Lord, increase our Faith. Acts 7.59. Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit. 2 Cor. 12.8, 9. I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me: but he said to me, My Grace is sufficient for thee. — There­fore I will rather glory in my Infirmities, that the Power of Christ may rest upon me. 1 Thess. 3.11, 12. God himself and our Fa­ther, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you. 1 Cor. 1.2. To all that (in every place) call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus. To which last there are several other Texts which are Parallels.

CHAP. XI. Of the Satisfaction.

AFter having proved, as he thinks, the Divinity of our Saviour, our Author undertakes to prove too the vulgar Doctrine of the Satisfaction. He saith, P. 683, 684. The Infinite Justice of God necessarily re­quires, that every Sinner, nay, that every Transgression be punish'd. Therefore, saith he farther, that Mankind is pardoned, is an Effect of the Justice of God; to which Justice a full Satisfaction being paid, by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ in our stead; God could not evidence his Justice otherways than by granting Pardon and Salvation to us. If God could pardon us freely, without a Satisfaction to his Justice, why are not the fallen Angels pardoned?

At P. 706. he has contrived a Tale, or Romance, concerning a certain King, who taking Pity of his Rebels, declared that they should be pardoned, if any Person would be so kind to them, as to suffer in their stead: He tells us, the King's only Son offered to suffer for them; and his Offer being accepted by his Father, who dearly loved him, the Son died, and the Rebels were saved. And this, he saith, is exactly our case with God.

[Page 51]He pretends also to answer to some Ob­jections made by the Socinians, against the (pretended) Satisfaction to God's Justice by the Lord Christ for our Sins. They object, that the Doctrine of a full Satisfaction to God's Justice on our behalf, destroys the free Grace of God (so much magnified in holy Scripture) in the gratuitous Pardon of our Sins: for if God received an Equivalent on our behalf, he hath not pardoned us, but only discharged or acquitted us, because our Debt to his Justice has been paid for us by another. To this he answers, Yes, the Grace and Pardon of God to us was most free: because tho our Debt to God's Justice has been paid, yet not by us, but by a Person whom God himself found out for us. Besides, the Satisfaction made for us by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ, being a refusable Payment, because God might have required the Satisfaction of our selves, or from us; therefore he is rightly said to have pardoned us, and to have shown most free Grace and Favour to us, even tho an Equivalent, and Satisfaction was made to his Justice on our behalf.

Again; They object, that God could not in Justice substitute a most worthy and righteous Person to undergo Punishment, pro­perly so called, in the place and stead of un­righteous and worthless Persons; that were to pervert the Nature and whole Design of that sort of Justice which is exercised about Rewards and Punishments. He answers, God might punish the Lord Christ for us; First, Because under the Law the innocent Beast was substituted to Death and Punishment, by being made a Sacrifice for the Sin, and in­stead of the offending Owner and Master: then, because the Lord Christ freely offered himself to suffer in our room and stead.

Farther, they object, that the three days Death of the Lord Christ cannot be equiva­lent, and therefore not a Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the eternal Death and Damnation of one Sinner, much less of all Mankind. For, supposing that the Value of Sufferings or Punishment is increased even to Infinity, by the infinite Dignity of the Person that suffers; and supposing again, that the Lord Christ being God as well as Man, was indeed a Person of Infinite Dig­nity; yet seeing his Divinity could suffer nothing at all, but only his Humanity; there­fore his Sufferings were but human and finite, and consequently no way commensurate to the infinite Punishment due to one Sinner, much less to that of all Sinners. He re­plies, First, that to the account of the Sufferings or Punishment of the Lord Christ, we must reckon all the Sufferings of his Life, and especially his Agony in the Gar­den; which (our Author saith) was so great, that it was equivalent to that eternal Punishment prepared by God for all impe­nitent Sinners, p. 749.

But lest the Agony in the Garden and on the Cross, should seem to any, to have been too much short in time, to be laid in the Ballance against the eternal Damna­tion of all Mankind: Therefore he subjoins. 2. As our Sins are made infinite, by their being committed against the Infinite Majesty of God: So the Satisfaction of the Lord Christ for us by his Death and other Pu­nishments was also Infinite, on the account of God's Greatness to which that Satisfaction was made, p. 662. That is, the Punishment of the Lord Christ was Infinite, because he offered it to an Infinite God. He adds in the same place, God would never have ac­cepted the Sufferings of the Lord Christ in­stead of ours, if he had not certainly known, that they were equivalent to the Punishments due to us for Sin. 3. The Person that suffered for us was both God and Man, and thereby his Sufferings were of an Infinite Value, and so equivalent to the Infinite Punishment due to us: for tho the true God could neither die nor suffer; yet he who was true God did both suffer and die, p. 663.

And because he understands not the true state of the Question and Difference be­tween the Unitarians and the Church, con­cerning the Satisfaction by our Saviour; he hath objected to us a great number of [Page 52]Texts, which are no way contrary to our Doctrine. He tells us from holy Scripture, that the Lord Christ was wounded for our Transgressions, was bruised for our Iniquities; that we are healed by his Stripes; that God hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all; that he made his Soul an Offering for Sin; that he was de­livered for our Offences; that he bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, or Cross. To these he adds, Rom. 3.24. Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation for eur Sins; — to declare his (God's) Righteousness, that he may be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus.

This, Sir, is the Sum and Force of what our Author hath discoursed at large con­cerning the Satisfaction. He is so well assu­red of the Truth of his Doctrine, that he ends his Book with twice imprecating on himself a Curse, if he shall ever write or teach other ways than he has taught his Reader in this present Book.

I will take a short view of all that he hath said.

He saith, first; The Infinite Justice of God requires, that every Sinner, nay, that every Transgression be punished; and that when God pardons and saves Sinners, this is an Act of his Justice; to which Justice a full Satisfaction having been paid by the Lord Christ, God cannot be just other ways than by pardoning and saving us. And if God can pardon̄ without a Satisfaction to his Justice, why are not the Devils forgiven?

This was argued like a Novice in these Questions: the more Learned of his own Party know that the Cause is lost, if in the Question of the Satisfaction, Almighty God be not considered as a Governour, who indeed can forgive the Offenders, but for Prudential Reasons he will not forgive without a Satisfaction to his Honour and Justice.

Our Author stands in it, that God cannot forgive any Offender, or Offence, without Satisfaction by the Offender himself, or ano­ther in his stead. Why, what is the reason that the King and Proprietor of the whole World cannot forgive? He answers, 'Tis con­trary to his Justice. But is it contrary to Justice to show Mercy, or to remit of my own Rights and Dues? Am I unjust if I do not exact the whole of what is due to me? I may certainly do what I will with my own, else 'tis not truly and wholly my own. He that cannot forgive, neither can he give; for Forgiveness is nothing else, but giving my Right (to Debt or Punishment) to the Person who is indebted, or has offended me. 'Tis contrary (he saith) to the Justice of God, to forgive either the Transgression, or the Transgressor: but if it be contrary to Justice, 'tis essentially and morally evil: I ask therefore, How can God command us to forgive to one another our Transgressions and Offences? Can God command us what is morally and essentially evil, or what is contrary to the eternal Laws of Justice, by which he himself is obliged? O mar­vellous Scheme of Justice! 'tis contrary (they say) to Justice, to pardon without a full Satisfaction; but not contrary to Justice to lay my Guilt, and the Punishment due to it, on a Person wholly innocent and per­fectly righteous: 'tis unjust to forgive the real Offender, or to abate of the Punishment due to him; but not unjust to substitute a well-deserving Person to the Punishment that belonged to the other. In a word, to show Mercy by pardoning Offences is Unjustice; but to misplace Punishment is none at all, but worthy of the Holiness and of the Wisdom of God.

But he faith, if God can forgive without an Equivalent, or Satisfaction to his Justice by the Offender, or another for him, why are not the Devils forgiven? And I ask, see­ing an infinite Satisfaction hath been made in the Opinion of our Author and his Party, for Sinners, why are not the Devils com­prehended in it? The same Infinite Satis­faction which our Opposers teach, was abun­dantly enough for the fallen Angels as well as for Men: let them tell us, how so much precious Merit comes to be lost? This [Page 53]Question can never be answered on the Hy­pothesis of our Opposers; but on the Uni­tarian Hypothesis there is no difficulty at all in the case of the fallen Angels; for we answer, they are not forgiven, because they repent not, nor amend. Almighty God, as King and Proprietor of all Persons and Things, can forgive any Offence, or all Offences, even without Repentance or Amendment; nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do: but 'tis inconsistent with his Wisdom, be­cause to forgive without Repentance or Amendment, is to incourage Sin and Dis­order in the World: 'Tis also contrary to the Holiness of God, that the Incorrigible and Impenitent should escape unpunish'd. Our Opposers mistake too in thinking that 'tis the Justice of God by which he is prompted to punish Sinners; 'tis his Holi­ness and Wisdom: Justice has no other share or interest in Punishment, but only to see that Punishment be not misplaced, and that it do not exceed the Offence.

As to his Tale about the (mad) old King, and his (foolish) Son, 'tis perfectly ridiculous. He hath imagined, a King that promises to pardon his Rebels, if any other will be so kind as to suffer for them. 'Tis a mad Proposition, in the highest degree unreasonable and unjust; because if it was necessary that their Offences should be pu­nish'd; Justice and Reason require, that the Offenders themselves, and not an innocent Person or Persons should suffer. Well, but as mad as the old King was, his Son was as foolish; for (our Author assures us) the Son offered to save the Rebels by dying in their stead: nor did the Folly of the Fa­ther and the Son stop here; for when the Father heard his Son say that he would die for the Rebels, he approved his Son's Ex­travagance, put his Son to Death, and par­doned his Rebels. Nor does our Author forbear to publish his own proper Folly, by telling us, that the old King dearly loved his Son, tho he put him to Death for other Mens Faults: He adds, that this is our very case, with respect to God Almighty and the Lord. Christ. 'Tis so, I acknowledg, in the Hy­pothesis of our Opposers; but let them see to it, whether they do not expose them­selves to just Scorn; while they can no ways defend their Hypothesis of the Sa­tisfaction, but by comparing Almighty God and our Lord Christ to two such Prodigies of Folly, as never really were (or could be) in Nature, but only in the Fiction and Fancy of the Poetaster of Yarmouth.

I demand, would our Poet himself, as odd-conceited as he is, put his Son to death, or consent that he should be put to Death, to save his Maligners and Adversaries from a Punishment highly due to their Crimes? He hath been a great Enemy in his time to Rebellion, and at this day is writing Books against Rebels who are dead forty Years ago: Would he give one of his Children to Death, to save any of the surviving Rebels, as suppose Friend Ludlow? If he is neither so silly, nor so wicked to his Child, how has he dared to say, this is our case with respect to Almighty God and the Lord Christ? Why did not the Comparison and Instance that he himself devised, open his Eyes to discern the Folly and Inconsistency of his Doctrine?

The Socinians object to their Opposers in these Questions, That if an Equivalent (which Trinitarians call a Satisfaction) has been given to God's Justice, on our behalf, by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ, then God hath not truly pardoned us, which the Scriptures every where affirm, but only discharged and acquitted us, because (our Debt being paid) he could do no less.

Our Author answers; Tho God's Justice has been satisfied, yet it was who found out the Person, who was able and willing to pay our Debt: Besides, the Sufferings of our Lord Christ, tho they were equivalent to the Punishment due to Sinners, were a refusable Payment; for God might have required, that the Sinners should suffer in their own Persons, not in the Person of a Redeemer, Mediator or Undertaker.

[Page 54]I will be so liberal, as to grant to our Au­thor both these Answers; but I must insist upon it, that they are no Answers to the Objection proposed. For God doth not pardon his Debt or Offence, because he finds out a third Person that will pay or suffer for the Debtor or Offender; these two differ just as much as Payment and Forgive­ness; that is to say, they are Contraries. But our Author adds, the Sufferings of the Lord Christ were a refusable Payment: 'tis well, but he saith, they were an equivalent Payment; how then can God be said to par­don us? doth He forgive who receives an Equivalent to the Debt due to him? Yes, he saith, it is Forgiveness with respect to us, for we have paid nothing, whatever our Friend, whom God found out, hath paid for us. But why doth he not consider that the Scriptures not only say, that Sinners are par­doned, but they say, God hath pardoned them? You may call their Discharge a Pardon, with respect to them; but you can never say, God hath pardoned them, if they are only discharged upon an Equivalent given for them, or paid by another on their behalf. To say, God hath pardoned us, supposes that he has received no Equivalent on our be­half; for if he had, however we might be said to be pardoned, yet it could not be said that God pardoned us; for the Pardon must (in that case) be imputed to the Person or Persons, who made the Satisfaction or the Equivalent, not to God. To avoid this, our Opposers say, he that made the Satis­faction, was God: the Son of God, who is also himself true God, that very true God to whom the Satisfaction was made, he made for us the Satisfaction. But this is Jargon, and we expected Reason from them: The one true God, they say, made for us the Satisfaction to the one true God; we deny that 'tis Sense, or intelligible. There is but one true God, and he is to receive the Satisfaction for our Sins against his Infinite Majesty, and not to give Satisfaction: How then can they say, but that they are ac­customed to say any thing, the one true God made for us the Satisfaction? And if it could be true what they say, that God him­self paid for us the Equivalent or Satisfacti­on; this is indeed no other but forgiving us without a Satisfaction, which is the very thing they deny: For if I pay to my self the Debt of my Debtor, or undergo the Punish­ment of my Offender; this is but a mock-Satisfaction, and I indeed forgive him without a Satisfaction. Which is so plain, that I wonder that so many Learned Persons as have written on the one and the other side of this Question, have not observed it.

Another Objection of the Socinians against the (pretended) Satisfaction, is; God could not (justly or wisely) substitute an inno­cent and well-deserving Person, to under­go Punishment, properly so called, in the place and stead of the Unrighteous and Worthless; because 'tis of the Nature of Justice, not to misplace Punishment. Our Author's Answers are; The Innocent Beast was sacrificed for the Sin of the Owner; and the Lord Christ freely offer'd himself to suffer for us, though we were Worthless and Wicked.

His instance of Beasts offer'd in Sacrifice, on occasion of the Sin of their Owners, is not a whit to the purpose; for the Owners having an absolute Dominion over, and a compleat Right to the Service, Use, and very Life of their Beasts; therefore it was no Unjustice, when the Life of the Beast was given for the Offence of the Master or Own­er. The Owner might kill his Beast for Food; therefore much more might he offer him to God, in lieu and exchange of his own Life, forfeited to God by Sin. And in this case, the Worthless was offer'd to the Mercy and gracious Acceptance of God, for the Worthy: so that there was no Offence com­mitted, either against Justice or Wisdom. But all things are contrary, in the Lord Christ and Us, especially in the Hypothesis of our Opposers; for he was a Person, accord­ing to them, of Infinite Dignity and Merit; and we had no right in him, or dominion o­ver [Page 55]him, as the Sacrificer had over his Beast, that we should offer his Life or his Sufferings to God instead of our own.

As to that, the Lord Christ freely offer'd himself for Ʋs, to undergo Punishment due to us: Neither could he do it, nor could God accept of it or allow it. An Innocent and Righteous Person may not, an Holy and Just Judg must not pervert the due Course of Justice. A just Governor may pardon Of­fenders, of his Mercy, but he cannot inflict their Punishment on the Innocent and Righ­teous; for 'tis of the very Essence of Ju­stice, nay, is the first thing belonging to Ju­stice, not to misplace Punishment. Not to misplace Punishment, and not to exceed the desert of the Offence, are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Ju­stice.

The last Objection, of which our Author thinks fit to take notice, is this; That the Three-days Death, and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ, could not be equivalent to the Eternal Damnation of so much as one Man, much less of all Mankind. He answers three ways.

1. Our Saviour's Agony in the Garden was, without doubt, such a weight of Sor­row and Pain, as was equivalent even to the eternal Damnation of all Men; else we must say, He was far less valiant in suffering, than many Martyrs have been; nay, was a very Dastard and Coward. Our Author pursues this Calumny upon his Saviour in several Pages; see (Reader) from p. 739, to p. 749.

He makes Calanus the Indian (not a Christian neither, but an Heathen) a very Herot, in comparison of that poor dispirited pretender Jesus of Nazareth. He hath this Passage, at p. 739. ‘Nothing seems more mean, among the various Accounts of Sufferers for Truth, than the Carriage of our Saviour.’ He saith farther, That our Saviour prayed most earnestly to be delivered from Death; and that he sweat Drops, like Drops of Blood; but the Mar­tyrs even offer'd themselves to the most cruel Deaths, and sang in the midst of Tor­ments.

It is true, that the great Passion of our Saviour in the Garden, has made many to think, not without cause, that it proceeded from some higher Reason, than the appre­hension of the Death of the Cross, which He was shortly to undergo. It may be (ve­ry probably) supposed, that He conflicted then with great Temprations; that the Devil was very busy to fill his Mind with horrid I­dea's and Representations; and that this was the Cause of his Agony, and that an An­gel was sent to strengthen him. The Martyrs (on the contrary) had influences and As­sistances from the Divine Spirit; and the Tempter was with-held from venting his Malice on them.

But to suppose, with our present Au­thor, that our Saviour underwent (in the Garden) the very Torments of Hell; nay, such Torments as are infinitely greater than Hell-Torments; because they were equivalent to the eternal Torments of all the Damned; this is said without any ground, nay, contrary to all good Reason. We must suppose, on our Author's Hypo­thesis, First, That Christ underwent in the space of an hour, such an acute Pain, as answers fully to the whole Pain of a Dam­ned Person in all Eternity. Secondly, That this Pain was so multiplied, as to be equal to all the Tortures of all the Damned in whole Eternity: And yet, Thirdly, he was only exceeding sorrowful, and had a very great Sweat: Surely such a Pain would have made him to cry out, much more ear­nestly than on the Cross; and how could an Angel strengthen him under such a Pain, of which no Angel in Heaven could him­self have bore the thousandth part?

But I would know too, why an Angel from Heaven should be sent to strengthen him, as is expresly said at Luke 22.43? Why not rather the Divine Person, which (our Opposers say) was in him, and with which he was personally united, and personally one? It had been far more natural, that [Page 56]his own Divinity should have strengthned his Humanity, than that the Angel shall be sent to support that Man, who was (they say) God-Man. I know not what Relishes other Mens Understandings may have, but it will never go down with me, that God-Man could want to be strengthned by an Angel; and I look upon this to be an unanswera­ble Argument, that our Lord Christ was only a Prophet, and not God, or any such super-eminent Spirit, as the Arians believe him to be.

But that our Saviour's Sufferings may not want Weight, to be laid in the Ballance a­gainst all the Sufferings of all the Damned, our Author saith, 2. As the Guilt and De­merit of Sin is made Infinite, by being committed against the Infinite Majesty of God; so the Merit of Christ's Sufferings on our behalf becomes Infinite too, by be­ing offered to an Infinite God.

I confess, when I read this, and his Sto­ry of the old King and his Son, I gave our Author over: for there never was any Man so silly but this Author, as to conceit, that a thing is made better or greater by the Great­ness or Excellence of the Person to whom 'tis oftered; tho it be true that an Offence may be the greater, for some Qualifications of the Person against whom it is done.

If what he says were true, that the In­finiteness of God makes that Suffering which is presented to him to be also Infi­nite; what needed our Saviour to have undergone so much as our Author conceits; the Pain of the Cross: nay, the least Pain in his Finger had been sufficient, without the horrible Agony in the Garden, which he supposes to have been equal to all the Pains of all the Damned, and that for ever. And if it be true, that Christ's Sufferings are made Infinite, by his Infinity to whom they are offered, then so also would the Sufferings of any other Man. This strange reasoning of our Author, makes the Punish­ment of Christ to be wholly needless; the Sinners themselves might have sully satisfied God's Justice, and that too by the slightest Sufferings, if suffering receives its nature and degree from the Infinity of that Ma­jesty to whom 'tis tendred.

He saith, thirdly, He that suffered for us was God and Man in one Person: and tho ('tis true) the true God could not die or suffer; yet He who was true God, did both suffer and die. The Sufferings of such a Person must needs be esteemed of Infinite Value, tho they were not Infinite in their Intension, or in their Duration.

In think this to be almost as weak as the former Answer. For seeing they dare not pretend, that God could suffer any thing, but only the Humanity, which (They say) was united to him; such Sufferings were but Human Sufferings, the Sufferings of a Man, not of God, and therefore in no sense Infinite. Their Conceit, that the Hu­manity of Christs is united to the Divine Per­son of the Son, helps them not in this case; for God dwells in all the Faithful, nay, is united to them, and one with them; they are so joined (that I may use the Apostle's words) to the Lord, as to be one Spirit with him; 1 Cor. 6.17. John 17.21. but neither their Righteousness, nor their Sufferings have any more value on that account, but are rated only according to their intrinsick, proper and real Worth.

CHAP. XII. On the Texts alledged for the Satisfaction; with a Conclusion of the whole.

THE last thing we are to consider, is the Collection of Texts that our Author has here made; he urges, First, That He (Christ) was wounded for our Transgressions, was bruised for our Iniquities; that we are healed by his Stripes; that God hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all; that He hath made his Soul an Offering for Sin. All this is taken out of the 53d Chapter of Isaiah, which Chap­ter is by some taken to be a Prophecy, con­cerning the Prophet Jeremiah; by others, concerning the Messiah, or Christ. I do not think it to be any Prophecy at all, except in some few Passages of it; but especially not a Prophecy concerning a Person who was then to be born: I conceive the words are to be understood of the Prophet Isaiah himself, who speaking of himself, modestly speaks in the third Person, and the sense begins at ver. 7. of the foregoing Chapter.

I wonder very much, that so many Learn­ed Men as have commented on this Prophet, have not discerned that the whole Discourse perfectly sutes to the Prophet himself, and that he speaks of a Person actually in being, not of one who was yet to be born. But because it would take up a great deal of room to make a Paraphrase on the two Chapters, and to show the Reason of it; I will be content to set down the Explication by Grotius and Socinus, of the particular Expressions here objected by our Author. Grotius is of opinion, that from ver. 7. of the foregoing Chapter, Isaiah prophesies of the Sufferings of the Prophet Jeremiah; yet so, that the whole Prophecy, and all the Ex­pressions of the 53d Chapter, had a second Completion in the Person, Actions and Suffer­ings of the Lord Christ: and therefore some of the Expressions, tho originally in­tended of Jeremiah, are by the Writers of the New Testament accommodated also, and applied to the Lord Christ. Let us see what he saith.

Isa. 53.5. He was wounded for our Trans­gressions, and was bruised for our Iniquities. But in the Original 'tis, he has been wounded by our Wickedness, and bruised by our Iniquity; that is, we have wickedly and unjustly afflicted and persecuted him.

The Chastisement of our Peace was upon him; and by his Stripes we are healed. No, the O­riginal saith, The Reproofs of our Peace were with him: that is, the Reproofs that would have made our Peace with God, if we had hearkned to them, were truly with this Pro­phet; he reproved us justly, and for our saving Good, if we would have hearkned: and by those his Stripes we might have been healed, i. e. by those sharp and home-Re­proofs, by those Stripes of his Mouth, we might have been amended and reformed, and thereby reconciled to God, and healed.

Ver. 6. All we, like Sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all. In the Hebrew, the Lord hath by him met with the Iniquity of us all: q. d. hath re­proved all our Wickedness by him.

Ver. 10. When thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for Sin, he shall see his Seed, he shall prolong his days. But in the Hebrew thus; If he (the Prophet) shall submit his Soul to Punishment, he shall see his Seed, and pro­long [Page 58]his days: or, Tho he submit his Soul to Punishment, &c. Punishment, saith Grotius here, is properly for Sin; but the Hebrews (saith he) call all Affliction by or from o­thers, tho unjust and underserved, by the Name of Punishment.

But our Author objects again, that the Apostle saith, Rom. 4.25. He (Christ) was delivered for our Offences. And 1 Pet 2.24. Who himself bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, or Cross. Rom. 3.24. Him hath God set forth to be a Propitiation for our Sins, to declare his (God's) Righteousness. Heb. 9.26. Now once in the end of the World he hath appeared, to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself.

Therefore 'tis to be noted, that very few of those that have undertaken to write against us, have really understood what we affirm or deny, concerning the Causes, or the Effects of our Saviour's Death. They trou­ble themselves with citing a great many Texts to evince that 'twas for our Sins (as one Cause) that Christ died; that he was a Sacrifice and Oblation for the Sins of the World; that he was a Ransom, a Price of Redemption for us. We deny none of these things, taken in a sober and possible sense: the Question is only this, Whether the Lord Christ offered himself as such a Sacri­fice, Oblation or Price as might be made to the Justice of God, by way of Equivalent for what we should have suffered; or was an Oblation and Application, as all former Sa­crifices under the Law were, to the Mercy of God, by way of humble suit and depreca­tion? We affirm the latter of these, that the Lord Christ, besides other Ends of his Death, tendred himself (in the nature of a Sacrifice) on the Altar of the Cross, to the Mercy and Benignity of God, by way of Supplication; not to the Divine Justice, as an Equivalent for so great a Debt as the Eter­nal Punishment of all Mankind in Hell-Fire. We judg it better thus to speak, than as our Opposers do, because the Abolition of our Sins, and our Discharge from Punish­ment, is always in Holy Scripture attributed to the great Mercy and Goodness of God; 'tis called Pardon, Remission, Grace, Free­ness of Grace, Riches of Grace; all which were false, if indeed the Lord Christ gave a just Equivalent (they say, more than an Equivalent) to God's Justice for us.

In a word, our Opposers and We agree, that the Lord Christ, being to die upon other accounts, did withal tender his Person in Quality of an Expiatory Sacrifice, for the Sins of Mankind; himself was the Offerer, and also the Victim, and his Cross the Altar; he was a Ransom, and a Price of Redemption for us: but in this we differ, Whether he was an Adequate Price, or a Sacrifice to the Justice of God? We cannot comprehend that one Man could be an Equi­valent for all Men; or his short Sufferings equal to the Eternal Damnation of an Infi­nite Multitude; or that God can be said to pardon, if he hath been over-paid for our Debt to him: therefore we content our selves to teach, that our Blessed Saviour be­ing to confirm his Gospel by his Death, and to be made perfect by Sufferings, as the Au­thor to the Hebrews speaks, did also offer himself as a Sacrifice, and as a sort of Ran­som and Price for us, to that Mercy and Benignity of God, by which he was wont to accept the Oblation of Beasts, the Blood of Goats and Lambs, for his repenting and returning People. This Hypothesis leaves to God the intire Glory of forgiving us; to our Saviour, the Honour of being the Means, Motive and Procurer of our Pardon and Salvation; and fully answers all Scrip­ture-Expressions concerning our Saviour's Death, objected to us by our Opposers in this Question. But they (our Opposers) after all their Subterfuges, are forced by their Hypothesis, to this monstrous Conclu­sion; that God freely pardoneth to Sinners their whole Debt of Sin and Punishment; and yet has been infinitely over-paid for both, in the Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ: than which, there can be no greater, or more apparent Contradiction.

As to our Author's Conclusion, that he wishes himself accursed, and again accursed, if [Page 59]ever he deliver other Doctrine than what he hath defended in this Book: I shall only say this, that as wise as he have lived to alter their Minds. Nor can he defend his Rashness by the Example of the Apostle; for when St. Paul curses himself or any other for preaching or teaching otherways, he speaks not of doubt­ful and uncertain Questions; but If we preach any other GOSPEL to you, let us be accursed; Gal. 1.8, 9. And the reason of our Apo­stle's Confidence was very different from our Author's: the latter grounds himself on a few ambiguous and uncertain Texts, capable of contrary Translations and Senses; and when taken in his Sense of them, are contrary to Reason and common Sense, and to the general Current of Holy Scripture: but the Apostle speaks of a matter which he had received by express Revelation from Jesus Christ, and even from God the Fa­ther of All.