Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but one Person But here he takes for granted that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity contrary to the Apostle who speaks only of the Person of God not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son If the Person of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image is only the Person of the Father then the Person of the Father only at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets Ver. 1. for Ver. 2. the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only is not the true God in the Author's Hypothesis therefore he must conclude that the true God spake not to the Fathers which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle who says that God undoubtedly the true God spake to the Fathers Farther by God who spake to the Fathers we must understand either Father Son and Holy Ghost or the Father only If Father Son and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers it could not be here said that Christ is the Image of that God's Person for he is Three Persons If the Father only spake to the Fathers then the Father only is the true God for the true God spake to the Fathers also then God is but one Person Which are the things we contend for He goes on As for his Singular Pronouns I Thou c. They prove indeed that there is but one God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons in all Languages When therefore they are applied to God they show that he is a Singular that is but one Person unless they will say that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others but this is false for being written to Men the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them are the same as in all other Languages and otherways the Scripture would not be given us to instruct us but to pervert and deceive us 5. The fifth Argument Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed He answers Had not the Son been God and also the Holy Ghost they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than the Form of Baptism which is the Original of the Apostles Creed But why not Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God since the Gospel was preached by the One and confirmed by the Other why may not they be put into the Creed as well as the Catholic Church by whom the Gospel is to be believed If our Creed only mentioned God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian therefore a Christian Creed as such must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thô they are not Gods or God A Christian as such must profess in his Creed that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty but also in his Son Jesus Christ who was sent by him to preach the Gospel and in the Holy Ghost by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man He adds That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church 'T is plain our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks And whereas he says there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed 't is very marvellous to me that there should be no reason to express an Article which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed but I say had the Article been necessary or so much as true the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed to make room for a necessary Article an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church and other Articles there expressed Besides what Inlargement would it have been what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory to have added twice this single and short Word God And in God the Son Jesus Christ our Lord c. I believe in God the Holy Ghost c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days It is plain therefore that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost no other but that they believed it not But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 23 24. was it too hot or to heavy for him Lastly he says It needed not to be added because the Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man But must he that is the Son of God be also by Nature God St. Luke says of Adam who was the Son of God Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God in the Language of Scripture Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying that the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man If one had leisure there might be Answers enow made to it all that I say is I pray prove it 6. The Historian concludes That The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible On the contrary our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge 1. It ridicules the Scriptures 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion 4. It justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries If it be so my Masters the Socinians are ill Men indeed but let us do them this Common Right to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment CHAP. VII 1. THE First pretence is That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired He instances in some Expositions of Scripture which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians For Example The Historian in answer to Psal 45. 6 7. which the Apostle at Heb. 1. 8. applies to Christ says In the Hebrew and in the Greek
is not there meant This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. He who is the First-born of every Creature is the same who shed his Blood ver 14. for the Redemption of Men as I noted before Now he who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men can be no other but Jesus Christ Man but this very Jesus Christ Man is there stiled the First-born of every Creature by whom all things were created c. as we translate the Words Therefore this cannot be meant of the Creation of the World which is the Work of God not of a Man Yes you 'l say for He is God as well as Man and therefore may be said to have created the World I answer Where have you found in Scripture that Christ is God as well as Man I know He is called Man in the Writings of the New Testament but I could never find him there stiled God-Man as He should have often been if He was both Does the Apostle make a distinction between his two Natures does he say we have Redemption thrô his Blood as He is a Man and that He is the First-born of every Creature and has created all Things as He is God Not at all but only tells us That the same Jesus Christ in whom we have redemption thrô his Blood is the First-born of every Creature and by whom all Things were created c. Why should we contrive a distinction of our own when the Apostle makes none But 2. I cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ since we have no Warrant from Scripture for it I mean that the Scripture does never say in express Words that Christ has created Heaven and Earth which is the proper Description of the Old Creation or of the Creation strictly and properly so called and the Description usual in Scripture when it speaks of that Creation as it is said that God the Father of Christ has I do observe so great a difference between the Expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning the Creation of the World by God and those Expressions which are supposed to import the same Creation by Christ that I cannot forbear alledging some places concerning both I omit those of the Old Testament which are so many and will insist only upon some taken out of the New God saith St. Paul Acts 17. 24. that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands And Acts 4. 11. Lord thou art God which hast made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all that in them is Acts 14. 15. We preach unto you that ye should turn from these Vanities unto the Living God which made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all things that are therein And Rev. 14. 7. Fear God and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Water This is the true and proper Description of the Creation of the World Were it ascribed to Christ in such express Terms we could not doubt that Christ had created the World which if the Apostles had believed they would undoubtedly have taught us so great a Truth and that both in express and plain Terms and often No Christ is never said to have created Heaven and Earth the Sea and all that is therein In this very place the Apostle does not say that the First-born created Heaven and Earth but All things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and the All Things of which he speaketh he limiteth to all Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers visible and invisible which shall be explained hereafter This second Reflection that this Text contains not the proper Description of the Creation of the World used in Scripture being added to the foregoing that this Context speaks of Christ as Man ought to perswade any unprejudiced Man that the Creation of the World is not here attributed to Christ The Primitive Christians were so far from believing that Christ created the World that as the Father only is called God in the Apostles Creed so He only is stiled Maker of Heaven and Earth 3. As the Epistle to the Galatians is an excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans so the Epistle to the Ephesians must be made use of for the right understanding of the Epistle to the Colossians The Design and Scope of those two Epistles is the same so that we must look into the Epistle to the Ephesians to find out the true Sense of this controverted Text in the Colossians Now he that seriously compares these two Epistles with one another will find that Coloss 1. 15 16 17 18. must be interpreted by Ephes 1. 20 21 22. and Ephes 1. 10. is a true Commentary on Coloss 1. 20. Coloss 1. 18. runs thus And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence To which answers part of the 22d verse in the Ephesians in these Words And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Col. 1. 15 16 17. runs thus Who is the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature for by him were all things created as we translate the Word that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all things and by him all things consist To these Verses do answer the 20 21 and part of the 22d verse of Chap. 1. to the Ephesians in these Words He God raised him from the dead and set him at his own right Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and Might and Dominion and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come and hath put all things under his Feet Now in the Epistle to the Ephesians we see there is not the least intimation of the Creation ascribed to Christ but only of his exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and all earthly Powers which plainly shows that the Apostle meant not the Creation of the World in the forecited Verses of the Epistle to the Colossians Nay were it so he would speak Non-sense In the Epistle to the Colossians he would tell us that Christ has created all the Orders of Angels the visible and invisible Thrones c. which plainly shows that He is thereby as far above them as the Creator is above his Creatures but in the Epistle to the Ephesians he would tell us that Christ has been exalted far above all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Thrones and Powers which undeniably proves that He was not so before Now what is a Contradiction if this be not to say that Christ created them and that the Father set him far above them We must therefore of necessity explain
to govern Ireland so this they do in compliance with the King's Will and to shew thereby that they are his loyal and faithful Subjects and he who bows to the Vice-Roy may be said to bow to the King because the Vice-Roy represents the King and acts in his Name So that it would be non-sense to say the Vice-Roy is King because they pay him that Honour Let us apply this to Christ we must bow to him and confess him to be the Lord and by so doing God's Oath is accomplished Vnto me every Knee shall bow c. Does it follow from thence that Christ is that God who swore in the Prophet Isaiah Not at all because when we pay this Honour to Christ it is to obey God's Commands and to acknowledg his Power and Authority over us He who honours the Ambassador honours him that sent him he who honours Christ God 's Anointed honours God who anointed him In a word He who bows to Christ tho a Man bows to God also The next place is Rom. 9. 33. As it is written Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-Stone and Rock of ossence and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed Part of these Words are taken from Isa 28. 16. and because they are spoken of God in the Prophet and applied to Christ by St. Paul and St. Peter as several other Texts of the Old Testament are They conclude Christ must be that God spoken of in the Prophet But the Historian answers that Neither Peter nor Paul cite the Words of the Prophet as spoken of Christ but only as in some sense applicable to him namely because Christ also was to many a Stone of stumbling To this our Author replies like a Man very little acquainted with Scripture that This is nothing else but to charge the Apostles with abusing Scripture and producing Proofs which are no Proofs This I have answered before But he tells us that Paul alledges this Prophecy to prove that the Infidelity of the Jews and the Offence they should take at Christ was foretold in Scripture Here I must tell him he is mistaken For the Words are no such Prophecy but are spoken of the Times of Sennacherib who was to make War against the Inhabitants of Jerusalem whom God promises to protect and defend if they will but keep within the Walls of the City and stick close to his Law The Author adds a considerable Reflection And thus these Men rather than they will allow the Scripture proofs that Christ is God destroy all the Old Testament proofs of the Truth of Christianity and yet if such Texts as these must pass only for Accommodations and Allusions I know not where they will find any proofs Alas I perceive the Author would be a very unfit Man to convert Jews When I read first this Passage of his Book I could not but wonder how it came from a Christian He knows not where we may find any proofs of Christianity besides those of the Old Testament Are then the Miracles of Christ and of his Apostles nothing Is Christ's Resurrection no Proof or but a weak one of his being sent by God and the truth of his Message Must we account as nothing the Purity of the Gospel and its swift Propagation thrô the whole World I always thought with other Christians that these were invincible Arguments for the Truth of our Religion So they are indeed and by them we ought to convince the Jews and then we are able to give them a reasonable Account of all the Texts of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New The first place in the New Testament quoted by our Author is Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This the Author of the Brief History explains after this manner To be Baptized in the Name of a Person or Persons is a Rite by which one delivers himself to the Institution Instruction and Obedience of such Person or Persons So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is to prosess to be led and guided by them or as Grotius expresses this matter 't is to declare we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion but what proceeds from these that is Nothing but what is commanded by God or the Father and has been delivered by his Son the Lord Christ and consirmed externally by the Miracles and internally by the Witness and Testimony of the Spirit that is of the Power and Inspiration of God Now all this our Author grants only he says that Baptism being a Religious Rite it is a Religious Profession of this a Religious Devoting our selves to them and therefore we give up our selves to their Institution and Guidance not as Creatures but as to God who is both the Author and Object of our Faith and Worship But what is the meaning of all this We do not deny that Baptism is a Religious Rite and a Religious Profession of our Faith we only deny that because we are Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost as well as in the Name of the Father that therefore the Son and Holy Ghost are Two Divine Persons and God as well as the Father We religiously profess in Baptism to believe no other Doctrine but what is derived from the Father taught by his Son and confirmed by the Holy Ghost and the being Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost is so far from proving that they are God that supposing they are not yet we must of necessity be Baptized in their Name When the Apostles made Proselytes had they Baptized them only in the Name of the Father such a Eaptism had been no distinction of Christians from Jews for the Jews believed in the true God as well as the Christians So that supposing Christ and the Holy Ghost are not God yet since the Gospel was first preached by the One and confirmed by the Other it was necessary that he who imbraced the Gospel should be Baptized in the Name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost to profess thereby that he was neither a Jew nor a Pagan but a Christian and that he admitted no other Doctrine but that delivered by the Son and confirmed by the Holy Ghost This was so essential to the Baptism of a Christian that we never read in the Acts of the Apostles that Proselytes were baptized in the Name of the Father but only in the Name of the Son of which we can give a reasonable Account for all that believed in God did not believe in Christ but whoever believed in Christ believed in God too One might believe and trust in God without being a Christian but whoever believed in Christ and was Baptized in his Name was both a Worshipper of the true God and a Christian He who was Baptized in the Name of the Son did publickly profess