be declared in Scripture we ought to Believe But I see not why it should be thought of it self more necessary to salvation if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture for a man to know that her Name was Mary than that the Name of Adam's Wife was Eve or Abraham's Wife Sarah or that one of Iob's Daughters was called Iemima for all these are declared in Scripture and supposing that we know them so to be ought to be believed as part of the Catholick Faith Nor do I know that it is of it self more necessary to know that the Name of the Judge who condemned our Saviour was Pontius Pilate than that the Name of the High-Priest was Caiaphus And though one of these and not the other be put into the Apostles Creed whereby we are more likely to know that than the other yet both of them being True and declared in Scripture they are both of them parts of the Catholick Faith and to be believed but neither of them I think with such necessity as that who knows them not cannot be saved And what I say of this General Preface in the beginning is in like manner to be understood of the General Conclusion in the end which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Of which I shall say more anon After the General Preface concerning the necessity of holding the Catholick Faith he proceeds to two main Branches of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation with the Consequents thereof which he declares likewise as what ought to be believed That of the Trinity he declares thus in General And the Catholick Faith is this that is this is one main part of the Catholick Faith namely That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity Neither Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which is what we commonly say There be Three Persons yet but One God And this General which after some particular Explications he doth resume is what he declares ought to be believed But he doth not lay such stress upon each Particular of that Explication though True He thus explains himself For there is one Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost Which Persons therefore are not to be confounded But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One. That is one Substance one God Which is what he said of not Dividing the Substance as if the Three Persons should be Three Substances or Three Gods According as Christ says of Himself and the Father Iohn 10. 30. I and the Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one Thing one Substance one God not one Person And 1 Iohn 5. 7. These Three are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hi Ires sunt Unum not Unus These three Who 's are one What. They are one Thing one Substance one God though Three Persons And as their Godhead or Substance undivided is all one so it follows The Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal Such as the Father is as to the common Godhead such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate The Father incomprehensible the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible The Father eternal the Son eternal and the Holy Ghost eternal For all these are Attributes of the common Deity which is the same of All. And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal Not Three Eternal Gods though Three Persons but One Eternal God As also there are not three Incomprehensibles nor three Uncreated but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible One and the same Substance or Deity uncreated and incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty and yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word by which the Greeks do express the Hebrew Name Iehovah the proper incommunicable Name of God the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord and yet not Three Lords but One Lord. Not three Iehovahs but one Iehovah For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord so are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say There be Three Gods or Three Lords Which are so many particular Explications or Illustrations of what was before said in general of not Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which Explications though they be all true and necessary Consequents of what was before said in general yet to none of them is annexed such Sanction as that whosoever doth not Believe or not Understand these Illustrations cannot be saved 'T is enough to Salvation if they hold the true Faith as to the substance of it though in some other form of words or though they had never heard the Athanasian Creed Nor is any such Sanction annexed to the Personal Properties which next follow The Father is made of none neither Created nor Begotten The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Begotten but Proceeding Where by the way here is no Anathematization of the Greek Church of which those who would for other reasons disparage this Creed make so loud an out-cry 'T is said indeed He doth proceed and so say they but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son And 't is said He is Of the Father and Of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some way or other and even this I suppose they would not deny but whether by procession from both or if so whether in the same manner it is not said but warily avoided Though indeed it seems to favour what I think to be the truth and what in the Nicene Creed is said expressly that he doth proceed from both and for ought we know in the same manner which yet we do not determine Nor do I see any reason why on this account we should be said to Anathematize the Greek Church or they to Anathematize us even though we should not exactly agree in what sence he may be said to be Of the Father and in what Of the Son And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and the Languages of the present Greek Churches than most of us are do assure us that the differences between them and us are rather in some forms of expressions than in the thing it self However those who would make so great a matter of this should rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed than the Athanasian where it is expresly said of the Holy Ghost that he proceedeth from the Father and from the Son 'T is not therefore for the phrase Filioque that they are so ready to quarrel at this Creed rather than the Nicene but from some other reason and most likely because the Doctrine of the Trinity is
here more fully expressed than in that at which the Socinian is most offended I observe also That these Personal Properties are expressed just by the Scripture words Beget Begotten Proceeding without affixing any sence of our own upon them but leaving them to be understood in such sence as in the Scripture they are to be understood Agreeable to that modest Caution which is proper in such Mysteries It follows So there is One Father not three Fathers One Son not three Sons One Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts And in this Trinity none is afore or after other That is not in Time though in Order None is greater or less than another But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truly persons or properly persons and co-eternal each with other and co-equal Having thus finished these particular Explications or Illustrations concerning the Trinity without any condemning Clause of those who think otherwise other than what is there included namely that if this be True the contrary must be an Errour He then resumes the General as after a long Parenthesis So that in all things as is aforesaid the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be Worshipped And to this General annexeth this Ratification He therefore that will he saved must thus think of the Trinity or thus ought to think of the Trinity or Let him thus think of the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to this I suppose we do all agree who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true For if the thing be true those who would be saved ought to believe it He then proceeds to the Doctrine of the Incarnation Which he declares in general as necessary to salvation Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which is no more than that of Iohn 3. 36. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And therefore we may safely say this also There being no other Name under Heaven whereby we must be saved neither is there Salvation in any other Acts 4. 12. After this as before he had done of the Doctrine of the Trinity he gives first a general Assertion of his being God and Man and then a particular Illustration of his Incarnation For the right Faith is that we believe and confess That our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man What follows is a further Explication of this General God of the substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds And Man of the substance of his Mother born in the World Perfect God and perfect Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and Inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood Who although he be God and Man yet he is not Two but One Christ. One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God One altogether not by Confusion of Substance but by Unity of Person For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man so God and Man is One Christ. And thus far as to the Description of Christ's Person and Natures The Particulars of which I take to be all true and therefore such as ought to be believed when understood But such many of them as persons of ordinary capacities and not acquainted with School Terms may not perhaps understand Nor was it I presume the meaning of the Pen-man of this Creed that it should be thought necessary to Salvation that every one should particularly understand all this but at most that when understood it should not be disbelieved That in the general being most material That Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man the rest being but Explicatory of this Which Explications though they be all true are not attended with any such clause as if without the explicite knowledge of all these a man could not be saved He then proceeds to what Christ hath done for our Salvation and what he is to do further at the last Judgment with the Consequents thereof Who Suffered for our Salvation Descended into Hell Rose again the third day from the Dead That Clause of descending into Hell or Hades 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we meet with here and in the Apostles Creed as it is now read is not in the Nicene Creed nor was it anciently as learned Men seem to be agreed in what we call the Apostles Creed When or how it first came in I cannot well tell Nor will I undertake here to determine the sence of it The Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek Hades which here we translate Hell by which word we now-a-days use to denote the Place of the Damned was anciently used to signifie sometime the Grave sometime the Place State or Condition of the Dead whether good or bad And when Iob prays Iob 14. 13. O that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol as in the Hebrew or in Hades as in the Greek Septuagint certainly he did not desire to be in what we now call Hell but rather as we there translate it in the Grave or the condition of those that are Dead But what it should signifie here is not well agreed among learned Men. The Papists generally because that is subservient to some of their beloved Tenents would have it here to signifie the Place of the Damned and would have it thought that the Soul of Christ during the time his Body lay in the Grave was amongst the Devils and Damned Souls in Hell Others do with more likelyhood take it for the Grave or condition of the Dead and take this of Christ's descending into Hades to be the same with his being Buried or lying in the Grave The rather because in the Nicene Creed where is mention of his being Buried there is no mention of his descent into Hell or Hades And here in the Athanasian Creed where mention is made of this there is no mention of his being Buried as if the same were meant by both phrases which therefore need not be repeated And though in the Apostles Creed there be now mention of both yet anciently it was not so that of his descent into Hell being not to be sound in ancient Copies of the Apostles Creed If it signifie any thing more than his being Buried it seems most likely to import his Continuance in the Grave or the State and Condition of the Dead for some time And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say nothing of his coming out of Hell but only of his rising from the Dead But the words here stand undetermined to any particular sence
or wrong this is no fair play For hardly can any thing be so plain but that somebody may find a pretence to cavil at it It is enough for us therefore if it be thus meant without saying it is impossible to put a forced sence upon it But this would have spoiled his design in mustering up a great many forced sences not that he thinks them to be true for surely they be not all true and I think none of them are nor telling us which he will stick to but only that he may cast a mist and then tell us which is all that he concludes upon it the place is abscure he knows not what to make of it But when the Mist is blown off and we look upon the Words themselves they seem plain enough as to all the Points he mentions The Word which was with God and was God and by whom the World was made and which was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we saw his glory and of whom Iohn bare witness must needs be a Person and can be no other than our Lord Iesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary And this Word which was in the beginning and by whom the World was made must needs have been pre-existent before he was so born And this Word which was with God the true God and was God and by whom the World was made and who is one with the Father Joh. 10. 30. and who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. is no other God than God Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth And this plain sence the words bear without any force put upon them Without any Incoherence Inconsistence or Contradiction sâ—â—e that they do not agree with the Socinian Doctrine And there is no other way to avoid it but what Socinus adviseth in another case Quantacunque Vis verbis adhibenda putting a Force upon the words no matter how great to make them not to signifie what they plainly do Or else to say which is his last refuge that St. Iohn writes Nonsence But let him then consider Whether this do savour of that respect which he would have us think they have for the Holy Scripture and whether we have not reason to suspâ—â—t the contrary of some of them And Whether we have not reason to complain of their putting a forced sence upon plain words to make them comply with their Doctrine And lastly Whether it be not manifest that the true Bottom of their aversion from the Trinity whatever other subsidiary Reasons they may alledge is because they think it Nonsence or not agreeable with their Reason For set this aside and all the rest is plain enough but because of this they scruple not to put the greatest force upon Scripture Nor is there any other pretence of Nonsence in the whole Discourse save that he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Nonsence So that the whole Controversie with him turns upon this single Point Whether there be such Impossibility or Inconsistence as is pretended That of 1 Iohn 5. 7. There be three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One is wanting he says in some Copies And it is so and so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Copies But we will not for that quit the place For we have great reason to think it genuine If this difference of Copies happened at first by chance upon an oversight in the Transcriber in some one Copy and thereupon in all that were transcribed from thence it is much more likely for a Transcriber to leave out a line or two which is in his Copy than to put in a line or two which is not And if it were upon design it is much more likely that the Arians should purposely leave it out in some of their Copies than the Orthodox foist it in Nor was there need of such falsification since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes as strongly as to a Plurality of persons and of the Son in particular which was the chief controversie with the Arians as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as to all the Three And I think it is cited by Cyprian in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae before the Arian Controversie was on foot And therefore if it were done designedly and not by chance it seems rather to be razed out by the Arians than thrust in by the Orthodox And the Language of this in the Epistle suits so well with that of the same Author in his Gospel that it is a strong presumption that they are both from the same Pen. The Word in 1 Iohn 5. 7. agrees so well with the Word in Iohn 1. and is peculiar to St. Iohn and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Iohn 5. 7. with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iohn 10. 30. these three are One with I and the Father are One that I do not at all doubt its being genuine And that Evasion of his these three are one that is one in testimony will have no pretence in the other place where there is no discourse of Testimony at all but I and the Father are One unum sumus must be One Thing One in Being One in Essence For so Adjectives in the Neuter Gender put without a Substantive do usually signifie both in Greek and Latin and there must be some manifest reason to the contrary that should induce us to put another sence upon them The other place Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is not so slight an evidence as he would make it For whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred in the Name and taken to denote the joint Authority of Father Son and Holy Ghost admitting the person baptized into the Christian Church Or into the Name which this Answerer seems to like better and taken to denote the Dedication of the person baptized to the joint Service or Worship of Father Son and Holy Ghost Baptism it self being also a part of Divine Worship They are all conjoined either as in joint Authority or as joint Objects of the same Religious Worship and for ought appears in the same Degree And Socinus himself doth allow the Son to be Worshipped with Religious Worship as Adoration and Invocation as Lawful at least if not Necessary Now when this Answerer tells us of the First Commandment Thou shalt have no other God but me the God of Israel He might as well have remembred that of Christ Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And therefore since Socinus and other of his followers do allow Christ to be Worshipped they must allow him to be God even the God of Israel And I am mistaken if he be not expresly called the Lord God of Israel Luke 1. 16. Many of the children of Israel shall he John the Baptist turn to
the Lord their God for he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias c. Now he before whom Iohn the Baptist was to go in the spirit and power of Elias is agreed to be our Lord Jesus Christ 't is therefore He that is here called the Lord God of Israel And we who own him so to be Worship no other God in Worshipping him It is those who do not own him so to be and do yet Worship him that are to be charged with Worshipping another God Now when here we find Father Son and Holy Ghost all joined in the same Worship we have reason to take them all for the same God and that these Three are One. And do say as willingly as he Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is One God Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God As God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are One God And what in the Old Testament are said of God indefinitely without taking notice of this or that of the three Persons are in the New Testament attributed some to one some to another of the three Persons That which makes these Expressions seem harsh to some of these men is because they have used themselves to fansie that notion only of the word Person according to which Three Men are accounted to be Three Persons and these Three Persons to be Three Men. But he may consider that there is another notion of the word Person and in common use too wherein the same Man may be said to sustain divers Persons and those Persons to be the same Man That is the same Man as sustaining divers Capacities As was said but now of Tully Tres Personas Unus sustineo And then it will seem no more harsh to say The three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God than to say God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are one God which I suppose even to this Answerer would not seem harsh or be thought Nonsence It is much the same thing whether of the two Forms we use And all the Cavils he useth may be equally applied to either What answer therefore he would give to one who should thus object against the latter form will serve us as well to what he objects against the former If therefore the Gentleman please to consider it calmly he will find that even amongst men though another person do many times denote another man and thereupon the words are sometimes used promiscuously yet not always nor doth the word Person necessarily imply it A King and a Husband though they imply very different Notions different Capacities different Relations or different Personalities yet may both concur in the same Man Or in that sence wherein Person is put for Man in the same Person So a King and a Father a King and a Brother and the like And this Gentleman though in the Dialogue he sustain two Persons that of an Opponent and that of an Answerer or that of a Friend and that of an Adversary that so while one gives ill Language the other may give up the Cause yet they do not act each their own part so covertly but that sometime the vizard falls off and discovers the Man to be the same For though my Letter be answered by a Friend pag. 1. yet 't is the Neighbour that is weary of Writing p. 13. Now if Person in a Proper sence when applied to Men do not imply that different Persons must needs be so many different Men much less should it be thought Nonsence when in a Metaphorical sence it is applied to God that different Persons in the Deity should not imply so many Gods Or that three Somewhat 's which we call Persons may be One God Which is what I undertook to prove And having made this good I need not trouble my self to name more Texts though many more there be which give concurrent evidence to this truth or discourse the whole Controversie at large which was not the design of my Letter For himself hath reduced it to this single Point When St. Iohn says The Word was with God and the Word was God if by the Word be meant Christ and by God the true God Whether in so saying St. Iohn do not speak Nonsence And if I evince this not to be Nonsence as I think I have done he grants the place is to the purpose Which quite destroys the Foundation of the Socinian Doctrine Without being obliged to prove that these Persons are just such Persons and so distinct as what we sometime call Persons amongst Men but with such Distinction only as is agreeable to the Divine Nature and not such as to make them Three Gods Like as when God the Father is said to Beget the Son not so as one man Begets another nor is the Son so a Son as what we call Son amongst Men but so as suits with the Divine Nature which How it is we do not perfectly comprehend I have now done with him But I have one thing to note upon what I have before said of the Athanasian Creed I there read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because I so find it in the Copy I used which is that at the end of the Greek Testament in Octavo Printed at London by Iohn Bill 1622 with Robert Stephan's Ioseph Scaliger's and Isaac Casaubon's Annotations But in Whitaker's Greek Testament reprinted by this Copy 1633 I since find it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Edition I suppose is followed by some others I take the former to be the better reading as giving a clearer sence and that the Correcter of the Press had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intending thereby to mend the Greek Syntax because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows but doth I think impair the sence But as to the Doctrine it is much one whether we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what I have said of that whole Creed is chiefly intended for those who do believe the Doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's Incarnation that there is no reason in my opinion why they should not allow of that Creed But such as do not believe those Points cannot I grant approve the Creed And it is these I suppose who would fain have others to dislike it also FINIS Joh. 9. 6. Joh. 11. 43. 44. Gen. 1. 3. Psal. 33. 9. Numb 17. 8. Isai. 56. 3. Gen. 18. 11 12. Rom. 4. 19. Luke 1. 35. Gen. 1. 2. 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. Rom. 1. 22. Joh. 3. 8 12. Mat. 8. 26 27. Phil. 1. 21 23 24. Job 33. 13. * 2 de Orat. * What we render who is in Rom. 9. 5. is in the Greek not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that Is which in Rev. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and elsewhere is used as a peculiar Name or Title proper to God Almighty and answers to I AM Exod. 3. 14. I AM hath sent me unto you Of the same import with Iah and Iehovah And what is said of God indefinitely without respect to this or that Person in the Godhead at Rev. 1. 4. for Christ in particular is contradistinguished Ver. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him that Is and was and is to come is at Ver. 8. applied in particular to Christ I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end saith the Lord which IS and was and is to come the Almighty Which closeth the description of Christ that begins at Ver. 5. And that by the Lord is here meant Christ is evident from the whole context Ver. 11 13 17 18 and the whole Second and Third Chapters And so the description of Christ Rom. 9. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its full Emphasis is thus that BEING over all or the Supreme Being God blessed for ever or the ever blessed God Amen And there will be need of Socinus's Expedient quantacunque Vis Pauli verbis adhibenda to make it signifie any other God than God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth