the Gnosticks and Nicolaitans whose deeds God hated Mahomet was of the same Opinion with those Hereticks for though the Doctor says he professed all the Articles of the Christian Faith yet it 's evident he denied the Deity of Christ though he owned him to be a true Prophet and Messenger of God in which respect the Doctor might say he owned as much of the Christian Faith as the Socinians do and we may say he was for a Naked Gospel as well as the Doctor The Question therefore which the Doctor makes whether Mahomet or Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel and hindred the success of it is easily resolved for the Gnosticks Cerinthians Ebionites c. all which called themselves Christian Doctors and Reformers of the Gospel as he calls Mahomet Were those Christian Doctors who by their corrupt and Antichristian Errors defamed the Gospel and opposed the Deity of its Author And these and such others made way for Mahomet by shewing that they held a Gospel whereof every Article was to be found in the Alchoran And had our Doctor lived in the days of Mahomet it 's not unlike but he might have been one of those Christian Doctors that would have reformed the Gospels according to the Alchoran As for any new Additions or Impositions in Matters of Faith the Doctor knows the Church of England utterly disclaims them And to avoid such traditionary Impositions the Church of England retaining whatsoever is agreeable to the Scriptures and Primitive Churches hath reformed herself from all the corrupt Innovations and Impositions of the Church of Rome as well in Matters of Doctrine as of Government and Discipline And now to the Doctor 's Question Whether Mahomet or the Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel c. This was the Tempting Opportunity says the Doctor offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a Reformer Sir W. Temple p. 107. of the Second Part of his Essays may inform him who was the fore-runner of Anti-Christ as the Fathers termed Arius About the Year 600 the time when Mahomet appeared the Provinces of the East were over-run with Arianism who denied or undermined the Divinity of Christ and allowed only his Prophetical Office The Countries of Arabia and Egypt were filled with great numbers of the scattered Jews who on the destruction of their Country in Adrian's time had fled into these Provinces to avoid the utter ruine of their Nation threatned by that Emperour Arabia and Egypt were inhabited by Gentiles who were given to pleasures and Riches Mahomet to humour and comply with these three sorts of men and by assistance of Sergius a Monk an Arian Heretick who fearing the Censure of the Church of Constantinople which then resolved to suppress that and the Heresie of the Monothelites fled into Arabia and was entertained by Mahomet's Master where he grew into acquaintance with Mahomet and became his only Confident framed a Scheme of Religion which might take in the common Opinions and Dispositions of all those three Parties which yet might be agreeable to his own temper and designs He professed One God Creator of the World and that God sent Moses his first and great Prophet to give his Laws to Mankind which were not obeyed by the Jews nor received by the Gentiles therefore in later Ages he sent Christ who was the second Prophet and greater than Moses to preach his Laws in greater purity but to do it with gentleness patience and humility which found no better reception or success among Men than Moses had done and therefore God had now sent his last and greatest Prophet Mahomet to publish his Laws with more Power to subdue them by Force and Violence who would not willingly receive them that such as would not obey should be ruined but the obedient should have the possession of his and their Enemies as a Reward in this Life and a Paradise hereafter with all sensual enjoyments especially of beautiful Women newly created for that purpose these prevailed with Arians Jews and Gentiles in those parts c. Hence it appears what this Reformer was and what were the tempting opportunities which he laid hold on To please the Jews Mahomet observed Circumcision in imitation of Abraham and recommended to them the Laws of Moses to please the Gentiles he permitted Polygamy to the number of four Wives and as many Concubines as they could maintain and to please the Christians he permitted them to have a Naked Gospel and a Natural Faith in Christ as a Messenger of GOD greater than Moses but not God or the Saviour of the World for they deny that he was crucified but was taken up alive into Heaven but these are not all the Articles of the Christian Faith he denied the Crucifixion of our Saviour his Resurrection Ascention and that he should come to Judge the World to reward or punish Men according to their Works Sandius p. 347. mentioneth some other of Mahomet's Doctrines As that God is One both in Essence and Person and that there are not Father Son and Holy Ghost that Christ is to be worshipped but not with that Divine Worship as his Lord and God is He says That Jews and Gentiles and every one that worshippeth and feareth God and doth Good Works may be saved and he quotes Baronius saying That the Mahomitans do worship Christ as the Arrians and Nestorians do p. 348. The Author of Mahomet's Life Printed before the English Alchoran says He was ordained to be a Scourge for the Christians who in multitudes at that time had forsaken the Truth to follow the Sects and Heresies of the Arrians Nestorians Donatists and others By such as these the Candlestick by God's just Judgment was removed out of the Asian Churches at first and the pure Light of the Gospel is much darkned in these later Ages by Anti-Trinitarians Servetians and Socinians who have well nigh extinguished that Gospel which is the Light of the World and would leave Mankind as naked and as much ashamed as our first Parents when they had eaten of the forbidden Fruit. I confess that when I first read that Mahomet profest all the Articles of Christ's Faith I was not aware that the Doctor might mean according to his New Gospel or the Socinian Creed but on enquiry into the Alchoran and computation of Time when the Alchoran was written viz about the year 600 before which time the whole World as St. Hierome observed was become Arrian and Sergius the Monk that had a chief hand in contriving it was an Arrian I found that the Doctor makes a very great Agreement in Matters of Faith between the Alchoran and his Naked Gospel so that as he says Mahomet set up for a Reformer of the Gospel in his time so we have another Sergeus who sets up for a Reformer of the Gospel according to the Alchoran in our time as by the following particulars will appear The English Alchoran as it is Reprinted 1688 is that
effectual opperative Faith which all that profess to believe both these Articles have not and to which we appropriate Salvation and therefore the Doctor 's disputing in general of a Notional Faith and a Credulity as he calls it and under that Notion condemns is a Sophistical way of arguing much worse than any that Volkelius himself is guilty of for he discourseth of such a Faith as includes Repentance and Evangelical Obedience not such as is the effect of Natural Reason but of the Opperation of the Spirit of Patefaction as he calls it but more plainly such as he describes from St. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man such as he saith are all that are destitute of the Divine Spirit doth not understand the things of the spirit of God and v. 9. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard nor the mind conceived what things God hath prepared for them that love him but God hath revealed them to us by his spirit Spiritu Patifactionis l. 3. c. 14. If these and other Opinions of Volkelius be compared with our Doctor 's Natural Faith it would appear to any impartial Reader that the Doctor is the grosser Socinian of the two On this Subject he spends several Chapters the Contents of the first is to shew he says in what sence Faith justifies but indeed he shews that it doth not justifie and first he condemns it as the unhappy Occasion of the Gnosticism which so much troubled St. Paul by corrupting the Disciples minds from the Simplicity of the Gospel which is all he says and he might as well charge good Laws with all the Villanies that are committed against them for the Scripture had foretold there must be Heresies and there would be Schisms and that men would walk after their own lusts and deny the Lord that bought them though the Evangelical Faith do no more cause these than the Sun doth those Works of Darkness which are committed in its light To make amends for this he says 2ly That it is so happy as to be honoured by our Lord and his Apostles as to be made the sole Condition of our Salvation But after this he asks p. 10. And now what need of Repentance of running the Gantelope of Mortification crossing our Appetites and afflicting our Souls As if the Doctrine of Faith did not include or presuppose Repentance or as if any sort of Repentance were available without Faith and as if the merit of good Works were a necessary and efficacious Ingredient to the Cause of Justification for thus he joyns Justification by Works upon account of Natural Religion with Justification by Faith upon account of the Gospel Hence in the 12th Page he makes a large Harangue Col. 2. What are the great merits of Faith which may any way entitle it to so great a Reward as Everlasting Life Whatever can pretend to worth must make its claim good by shewing how it partaketh the Nature of God who is the first Good but to be credulous is so far from the power of Divine Life that it is a plain confession of Weakness it is nothing else but leaning on another for want of knowledge of its own The simple believeth every word but a wise man looketh well to his going said the wisest of all Men and experience tells us that Children and Dotards Women and Fools the Sick and Ignorant are most easie and by how much any Man is wiser by so much he is warier that he be not imposed on Had it any worth we should have heard of it in Moses and the Prophets and the Philosophers would have allowed it a place among the Vertues and the Old Testament mentions it but once or twice and that not by way of Precept but occasionly and what reward can it possibly deserve if I believe either I do it on good reason or not if I see good reason for my belief I cannot deserve reward because no Man can choose but must necessarily believe as far as reason requires if I believe without reason then I am a Fool and so far from deserving a reward that I deserve blame and if it seem hard to justify our Lord's wisdom in promising so great a reward to a performance that deserves none at all it will appear no less so to justify his goodness in imposing such a Task no less difficult than worthless for whereas no small part of the good Tidings of the Gospel is our Manumission from the Burden of Moses's Law the Yoke of Christ will seem harder of the two it is easier for a rich Man to sacrifice whole Hecatombs when he hath Wealth enough to purchase them than to pull out his Eyes yet can a Man easier pull out the eye of his Body than his Reason which is not only the eye but the heart for it is his very definition without which he cannot be a Man it is God's Image and the Apostle exhorts us to put on the new Man which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him Now that God should print his Image in our hearts require us to renew it yet promise eternal Life for reward if we deface it is a saying harder to be believed than all the Ceremonies of Moses's Law were to be practised This and more says he is objected against Faith in general and against what Faith but in particular against that of the Holy Trinity and the Eternal Deity of Christ Now when the Doctor so industriously suggests all these Objections against Faith and takes no care to assoile them he betrays that Cause which he would seem to defend as it will appear in his fourth Chapter The Socinians affirm with our Doctor That nothing must be believed that cannot be apprehended and understood by Reason To this we say that it is not contrary to any Principle of right Reason that the Eternal Creator and Law-giver in revealing his will should propose Articles to be assented to upon his own Authority revealing them though his Creatures cannot by their Reason apprehend how those Articles should be true Divine Faith is grounded on a Divine Testimony as it is Divine T 〈…〉 de Pae 〈…〉 Neque enim quia bonum est id circo ausculture debemus sed quia Deus precepit For we do obey the Command not because we judge it good but because God commands it And as St. Augustin Judicatur ad id quod possumus creditur ad quod non possumus How can the corrupt and finite reason of Man comprehend the Reasonableness of an Alwise and Infinite God We allow to all Governors some Arcana Imperii which the Vulgar cannot judge of and shall we not allow it to the only Wise God the Governor of the World is there nothing above the sphear of natural Reason How then comes it to pass that it is baffled in so many natural things in Sympathies and Antipathies and Occult Qualities the Effects whereof are demonstrated but the Causes cannot be known And shall Man
Reason doth correct as an Oar in the Water seems broken to the view of the eye which Reason tells us is still strait and sound and Reason demonstrates the Sun to be more than Two hundred times greater than the Globe of the Earth though to our sight it appear not above four or five Foot in diameter Why may not the eye of Faith as much excel that of Reason as that of Reason doth the corporeal sence As for the Quotations of Volkelius from Rom. 12.1 Of our reasonable service it doth not prove that Evangelical Worship as prescribed ought to be measured by human Reason but implies that such Worship is just and reasonable as well as spiritual in opposition to the carnal Worship under the Law where Sheep and Doves were offered to God which were unreasonable Creatures and dead Sacrifices whereas now we are to offer up ourselves a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God in which respect it is called a reasonable Service The Platonists were Masters of as much Natural Reason as the Socinians and if they on I know not what Tradition and Enquiry did believe a plurality of Persons in the Godhead it is strange that the Socinians by the help of the Scripture should not yield their assent The Platonists had no temptation nor interest to lead them to the Notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but perhaps some Tradition from the Jews which their Reason judged probable St. Basil on the words of St. John 1.1 In the beginning was the word says I have known many that had not the knowledge of the Scripture to magnifie this Truth St. Aug. l. 10. c. 29. de Civitate Dei speaks of a Platonist that was wont to say That the beginning of St. John 's Gospel whom yet he counted a Barbarian was worthy to be written in Letters of Gold and preached in the greatest Congregations That in many Books of the Platonists mention was made of God and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Son whom Zenon stiled the Maker of the World And Numenius calls God Creantis Dei Patrem The Father of that God that created the World And what is yet more to be admired some Platonists reckoned the Word or Reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the beginning to be with God and to be God by whom was made whatever was made that he descended into a Body and put on Flesh but even then manifested the Dignity of his Nature Of these we may say That they were Naturaliter Christiani as Tertullian doth And they spake the same sense though not with the same affection for the Platonists speak of Three Principles the First they call the Being the Second Reason the Third the Soul of the World The Being begets Reason not by a Decree or Act of Will but by Nature as Fire begets Heat and Light and Reason produceth the Soul of the World Platinus says The Father and Reason are One and the same Being coexistent and not forsaking each other The Enneads wherein he speaks this is entituled Concerning the Three Hypostases Amelius another Platonick says according to that of St. John That Plato taught That in the beginning was Reason and Reason was with God and was God that she made all Things and was the Light of Man Justin Martyr says That Christ was known in part to Socrates under the Notion of Reason which foretold things future and taking the same Infirmities as we hath instructed us by himself And that the Opinions of Plato are not very remote from those which we have of Christ St. Augustine agrees with him that changing a few Words and Sentences they would become Christians as some of the later Platonicks have done And Tertullian says That when the Christians say that God made the World by his Reason they speak after the manner of the Sage Heathen Tertul. Apology Now if the Heathen saw so much by whatever means as to give their assent to a plurality of Hypostases or Personalities in the Godhead our Masters of Reason the Socinians seem to contradict the wiser sort of Philosophers as well as the generality of Christians in their Opinions Those that write the History of the Pagans in America do assure us that among some of them there are Notions of the Trinity still preserved and it is supposed that by Tradition from the Ancient Jews and Chaldeans in whose Cabala there were some dark Speeches concerning the Trinity which though they were careful not to make known to the Heathen yet some Notions of it were entertained and spread abroad into the World Having shewn in what sence the Ancient Greek Philosophers understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may very much confirm the sence of St. John if it appear that among the Jews the same signification was familiarly received and this will appear from the Targum where in Expounding the 110th Psalm these words The Lord said to my Lord sit thou c. they read The Lord said to his Word which Targum was written about the same time when the Gospel of St. John was and Philo who lived about the same time calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest agreeably to what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of our Saviour says chap. 4.12 For the word of God is quick and powerful and to explain what he meant he adds Seeing therefore we have a great High Priest passed into the heavens c. In this sence the Hellenists used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius says That the Ancient Jews and Christians teach That when an Angel in the Old Testament is called Jehova it was not a meer Angel but cui ad fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such appearances we often read of in the Old Testament So that the Notion of the Messias did pass among the Jews for the Son of God under the Name of the Word of God The Gnosticks also and Cerinthus used it in the same sence which gave occasion to St. John to describe our Saviour by that Word which was left known in those days and to assert the Divinity of our Saviour under that Word which he doth so effectually that the Socinians finding they could not object against it have thought on a New Exposition and a New Creation made by this Word which as it hath no Foundation being ex nihilo so it resolves into nothing but the Word of God shall endure for ever And this is his Name The Word of God Rev. 19. So the Syriack Translators of St. John's Gospel gives it this Preface In the Name of our Lord and of our God Jesus Christ and the like to the other Gospels and Epistles and they celebrate a Festival in commemoration of the Mother of God Because Philo was a Jew and one well skilled in the Greek as well as the Hebrew Idioms which were in use about our Saviour's time it is worth our observation how he speaks of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
was apparently designed by the Compilers for some special use to fence the Catholick Faith from the Corruptions Depravations Doubtings and Contradictions of Hereticks as in the Nicene Creed the Oneness of our Lord Jesus Christ was added when the Arians opposed the Apostolick Tradition and by corrupting detected the words of Scripture to their sence which Dr. H. shews more largely in his Note on 1 Joh. 5.7 and of such Additions he says That when the Church hath thought meet to erect an additional Bulwark against Hereticks such as reject them may be deemed to side with those Hereticks p. 86. And this is the summ of what he says concerning the Athanasian Creed the Doctrine whereof he says is well nigh all to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Persons against those Hereticks who had brought Novel Propositions into the Church of which Doctrinal part he says that Athanasius being only a Father of the Church they were not necessary to be explicitely acknowledged nor absolutely imposed on any but such as were Members of some Church that had actually received Athanasius's Explication or than it appeared concordant with the more authentick universal Confessions as every Doctrinal Proposition of it will be found to do As for the Damnatory Sentences Dr. Ham. supposeth them to be interpreted in opposition to those Heresies that had invaded the Church not that it defined it to be a damnable sin to fail in understanding or believing the full matter of any of those Explications Dr. Ham. having as a wise Master Builder laid this Foundation shews how necessary it is for the end of building on it a holy Life and an uniform universal Obedience to the Commands of Christ in opposition to Idolatry Formality Hypocrisie and to Sacriledge Profaneness and Impiety as also to improve the Vertues of Obedience to Superiours Charity to all Mankind Purity of Flesh and Spirit Contentedness and taking up the Cross and lastly how useful it is to confute false Doctrines 1. Of the Romanists as Penances Indulgences of Supererrogating Merits of Attrition improved into Contrition by the Priest's aid without change of Life Dispensableness of Oaths Arts of Equivocation Purgatory Cessation of Allegiance and especially of Infallibility 2ly Of the Solifidians and Fiduciaries the Predestinarians and irrespective Decrees of Election and Reprobation of the Divine Prescience against the Socinians who deny that God foresees all things and though they grant his Omnipresence and Omnipotence yet question the infinity of his Science which is apparently false as appears by God's Predictions to the Prophets When I considered the Writings of both these Doctors their Foundations and Superstructures it brought to my mind those two sorts of Builders and Building mentioned by our Saviour Mat. 7. the one built on that approved Rock of St. Peter 's Confession the other on that Sand whereon Arius Socinus and that Man of an ominous Name Sandius pitcht their Tabernacles the one stands firm tho' for 1600 Years the Rain descended Flouds came and the Wind blew on it the other tho' like the Walls of Jerusalem it hath been often attempted to be fastned hath still been blown down and may the Fall of it be still great P. 41. c. 2. Our Doctor says If the Relation between the written Word and rational Consequence be so remote as none but a skilful Herald can derive its Pedigree then is a good Christian no more obliged to believe such an Inference than is every good Subject to be a good Herald As if the Ignorant were no ways obliged to follow the Directions of the wise and good Men or as if Subjects were not bound to obey those Laws whereof they cannot ken those Reasons which the wise and consulting Legislators on good Reasons have established for their Security What tho' the Papists do most absurdly infer from Christ's Command to St. Peter to feed his Lambs that all those Popes which pretend to be his Successors are thereby commissioned to Rule and Govern all Nations and Persons in all Ages Cannot so enquiring a Person as the Doctor or one that is more or one that is less rational from such Scriptural premises as God was made Flesh Christ is God over all equal and one with his Father with undeniable Reason infer as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath done That he is the Eternal Son of God But such an Inference is so contrary to the Socinian's Reason that it is equally rejected with contempt and derision as Popish Impositions and by the Doctor numbred among them But Bernardus non videt omnia He undertakes therefore to bless the World with such a description of them that it shall be as easie to know them without pains or art as it was for the meanest Beggar in the street to understand whom King Ahasuerus would Honour when he caused Mordecai in Royal Manner to be publickly honoured and by Proclamation enjoyned the People to bow the Knee as he past by them The Qualifications for Matter of Faith he says must be these 1. It must be easie to be understood by the meanest capacity and therefore he rejects any thing that is called a Mystery though God manifested in the Flesh be so called by the Apostle yea though the same Mystery be implied in that very Scripture which he quotes to prove his assertion viz. Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus i. e. that Jesus is the Lord which no man can say but by the Holy Ghost i. e. not by a natural Faith but by a supernatural Revelation such as our Saviour says Flesh and blood hath not revealed And it is observable that though in the Title of this Chapter he mentioneth the Word as well as the Matter to be believed yet he makes no mention of the Word by which the Person of our Saviour is generally understood so that Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ the Foundation of our Faith is excluded from being the Object of our belief for he writes the WORD in a larger Character which might induce the Reader to believe that he meant as St. John 1.1 The Son of God which is the adequate Object of Christian Faith but speaks nothing of him in all that Chapter 2ly He says It must be an express Word of God This no Protestant denieth but they do generally urge it against the Papists who teach as necessary Articles of Faith the Commandments of Men And may we not conclude by this Position that they who oppugne such a Fundamental to which Eternal Life is promised may come short of Salvation Christ saith He that believes and is baptized this is but one entire proposition as our Author observes that it is not only he that believes but he that believes and is baptized and Salvation cannot belong to them that put asunder what Christ hath joyned as the Socinians do in the Case of Baptism which they call only a Rite and Ceremony 3ly He says It must be expresly honoured with
them that believed not Compare Psal 45. v. 6 7. with Heb. 1.8 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter He whose Throne is for ever and ever is God but Christ's Throne is for ever and ever therefore he is God Both these Propositions are express Scripture The next Scripture shall be that of Isai 7.14 A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and his name shall be called Emanuel compared with Mat. 1.23 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken viz. Isai 7.14 by the Prophet saying Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emanuel There is an Objection cast in our way which must be removed before we proceed Object It is said Matth. 1.21 The Angel of the Lord which appeard to Joseph told him that he should call his name Jesus How then was this of the Prophet fulfilled They shall call his name Emanuel Ans That Names are of two sorts some for distinction of Persons as proper Names others serve for Description of the Nature or Offices of a Person in the first respect he is called Jesus a Saviour there being no other Saviour but he for there is no other name given to man whereby he may be saved The other of Emanuel describes his Nature what he should be viz. God with us God manifested in the flesh So the same Prophet Isai 9.6 His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor c. And Jer. 23.6 This is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness And Luke 1.35 That which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God And it is observed that both the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New do signify to be as well as to be called Justin Martyr Tertullian and other Ancients solved this Objection made by the Jews Venit Emanuel quia venit quod Emanuel significat The Emanuel is come because he is come who was signified by that name God with us not only to reconcile us to God but to be God Incarnate The Argument then is this Emanuel is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in the Divine Essence Christ is Emanuel therefore he is God in the Divine Essence That the word God is to be understood of the most High God the Socinians grant But Crellius objects that the word est should be added and so the meaning is God is with us But when St. Matthew expounds the name without that Addition there is great Reason to reject it and if that had been the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the name as given by the Prophet St. Matthew would not have omitted it it being of great concern to the Glory of God and the Instruction of the Church The meaning of the Name therefore is not God is with us i. e. as says Crellius to help and assist us but Christ is God with us for the name Emanuel being put into English and applyed unto Christ it will appear whether St. Matthew or Crellius gives the best Interpretation This is St. Matthew's sence Christ is God with us i. e. God and Man And this is Crellius his Nonsence Christ God with Man is Is not this to add to and alter the sence of the Scripture Malach. 3.1 compared with Matth. 11.10 Behold I send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple This is he saith St. Matthew of whom it is written Behold I send my Messenger before thy face c. It is agreed that John the Baptist was this Messenger spoken of and the Argument is this He before whom John Baptist was to be sent to prepare his way is the God of Israel but Christ is he before whom John Baptist was to be sent c. therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is proved by Malachy where he that speaks is called the God of Israel and Lord of Hosts This Socinus grants The second Proposition is proved by St. Matthew applying it to Christ This is he of whom it is written c. The Sum of what is objected to this Argument is That the Text in Malachy is corrupted and instead of reading He shall prepare the way before me it should be read He shall prepare the way before thee But then how comes it to pass that no one Copy of that of Malachy or this in St. Matthew reads otherwise than we do He will not say they are all corrupted and we say none are corrupted But they ask How is it that what Malachy reads in the first Person He shall prepare the way before me Christ renders in the second Person He shall prepare the way before thee Ans This Objection will improve our Argument for when Malachy says He shall prepare the way before me which is spoken of the God of Israel and our Saviour renders it He shall prepare the way before thee and applys it to himself this proves that Christ was that God of Israel who spake in Malachy and so proves the Identity of the Essence of God the Father and the Son Moreover by comparing this place of Malachy with the Interpretation which our Saviour gives of it in St. Matthew we infer from Malachy the Unity of the Essence of the God of Israel and Christ and from that in Matthew we learn a distinction of Persons which had not been so intelligible if Christ had not changed the first Person or the word my into the second Person or the word thy in St. Matth. Deut. 6.13 compared with Matth. 4.10 the words are the same Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve The Argument is this He that is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship is the God of Israel Christ is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is express Scripture the second is granted by the Socinians therefore the Conclusion is undeniable Crellius when he would prove that Christ is not the true God from Joh. 20. This is life eternal to know thee only the â—rue God says That the word only excludes all others from being the true God Schichtingius is of another mind and says That this particle only when it is spoken of God doth not exclude those that depend on God in the thing spoken of Now if Crellius speaks the truth then Christ is not to be worshipped because the word only excludes him If Schichtingius speaks the truth then Christ may be the true God because the word only doth not exclude him Volkelius says That seeing Christ is subordinate to God in worshipping of Christ we worship God who hath given him so great Power and Dignity Ans This is against the Command that excludes all others for if Christ be a Man wholly distinguished