Father then improves it to an Unity in Power and Honour and then leaves men to conclude from thence an Unity of Nature This is the most rational way of teaching for positive affirmations tell us things are so but Natural and necessary consequences such as these are prove they must be so Therefore though the Father is greater than the Son as the Father is of himself and is God only while the Son is of the Father and is both God and Man yet the Son is equal to nay One with the Father in Operation and if in Operation then in Power and if in Power then in Nature and therefore must be God He proceeds p. 5. to manage this Argument from Joh. 20. 17. I ascend to my God and your God whence he fancies the Son is not God because another is his God Answ As Christ is Man and we his Brethren so our God is his God This proves that he is Man but cannot prove he is not himself God which is the design of this Letter Nay as the Son is God of God i. e. God the Son of and from God the Father so the Father may be his God as well as his Father without weakning the Doctrine of his Divinity So far is this Text from concluding his Point that it makes nothing against us He adds Joh. 12. 49. The Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment The Argument is the Son is not God because the Father commands and sends him Answ This hath been answered already For in what respects the Father is greater than the Son in the same respects the Father may command and send the Son But as the Father's being greater than the Son doth not destroy the Divinity of the Son because as before it doth not destroy his Nature so neither can his commanding and sending him because this Power flows as a right or consequence from his Superiority And if the Father's Superiority it self cannot destroy the Son's Divinity that Power which is implyed or wrapt up in the very Nature of that Superiority can never do it Arg. 2. P. 5 6. If Christ were God he could not be the Creature of God But that he is the Creature of God he would sain prove from two Scriptures the former is Heb. 3. 1 2. The High-Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ who was faithful to him that appointed him In the Greek and in the Margin it is faithful to him that made him Answ The meaning is that appointed or made him High-Priest respects not his Being but the Designation of him to that Office In this sence we use the Phrase of making a Bishop Yet this it seems is a Socinian Creation His other Text is Colos 1. 15. which calls him the First-born of every Creature whence he would have him to be but a Creature Answ He is the First-born of every Creature not in kind as one of them but in regard of an Existence prior to them Whence V. 17. He was before all things To this agrees that of St. John Ch. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word i. e. when all things first began then this Word this first-born was or did exist And both this Apostle and the Evangelist with one consent declare him not a Creature himself but the Maker of all Creatures for Colos 1. 16. By him were all things created And Joh. 1. 3. By him were all things made This drives the Socinian to three most palpable falshoods viz. 1. These words By him were all things created Colos 1. 16. are spoke say they not of Christ but of God Let. 4. P. 131. Answ They grant us P. 130. that V. 15. which runs thus the Image of the Invisible God and the First-Born of every Creature is spoke of Christ And consequently V. 16. must be spoke of him too because that word him by him were all things created cannot possibly have any other Antecedent than the Image of the Invisible God and the First-born of every Creature whence immediately follows this 16 V. For by him i. e. by this First-born were all things created They would have indeed the Invisible God to be the Antecedent that by him viz. the Father were all things created But Sence Coherence Grammatical Construction and other parallel Texts can never allow this Because 1. The subject of that 15th Verse is Christ who is called the Image and the First-born but those words the Invisible God are but an adjunct designed only to show us whose Image he is But now the Relative must respect the Subiect not that which is but a dependent upon it 2. These words the first-born of every creature do follow those words the invisible God for the Text runs thus The Image of the invisible God the first-born of every creature Therefore to these viz. the first born the Relative him must immediately refer that by him viz. Christ who is this Image this first-born were all things created Sometimes indeed a Relative may refer to not the next but a remoter Antecedent But this is only in two cases As either for the sake of sence or for the avoiding that interpretation which may contradict some other text but neither of these can be pretended in the case before us For the sence is as compleat and natural as well as the construction more easie if the Relative refer to the first-born as if it refer to the invisible God and the referring it to this first-born doth not contradict any text but concurs with all them that ascribe creation to the Son Therefore the Socinian can have no other reason for his construction but only the support of an Heresy 2. They say That all things were made not by but for him Answ This is totally over thrown by St. John ch 1. 3. By him were all things made and without him was not any thing made that was made Where observe that the Evangelist doth industriously secure thetitle of Creator to the Son 1. By an Universal Affirmative which includes all things made in the number of his Creatures for by him were all things made And 2. By an Universal Negative which denys there ever was any creature which was not created by him for without him was not any thing made that was made No Text saith so much in reference to the Father therefore they may at least as fairly deny the Father to be Creator as the Son and doubtless the design of the Holy Writer is to obviate and expose all Cavils against this Doctrine 3. They fly to a Metaphorical Creation that he did not make but renew all things after they were made Answ This is impossible for Colos 1. 16. By him were all things created that are in Heaven whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers By which the Socinian Let. 4. P. 133. understands Angelick Orders but the Holy Angels were not renewed for they kept their Stations and therefore did not want it And the fallen Angels were denyed it The same Letter
not true of one Person in the Trinity in reference to another For though God cannot come in the Name and by the Authority of a Creature yet the Son may come in the Name and by the Authority of the Father because though the Son is equal to the Father as God yet the Father is greater than the Son as Father For which reason Episcopius whom this Letter bespatters for an Arian Institut Theol. l. 4. c. 32. saith That the Son refers all things to the Father as the Fountain of the Deity of and from whom the Son is By this he rejects a Co-ordination but asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity and therefore at the same time both ruins these Objections and also establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity He proceeds God declares himself to be the prime object of Faith and Worship but the Son doth not so for John 12. 44. He that believes on me believes not on me but on him that sent me Answ Christ doth in this very Text propose himself as the object of Faith and Worship for he saith He that believes on me which asserts that men did believe on him and implys that they ought to do so what follows is but a qualification of the thing suitable to his subordination to his Father for such an one believes not on me that is solely or ultimately but on him that sent me i. e. on him as well as me by which he doth not exclude but include himself with the Father as the object of Faith and Worship This sense must be allowed else you run into these two absurdities viz. 1. You make the first clause assert what the second denyes and the second deny what the first asserts viz. That men do believe on him and yet do not believe on him thev do not believe and yet they believe still 2. These Scriptures which make Faith in Christ a condition of Salvation such as John 3. 36. He that believes on the Son hath Everlasting Life must be razed out of our Bibles But perhaps he may trifle upon that word prime object which hath nothing in it For if the Father be the prime object as he is the first Person in the Trinity yet the Father Son and Holy Ghost are the One and only object in regard of Nature But as the Texts he here quotes cannot serve his Hypothesis so there is One among them that totally destroys it viz. John 8. 42. I proceeded forth and came from God that is I am not from the Earth but from Heaven this is the Apostles sense Ephes 4. 9. That he ascended what is it but that he descended first Whence he did not first ascend to receive his Doctrine and Authority from God as Socinus dreams but he first descended from God with whom he was in the beginning John 1. 1. and with whom he was glorified before the World John 17. 5. Our sense falls in with variety of Scriptures which on every side confirm and support it but theirs labours with endless difficulties in wresting and perverting them that is an Argument of truth but this os falshood Argum. 5. pa. 9. God was always most wise but Christ increased in Wisdom Luke 2. 52. Answ The Text saith he increased in Wisdom and Stature which word Stature suits not a Divine Nature but an Human Body which shews that the Text speaks of him not simply as if in his whole Capacity without any exception he increased in Wisdom but only as Man and consequently this Text proves he is Man but doth not prove he is not God which is the design of this Argument This is a demonstration of a studied corruption of the truth for like the Devil he quotes but one part of the Text to the end he may pervert the whole He proceeds God was never ignorant of any thing but he makes it that Christ was ignorant of two 1. Of the place where Lazarus was buried John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him Answ This no more proves that he knew not the place than Gods asking Cain Gen. 4. 9. Where is Abel thy Brother doth prove that God knew not what was become of him How can we presume he was ignorant of this who of himself knew both his death and the time of it too That he would not in every thing give demonstrations of his Divinity is no argument against it 2. He pleads that Christ knew not the day of Judgment for Mark 13. 32. Of that day knows no Man in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none knows no not the Angels neither the Son but the Father St. Matthew ch 24. 36. adds but the Father only Answ He knew it not as Man but this doth not prove he is not God and did not know it as such For John 21. 17. He knew all things and therefore must know this or this must be nothing In 1 King 8. 39. God only knows the Hearts of Men but Joh. 2. 25. Christ knew what is in Man But to know the Hearts of Men and to know what is in Man are the same in Sense therefore Christ knows what God only knows and consequently Christ must be God and for that cause Omniscient Revel 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart This Let. 4. p. 154. doth acknowledge that Christ spoke of himself But this as we know is proper to God who alone can search the Heart Therefore our Savior's Application of it to himself is a Manifest Assertion of his own Divinity and consequently of his Omniscience which is inseparable from the Divine Nature Whence it must be that he knew it not as Man only but yet at the same time must know it as God But here the Socinian pleads that he knew many things not of himself but by Communication from the Father as the Prophets did 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil thou wilt do to the Children of Israel Therefore some extraordinary Knowledges in Christ do speak his knowledg no more Omniscient and Inherent than that of the Prophets So to this purpose p. 155. Answ These are very unlike Cases For 1. This Prophet knew this Man so far as concerned his future Dealing towards this People But this doth not prove that he knew this Man any farther or any other Man at all Whereas Joh. 2. 24. Christ knew all Men and v. 25. He knew what was in Man and therefore all that is in Man Which never was affirmed of any of the Prophets From which alone it appears that his Knowledge was much more extensive than any of the Prophets 2. He knew all things Joh. 21. 17. which imports an infinite Knowledge But an infinite Knowledge can never be Communicated to a finite Understanding Because there is an infinite Disproportion between the faculty and the object Therefore the Knowledge which Christ had speaks him infinite and that is God 3. This Hypothesis viz. that such a Knowledge can be Communicated to a Creature doth confound the Essential
but also to prove an inconsistency between this Scripture and this Doctrine This he doth not attempt not will ever be able to perform But it seems it is enough for a Socinian to start an Error and then leave it to the World in hope some may take it as the Man did the Snake into their Houses He proceeds God needs no aid of any other but Christ saith he that sent me is with me Answ The thing in Controversie is whether the Son be God as well as Man The Socinian brings this Text against us but if we at present only suppose that he is both which we must do till it be disproved he can never tell me why the Fathers presence with the Human Nature of Christ should necessarily imply a denial of his Divine Nature and consequently this Text is no due Medium whence to conclude his point He adds God cannot Pray for himself and People but Christ Prays for himself and Disciples Luk. 22. 42 Heb. 5. 7. c. Answ We Teach that Christ is both God and Man Now he Prayed for himself only as Man Luk. 22. 42. that this Cup viz. his Passion now at hand might pass from him He Prayed for others as Priest Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh he offered up Prayers Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God that is to say his Praying must hinder the Human Nature from being united to the Divine for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason Nay as Man he dyed yet notwithstanding this was United to the Divinity And if his Death could not hinder this Union much less can his Praying But to shew the weakness of this Argument we will add though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God for so there is nothing above him yet he may Pray considered personally as the Son of God viz. the Father for as Son he is subordinate to the Father and consequently as Son may Pray the Father This is an Argument then no more to his purpose than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Travels or Noah's Planting a Vinyard He urges farther Christ Dyed and the Father raised him from the Dead Ephes 1. 19 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God He that dyed and was raised must be Man but his Argument implies that he who raised him must be God which is enough to our purpose For he raised himself John 2. 19. destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which v. 21. saith he spake of the Temple of his Body Therefore according to his own Hypothesis the Son must be God as well as Man But the Socinian pretends Let. 3. p. 89. That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father and accordingly his being raised is always attributed to the Father not to himself Answ This is false for that Text doth attribute it to himself I will raise it up Therefore either the Son must be the Father or else his Resurrection is not always attributed to the Father 2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father then he must be raised by the Father for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised and consequently he could not say I will raise it 3. This notion makes the Raiser and the raised to be the same which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker and the thing made to be the same Therefore when he saith I will raise it up he speaks not as Man for as such he was to be raised but as God who alone is the raiser of the dead And 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father for then those Texts of which some ascribe it to the Father others to the Son must be contradictory But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both because now both must be God or else they could not raise the dead His next Scripture which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me is already answered in Arg. 2. For this Power here given him respects only the Government of the Church to which he was now exalted which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion but this doth not prove that he had not antecedent to this a Power with the Father in the Government of the World This proves he had now a new Government but doth not prove that therefore he was not God because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World but yet was God Such additionals prove an alteration in the things added but not in those Divine Persons to whom they are added All the difference is this Power was given the Son True but this as before speaks the Son subordinate to the Father but doth not destroy his Nature by which he is God Argum. 7. p. 11. Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and is described to be the Son of God and the Image of God Answ He is personally distinct and therefore is not God the Father but he is not essentially distinct and therefore must be God the Son If the Socinian then would gain his point he must prove not only a distinction which we grant but such a distinction which we deny But he hath said that Christ is the Son of God and the Image of God whence he concludes p. 12. thus it is as impossible that the Son or Image of the one true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image be the very thing whose Image it is Answ Profoundly argued and like a a Socinian For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God when Father Son and Holy Ghost are together the one true God Therefore take the One true God and the invisible God personally for the Father only and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be that One true God because the Son cannot be the Father and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God because as he saith the Image cannot be that very thing whose Image it is But take the One true God and the invisible God essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost and then the Son with the Father and Holy Spirit is that One true God and the Image of the invisible God with the Father and Holy Ghost is that invisible God because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God because as an Image represents that very thing whose Image it is so the Son represents the Father as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both Whence
he saith John 14. 8. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father because as Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. glosses the Father is seen in the Perfections of the Son and consequently the Son must be of the same Nature with the Father Our Doctrine then is not simply impossible and contradictory to common sense as the Letter pretends but theirs is palpably false and absurd for all these Arguments as he calls them run upon these two false suppositions viz. 1. That there is but one Nature in Christ for he proves that Christ is Man and thence concludes he cannot be God when the Scriptures abundantly declare that he is both 2. That there is but one Person in the God-head for he often proves that Christ is not God viz. the Father as many of his quotations must be understood and thence concludes he is not God though the Scriptures prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Thus he supposes what we deny that there is but one Nature in Christ and but one Person in the God-head but proves only what we grant viz. that Christ is Man and that the Son is not the Father But let him prove first that there is but one Nature in Christ and then that Christ is Man and again first that there is but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head and then that the Son is not the Father from each of which it will follow that the Son cannot be God nothing less can conclude his point but this method of his proves nothing against us but only betrays the Socinians want either of Honesty or Judgment However he concludes his Arguments as he calls them with a Socinian Confidence asserting p. 13. that there is in Scripture no real foundation for the Divinity of the Son For proof of which he now flyes above common Argument and can stoop to nothing below Demonstration § Demonst 1. par 8. p. 13. So many Scriptures expresly declare that only the Father is God For proof of this he quotes John 17. 1 3. Father this is Eternal Life that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Answ The Letter saith that Only the Father is God which denyes the Son and Holy Ghost is God but this Text saith the Father is the only true God this excludes the Gentile Gods but not the Son and the Holy Ghost who with the Father are the only true God He here removes the exclusive particle only from the praediciate the true God to the subject thee for pardon the repetition the Apostle saith thee the only true God but the Socinian saith only thee the true God which is such a corruption of the Text contrary to all antient and authentick reading that utterly perverts the very sense and design of it You have then a Demonstration indeed not that only the Father is God but that the Scriptures and Socinianism are at odds and that the one or the other must be Reformed The next words and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent do Distinguish the Son from the Father as to Office so doth 1 Cor. 8. 6. there is but one God and One Lord but they do not Distinguish him as to Nature The same is true of other Quotations under this Head and consequently none of 'em prove what he undertakes viz. that only the Father is God Demonst 2. parag 9. p. 14. If Christ were God as well as Man it had been altogether Superfluous to give the Holy Ghost to his said Human Nature as a Director and a Guide For what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell His Quotations are Luke 4. 1. Act. 1. 2 and Ch. 10. 38. Which prove only this that the Holy Ghost was given to the Human Nature of Christ Which the poor Man thinks a Demonstrative proof that Christ was not United to the Eternal Word or Son of God and Consequently was not God 1. This Demonstration as he calls it is founded not upon Scripture but upon a Socinian Presumption For no Scripture saith that if the Son was God he should not have had the Presence and Conduct of the Spirit of God And certainly it is a Monstrous way of Arguing that this or that is necessary for God to have done or not to have done and then to conclude he hath or hath not done it For this is no better than to limit the Almighty to give Rules to Infinite Wisdom and to make not the Scripture but our own blind Conceits the Rule of our Faith In this way the Romanists Demonstrate an Universal Head of the Church Some the Divine Right of this or that Form of Church-Government and after the same Methods others may as well Demonstrate away all Religion and introduce what they please of their own 2. His Foundation is utterly false For the Church is the Body of Christ which Ephes 4. 15 16. is said to be fitly joyned to him our Head to intimate that he doth actuate and guide it and yet notwithstanding standing this the Spirit is sent to lead her into all Truth Where let the Socinian tell me why both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit may not guide the Human Nature as well as Myslical Body of Christ 3. It follows that the same works of God are ascribed now to one Person then to another Thus we find it in this of Conduct in that of Creation c. but this doth not destroy but rather declare and confirm the Doctrine of a Trinity Because it proclaims those Powers and Operations which the Socinian would Limit to one Person to be common to all three whence it follows that all three must be God Demonst 3. parag 10. p. 15. We have an Instance of this in the Demonstration now before us For he would not have the Son to be God because he Ascribes his Miracles to the Holy Spirit Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God Now this doth not prove the Son is not God any more than the Ascribing Creation to the Son doth prove that the Father did not Create But it is a good step toward the proving that the Holy Ghost is God For Miracles cannot be wrought but by a Divine Power therefore if the Holy Ghost hath such a Power of Miracles that they are wrought by him if he be a Person which we shall easily prove he must be a Divine Person and that is God Demonst 4. parag 11. p. 15. Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament would not Describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman Answ They Describe him as such but not barely as such for they Describe him also as God Thus Isa 40. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord make strait in the Desert an High way for our God This is evidently spoke of the Messias and the Evangelists
of Essences that is it teaches that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not the Father but yet one God This sense St. Paul expressed to the Ephesians and therefore must intend it to these Corinthians Now the Text thus explained is not only a benediction to this Church but also a Prayer to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that this Grace may descend upon it We never pray to God but we pray to Father Son and Holy Ghost which was the judgment of Antiquity For Justin Martyr who florished in the middle of the Age next after the Apostles saith in his Apologie we Christians worship Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet against gentile Polytheism in the same Apology declares that they worshiped God only therefore they must necessarily understand it that all three Persons together are that one God whom they worshiped and to whom they prayed which is one part of Worship But you will say what is the reason then we are not commanded to pray expresly and particularly to the Holy Ghost as we are to God Answ 1. In divers Scriptures God is put essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost therefore in those Scriptures all Commands and Examples of praying to God are to be understood inclusively of all three Persons who are essentially one and the same God 2. The Father is the first Person in the Trinity of and from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost are therefore as for this reason the Son refers things principally to the Father but not exclusive of himself so for the same reasons Prayers are directed principally to the Father but yet are to be understood inclusive of the Son and Holy Ghost but not exclusive of them 3. The Father is principal Agent in the Government of the World and the first mover in all Divine Operations saying to the Son and the Holy Ghost let us make Man whence the Son saith John 5. 17. my Father works hitherto and I works by which he speaks the Father principle Operator but himself a Co-operator with him Again the Son from the Father hath the Government of the Church whence it is called the Kingdom of Christ to which the Father Exalted him and from the Father and the Son the Holy Ghost is in the Ministration of it Upon which Accounts Prayers are directed primarily and expresly to the Father but yet are intended as extensive to the Son and Holy Ghost They are directed most particularly to him from his Priority of Order and Operation but yet they belong to all three in regard of the sameness of their Nature These things are suited to the Rules and Methods of the Divine Oeconomy and may seem difficulties but had our Considerer considered well he had never made them supports of an Heresie Consid 4. p. 19. If the Holy Spirit and our Lord Christ are God no less than the Father then God is a Trinity of Persons or three Persons but this is contrary to the whole Scripture which speaks of God as but one Person and speaks of him and to him by singular Pronouns such as I Thou We Him c. Answ We deny that any one Text of Scripture doth prove that God is but One Person He quotes Job 13. 7 8. Will ye speak wickedly for God Will ye accept his Person Whence he thinks there can be but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head To which we Answer thus 1. The letter of these Texts doth not say that God is but One Person Or that there is but one Person in the Godhead which is the thing to be proved 2. The Reason and Design of 'em cannot possibly import any such thing For these expressions are used to signifie only the doing unjustly for God as Men do for others when said to accept their Persons For Job hereby accuses his Friends of Injustice and Partiality in that they justified God's Visitations upon by Condemning him of Hypocrisie Therefore these Texts are not suited to the Nature of God nor designed to Determine whether there be only one or more Persons in the God head but to signifie unjust Censures and therefore must import not a Singularity or Plurality of Persons but only Partiality in their Judgment between God and himself Will ye speak wickedly for God and talk deceitfully for him Will ye accept his Person 3. Phrases that are taken from the common ufuages of Men or as common forms of Speech are not to be used in an Argument in which the Holy Pen-man did not intend them to the Contradiction of those Texts which professedly speak of that point this all Men of Reason and Judgment must grant me because in expounding Scripture we are to consider not only Words but Phrases together with the Scope and design of the place and if so it must be granted in this Case before us that these Texts in Jobe which concern not the Nature of God ought not to be brought to prove there is but one person in the God-head when so many Texts on set purpose declare the Divine Nature of three He quotes also Heb. 1. 1. 2 3 God hath spoken to us by his Son who being the express Image of his Person Answ 1. God here must signifie the Father because he speaks to us by his Son whence the Son is the Image of his Father's Person But however this doth not reach his Case for it proves indeed that God the Father is but one Person which we all grant But it doth not prove there is no other Person in the God-head which is the thing in controversie Nay 2. This Text is not only not for but is really against him For if the Son be the express Image of his Father he must duly Represent the Father as Images duly Represent those things whose Images they are And if he the Living Image of his Father duly Represents the Father he must have in himself all the Perfections of his Father and consequently must be infinite himself else he could not in his own Person or Nature Represent infinite Perfections and that he doth so is evident not only from his being Termed the Image of his Father but also from those words of his once quoted already Joh. 14. 8. he that hath seen me hath seen the Father So far is this Text from proving but one Person in the God-head that it consequentially introduces a second He cites Deut. 6. 4 5. the Lord our God is One the word is Jehovah whence the Letter saith Jehovah is one and that the Jews Morning and Evening Repeated this Verse to keep it in perpetual Memory that Jehovah or God is one only not two or three Answ The meaning is there is but One God which is spoke in opposition to Gentile Gods which the Jews were so much inclined to not that there is but One Person in the God-head which was never disputed among them We say then that Jehovah or God is but One viz. Nature or Substance that is there
the Church but in his Epistle to Balcerovicius he allows the offering any force to the Sacred Scriptures rather than to their own Sentiments in which our present Socinians are his strict Disciples And de Jesu Chris Salvat parag 3. c. 6. to 2. he vents himself thus if I find such things non semel sed saepè not once but often in the Scriptures non id circo tamen it a reâ— prorâ—us se habere crederem I will not for all that belive it And if this be an accountable and a reasonable Faith which is founded not on the Scriptures but on the Wills of Men then all Heresies must be accountable and reasonable too But on the contrary this must be a most unaccountable and a most unreasonable nay a blasphemous and most dangerous Faith which makes the Writings of Socinus as Maâ—â—met did his Alcoran the Peoples Bible and their Rule of Faith But that of the Trinitariâ—â—s he saith is absurd and contrary both to Reason and it self And therefore is not only false but impossible His Reason is that we teach there are Three Almighty and most Wise Persons and yet but one God Answ The Scriptures cannot teach any thing absurd or impossible but the Scriptures doteach there are three who are but one God therefore this Doctrine of ours is not absurd and impossible Now that there are three who are but one God is evident as from other Places so likewise from 1 John 5. 7 8 There are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and those three are one And there be three that bear Witness in Earth the Spirit the Water and the Bloud and these three agree in one Which Texts I will so clear from all their Cavils that they shall sufficiently vindicate our Doctrine from being absurd and impossible Euiedinus and the rest would expunge the last Clause in the 7th Verse these three are one Because 1. Some Fathers who wrote professedly on the Trinity have iâ— not Whence he makes them to be added by some Enemy of the Arians Ans 1 St. Cyprian in the middle of the Age before Arius hath this Text intire de Vnit Eccâ—es and St. Jerom soon after Arius censures the Omission of this Clause Now that of Eniedinus is impossible for these Words could not be added by some Enemy of the Arians in the time of St. Cyprian who flourished almost an Age before Arius himself was But the careless or designed Omission of 'em is necessarily true because the 4 th Age wanted them after St Cyprian in the 3 d Age had ' em Nor do we find many that quarrell'd with St. Jerome for censuring this Omission which some would certainly have done had he not had a ground for this Censure which is an Argument that St. Cyprian himself had this Clause and that it was not afterwards foysted in by some other hand 2 They plead that V. 7. is not in the Syriac nor Arabick whence some reject the whole Ans We grant it but V. 8. is in both which is linked to V. 7. by a Conjunction Copulative and beside which the Sense Coherence and Dependance of these with and upon one another speak this imperfect without that Whence Beza whom Letter 4 p. 152 quotes on his side saith both must be expunged or reteined together and then concludes for the reteining both And indeed this Case is so clear that since the Socinians receive V. 8 they must receive V. 7. too or renounce their own reason We proceed to confirm the whole Verse to be authentick 1. These words I and my Father are one are allowed on all hands to be St. John's therefore rhose Words these Three are One from the Likeness both of Stile and Matter seem to be his too For such a Likeness between Text and Text is as good an Argument according to the proportion of Matter to prove that each have the same Author as it is between that Gospel and his Epistle But all Learned Men allow of this Argument therefore the Socinian must allow of that or differ from the World of the Learned as they do already from the World of Christians 2. Our Learned Bishop of Salisbury Dr. Burnet in his Letter from Zurie observes that among Ten Copies he had seen abroad Nine had either the 7 th V. or St. Jerome's Epistle or Preface which condems the Omission while One only wanted both Therefore among Ten Copies one only was purely Arian or Socinian because the Omissions in them that wanted are condemned not only by that Epistle or preface but by them also who added that Epistle or Preface to those Copies 3. Suppositions grant nothing therefore suppose we that this Text it self is not authentick yet the Matter of it is taught by all those Scriptures which assert the Divinity of the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and the Existence of but one God for they taken together do assert that these Three are One that is One God or One in Nature therefore was the Socinian a Man of that Reason he pretends he could not think the expunging this Text out of the Sacred Canon of so much moment when divers others taken together speak the same thing He is then imployed about a Work he can never effect or if effected yet can do him but little if any service For which reasons they betake themselves to other Methods For they farther plead If this Text be Authentick yet it cannot intend one in Nature but One in Testimony because each verse speaks of each three as Witnesses Ans True each intend Testimony as Beza Calvin Erasmus and others observe But this doth not prove that v 7. intends no more nor do these Authors Exclude an Unity of Nature But the variation of the Phrase implies a restriction of the matter For v. 7. saith the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are One which is equally extendible to Nature and Testimony But v. 8. saith the Spirit the Water and the Blood agree in One Which is applicable not to Nature but to Testimony especially where Testimony is mentioned or evidently intended therefore we understand the former of One in Nature and Testimony both else we do not take the Phrase in its full latitude nor make it comport with those other Texts which declare the Divine Nature of Father Son and Holy Ghost And yet that these three are but One True and Almighty God because that Nature is numerically one in which they all agree But we understand the latter of Testimony only because the phrase designs no more nor do any other Scriptures declare that the Spirit the Water and the Blood do agree in Nature as the other do But they insist thus The Expounding v. 7. of Nature doth lose the design of these Texts which speak of Testimony Ans The Expounding it of Nature only exclusive of Testimony would have gave some colour of Reason to his Objection But we Expound it both of
neither invent any New Terms nor impose any New Doctrine but did only declare and confirm that which was the Doctrine of the hurch from the Apostles themselves This gives Credit to not only what we have quoted from Athunasius already but also to that Passage in his Epistle ad Episc in Afric that the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria did from an hundred and thirty years since condemn those who denied that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father But the Arian Doctrine which teaches that the Son was indeed before the World but not from Eternity and that there was a Time in which the Son was not is no where found in the First Ages of the Church but was condemned as a New Monster in Religion in the Fourth So Athanas cont Art Or a. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath heard such things as these And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is not from the Fathers but is of Yesterday And Hilar. Pict Episc ad Constant August l. it is novella luâ—s a New Pest a Pest that hath no more of Antiquity than of Trnth to sweeten it And indeed it was not any of the ancient Fathers as this Letter falsly pretends but Arius a Presbyter of Alexandria in the 4 th Age of the Church that invented that Heresie from whom it took the Name of Arianism As he was she first who in this way sought to undermine and subvert the Divinity of the Son so he had somewhat a like Exit with Judas who betrayed him For as this Traytor burst asunder and his Bowels gushed out so this Heretic presently upon his Perjury whereby he would seem to abjure but still retain the Poyson of his Heresie voided his bowels in a common Jakes This was thought a Warning-Piece to the Arians then and ought to be considered by the Socinians now since they have improved this Heresie as the Pharisees did their Proselytes by making it sevenfold more the Child of Hell than it was it being in some degrees more gross daring and anti-scriptural and carried on by no less Falshood Treachery and Wickedness than the other excepting the Formality of an Oath and that Blood and Tortures which these Men have not the power of The Letter proceeds p. 29. But did Superstition stop here â— No. For there shortly arose another Doctrine that the Son and Holy Ghost are the saâ—e God with the Father not only as the Nicene Fathers explained the Matter by Vnity of Wills and specifick Identity or sameness of Substance but by numerical or true Identity and sameness of Substance and Nature Ans 1. This Council did intend a numerical Unity or sameness of Substance that there might be no room left for any Cavils about three Gods 2. The Church was so far from any new Doctrine that that Age as well as the next did celebrate this Creed as the standing Rule of Faith to all the Churches Epiphan adv Haer. l 2. to c. Haer. 72. calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ecclesiastical Rule of Faith Greg. Nys to 2. cart Eunom l. 1. in our Creed there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word consubstantial which must be the Creed of Nice and yet this is Ours Basil to 3 Epistle 6. recites this and calls it the Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in use with you Ambros de fid l. 1. c. 8 9. quotes part of this Creed about the Consubstantiality and then saith this is the Doctrine of the Church which anathematizes them that teach otherwise And Evag. H. l 3. c. 17. this was used in Baptism then as the Creed called the Apostles is now with us and was confirmed by the next General Council at Constantinople They all kept up to this Rule and intended the same thing though they did not all agree in the manner of explaining and proving it What room then there could be here left for any new Doctrine soon after this Council at Nice I am yet to learn Sect. 7. Hence he proceds to some Eminent Authors who the Letter saith are either Arian or Socinian 1. Erasmus is thought an Arian p. 31. to coulour which pretence he quoates him upon Philip. 2. 6. and Ephes 5. 5. Ans The former Text he thinks doth respect not his Nature but the manner of his appearance and behaviour But yet he grants us that Christ is God though he thinks this Text doth not prove it And on Ephes 5. 5. the Kingdom of God and of Christ he declares that these words do not deny the Divinity of the Son But had this Letter pursued Truth and not the support of an Error it would likewise have told the Reader that upon John 1. 1. The Word was God he asserts that there is Divinam Essentiam tribus personis Communem a Divine Essence common to three Persons Which is all we contend for and which alone speaks Erasmus himself as true a Trinitarian as the Author of the Athanasian Creed His Paraphrase upon this clause in the beginning was the Word saith the Eternal Word was with the Eternal Father yet by the Word he understands not the Command Power or Wisdom of God but a Person as appears from the last quotation before this and consequently he here asserts both the Personality and Eternity of the Word which is the very Doctrine we teach John 8. 5 8. before Abraham was I am he renders Priâ—squam nasceretur before Abraham was born to the end he might distinguish as he saith himself the manner of Abrahams Existence from Christ's Abraham was in time but semper est Christus Christ is always which directly contradicts both the Socinian who denies Christs Existence before his Incarnation and also the Arian who denies his Existence from Eternity Upon these words he quotes St. Austin who glosses thus Abraham was made but Christ is that denotes a Creature this a being Eternally existing It is plain then that Erasmus taught a Trinity And certainly he would not think that the ignorant and dull side of the question as the Letter speaks which he teaches for Orthodox Divinity All the difference between him and our selves is this that we agree in the same Doctrine but differ only in some of those Mediums that should prove it For which reason he ought to be read with caution and judgment The Letter saith that this Author in his Scholia on the third tome of St. Jerom's Epistles denies that the Arians are Hereticks Ans Had he told us upon what Epistle these Scholia are we might have examined the place without much loss of time But I presume he thinks himself safe under so loose a Reference hoping none will turn over a Volume to disprove him In his Epistle to Bilibaldus thus I saith Erasmas could be of the Arian perswasion if the Church approved it Ans The Author thus cum Arianis Pelagianis sentire possim si probasset eccesia quod illi docuerunt Nec mihi non sufficiunt verba
Christi sed mirum videri non debet si sequor interpretem Ecclesiam cujus Authoritate persuasus credo Scripturis Canonicis I could be of the same mind with the Arians and Pelagians if the Church had approved what they taught Not that the words of Christ do not satisfy me but it ought not to seem strange if I follow the Judgment of the Church by whose Authority I believe the Canonical Scripture which place is certainly against him For 1. He saith the words of Christ do satisfie him i. e. as to Arianism and Pelagianism before mentioned 2. He puts Arianism and Pelagianism together implying that he had no more favour for that than for this which I do not remember he was ever charged with Therefore 3. His design is not to favour this or t'other Heresy but only to shew how far he could give up his Faith to the Judgment of the Church And consequently his own sense must be much distant from both these Perswasions else this could be no Argument of his wonderful submission to the Churches Authority A Romanist may make good advantage of this and therefore the Paris Doctors never put it among their Censures But it no more helps the Socinian than the things he calls his Arguments and Demonstrations He proceeds p. 31. Grotius is Socinian all over and p. 32. there is nothing in all his Annotations which they viz. the Socinians do not approve and applaud Ans Upon Joh. 1. 1. these words in the beginning Grotius will have to be taken from Gen. 1. 1. and understands them of the Creation properly or of the beginning of the Creature As he doth also v. 2. by him were all things made For which he quotes the Epistle of Barnabas Justin Athenagoras Tatian Tertullian and others This word was he renders jam tum erat then was or did exist when all Creatures began By which Existence before time he understands an Eternal Existence And yet he holds the Word or Son not for the Command or simple Power of God but for a Person Where observe that Grotius teaches that the Son is a Person eternally existing who in a proper sense made or created the World and if either Arian or Socinian approve or applaud this they must each depart from his own Heresy Therefore when upon those words Colos 1. 16. by him viz. the Son as Grotius himself takes it were all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created he saith this word is sometimes applied to the New Creature we must understand him as shewing the Various Acceptations of the word not as designing hereby to deny the Son to be Creator because he so expresly ascribes Creation to him upon that Text of St. John 3. In p. 32. he pretends that Petavius grants that the Fathers before the Nicene Council did agree in their Doctrine concerning God with the Socinian and concerning the Son and Holy Spirit with the Arians Ans 1. Petavius saith no such thing Let the Socinian vindicate himself by referring us to the places 2. Had he said so the Quotations we have given the Readet out of Ignacius Justin Iraeneus Clemens Tertullian and others would abundantly confute him 3. Patanius himself was a Trinitarian as appears from what he hath wrote upon this Argument And 4. He did not accuse these Fathers of Arianism or Socinianism but only censured some of those Arguments by which they would establish the Doctrine of a Trinity 4. The Letter reports Episcopius suspected of Arianism p 34 35. he saith the Father is so first as to be first in Order i. e. in time Ans 1. Episcopius saith the Father is first in Order which we all grant But it is the Socinian Comment that makes the first in Order to be the first in time which we deny Because though the Father is first in Order yet the Son is Co-eternal with the Father as before 2. This Author denies a Co-ordination and asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity But this Subordination doth not destroy but only Explains the Doctrine of a Trinity as is noted already And 3. In his Institut Theol. l. 4. c. 32. He ascribes a Divine Nature to Father Son and Holy Ghost and teaches that they are all properly Persons And if this be Arianism or Socinianism we are all such 5. He Complements his dear Friend Sandius for a Gentleman of Prodigious Industry and Reading and no less ingenious than Learned Ans Whatever his Industry and Learning was I mâ—st deny both his Judgment and Honesty 1. His Judgment For he knows not how to distinguish between the genuine doubtful and spurious Writings of the Antients but thinks Clemens the Father of the Constitutions under his Name Which is utterly impossible because l. 7 c. 48. the Author mentions three Bishops of Jerusalem made by the Apostles James Simeon and Judas But St. John the last of the twelve Died and this Clemens himself suffered Martyrdom in the year 100. while Simeon lived about seven years after How then the Apostles could appoint Judas his Successor or Clemens their Scribe Record it neither their Learned Sandius nor our Socinians those Men of Wit and Reason can resolve me They as well as the Apostolic Canons were probably written about the end of the Second Century and seem to owe themselves excepting their Corruptions to Clemens of Alexandria He receives likewise the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius and de Vet. Script Eccles he would prove the Legitimacy of that ad Philip. by this Argument viz. Origen who flourished about the middle of the Third Age hath something upon St. Luke like something in that Epistle where observe 1. Origen doth not mention either Ignatius or this Epistle 2. Ignatius and Origen might hit upon somewhat like Notions without Communication And 3. These ascribed Epistles are not mentioned by Eusebius Jerom or any other hefore them whence we ought in all reason to reject them Dr. Peirson late Bishop of Chester observes they appeared not till 400 years after Ignatius whence he declares them spurious Vind. Epist 8. Ignat. c. 10. 2. By such intolerable Errors he creates difficulties to himself For the design of his History is to prove that all Antiquity is Arian Bur the Epis ad Heron. which is one of the ascribed saith that if any asserts that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man which phrase was always used in opposition to his Divinity Iren. l. 3. c. 26. and Eusebius in the case of Ebion the same is a Jew and a Murtherer of Christ Now had he like a Man of Art and Judgment rejected these Epistles he had removed this Block at which he must now stumble and fall 2. I deny his Honesty For Hist l. 1. Secul 1. he will have the Creed called the Apostles to be composed by them to be the only Creed used in the Church and that very Creed too which was established at Nice And that Evag. H. l. 3. c. 17. saying we are Baptized into a Creed composed by 318 Bishops intended no other but this When this was never mentioned in that Council and the Concert is totally Ruined by the Testimonies we have already produced upon this Argument Sect. 4. Should I draw out all the instances of weakness and knavery I â—hould leave but little of that book behind me A fit man for an Ecclesiastical Historian whose want of Judgment and Honesty makes his writings like a sword in some mens hands dangerous to them that come in the reach of it Sure I am no Student ought to read him till he is well acquainted with the true state and doctrine of antiquity His accounts of antiquity and the brief history of the Socinians may go together and if each will be pretenders to wit and reason I matter not so long as we have on our side better pretensions to truth and Honesty Dr. Wallis in one of his letters gives an account of this Sandius's conversion and his dying in the Trinitarian Faith I earnestly pray that the same Mercy and Goodness would open the eyes of all Arians and Socinians that they may no longer lye under strong delusions and the belief of a Lye but may come to the knowledg of the truth and be saved FINIS Boeks Printed for John Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-Street AN Enquiry into Several Remarkable texts of the old and new Testament which contain some difficulty in them with a probable Resolution of them In two parts By John Edwards B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge A new Discourse of Trade wherein is Recommended several weighty Points relating to Companies of Merchants The Act of Navigation Naturalization of Strangers and our Woollen Manufactures the Ballance of Trade and the nature of Plantations and their Consequences in Relation to the Kingdom are seriously Discussed And some Proposals for erecting a Court of Merchants for determining Controversies relating to Maritime Affairs and for a Law for Transferrance of Bills of Debts are humbly Offered By Sir Josiah Child Miscellaneous Essays By Monsieur St. Euremont Translated out of French with a Character by a Person of Honour here in England continued by Mr. Dryden Monarchia Microcosmi The Origin Vicissitudes and Period of Vital Government in Man For a farther Discovery of Diseases incident to Human Nature By Everard Maynwaringe M. D.
or is not God This will easily appear from our Examination of his Arguments themselves which are these Argum. 1. P. 5. If Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than him But himself saith Joh. 14. 28. my Father is greater than I. Answ I deny the Consequence Because though the Son is less than the Father in some respects yet he is equal to the Father in others None of the former do destroy his Divinity but the letter do prove it For 1. The Son is less than the Father in regard of his Humane Nature and Offices But these we shall prove are not inconsistent with his Divinity And 2. In regard of his Sonship For the Father is of himself but the Son is of the Father Whence Episcopius infers a Subordination of Persons but yet establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity So the Nicene Fathers taught That the Son is God of God that is God of and from the Father but yet withall asserted That he is of the same Substance with the Father and consequently is God as the Father is And indeed this Subordination cannot destroy his Divinity because it doth not destroy his Nature For the Inequality arises not from the Essence but from the order and manner of subsistence But 3. In other respects the Son is equal to the Father this the Apostle asserts Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God viz. the Father Now if he thought it no robbery it could be no robbery and if no robbery he must be equal and if equal he must be God by Nature as the Father is This leads to the true sence of those words Being in the Form of God for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self strictly signifies not Substance so much as Accidents not so much the Nature as the Appearance of things whence Erasmus and the Socinians would have these words to signifie not that he is God but that he was like to God yet however the Apostle must here intend it Substantially that is his being in the Form of God must signifie that he is God as his being in the Form of a Servant signifies that he was a Servant And the Reason is because his equality with God is here inferred from his being in the Form of God but there cannot be an equality between a thing and the mere likeness of it between a real Nature and a bare similitude Whence Erasmus understood the force of the Word but not the reach of the Apostle's Argument Though Erasmus doth not deny the Divinity of the Son yet because he thinks this Text doth not respect his Nature I shall therefore oppose to his sence the Judgment of the Ancients as Arnob. Serap conflic l. 2. Novat de Trin. c. 17. Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 8. 10. Greg. Nys tom 2 cont Eunom Ora. 7. c. Which Judgment of theirs I shall confirm by these Arguments viz. 1. By the matter of the Apostle's Argument he was in the Form of God and in the Form of a Servant If this Text speaks him not God but like to God it must also speak him not a Servant but like to a Servant But that he was a Servant he saith himself Mat. 20. 28. I came to minister and therefore he must be God because the same Phrase and Sense applyed to each Nature must import the reality of the one as well as of the other 2. The order of the parts speaks our sense For being in the form of God i. e. While he was in the form of God he took upon him the form of a Servant therefore that form was before this But there was no such difference in the parts of his Life or Condition upon Earth that one should merit to be called the form of God the other the form of a Servant Therefore his being in the form of God must be antecedent to his humane Life 3. This was his choice and voluntary Act for he took upon him the form of a Servant But he had no liberty of choice in this world because his condition here was determined and foretold whence himself saith Luke 24. 44. That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me therefore this choice was before this life and consequently must be the Act of the Divine not of the Humane Nature So evidently doth this Text respect the Nature of Christ and therefore declare him to be equal to God the Father as being God by Nature as the Father is This Equality our Saviour himself doth prove Joh 5. 17. My Father works hitherto and I work whence the Jews concluded v. 18. that he made himself equal to God Upon which he doth not explain himself as if they mis-understood him which he did in the case of eating his flesh and drinking his blood But v. 19. he proves this equality what things soever the Father doth these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same the Son doth likewise Whence he must be equal to the Father in Operation and consequently in Power So Ambrose de fid l. 1. c. 13. and Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. Hence he requires v. 23. That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father which imports an equality of Honour flowing from an equality of Operation for the reason of the duty instructs us in the nature of the duty it self This Honour is owing from their works but they both do the same works therefore they must both have the same Honour Hence Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one that is not in concord only as the Socinian pretends but in power Because the context speaks not of Wills and Affections but of keeping his sheep none shall pluck them out of my hands because none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hands for which he gives this reason I and my Father are one which must be one in power And if they be one in power they must be one in Nature unless you make an Almighty Creature which is not only an absolute contradiction but also confounds the essential properties of God and the Creature which is a much viler Absurdity than they can with any shadows of Reason pretend against our Doctrine That gloss then of Athanasius cont Ari. Orat. 4. must be admitted viz. This shows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sameness of the God-head and the Unity of Power For indeed the abscribing to the Son the same Infinite Perfections and the same Honour but not the same Nature with the Father as the Socinian doth proclaims not only the perverseness of the Disputant but the Idolatry of the Professors too In that case of his being the Messias he sends Men to his works whose Nature and agreeableness to ancient Prophecies do sufficiently declare the point So here he first asserts his equality with the
is but one God which is all this Text can pretend to and all that our Socinian can prove But we say likewise that Jehovah or God is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost That the Father is Jehovah or God the Socinian grants us and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah or God we will prove 1. That the Son is Jehovah or God will appear from hence In Exod. 33 1 2 3. the Lord the word is Jehovah said I will send my Angel but I will not go up into the midst of thee Now as the Letter supposes that Jehovah is God so in this very place it can signifie no other than God properly Because ◠Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel as such and therefore from every Angel I will send my Angel but I will not go and 2. He declares his propriety in this Angel for it is my Angel An Angel that is mine that is my Creature and my Servant Which gloss I found upon this bottom that we never find in all the Scripture that one Angel speaks thus of another for though there be different orders of Angels yet they are all Servants of God not the Servants one of another Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in and that Power over this Angel which God has to in and over his Creatures Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah appeared to Abraham v. 2. expresses it by three Men but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah or Lord the same is so called again v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two Men but this Jehovah This only was Dignified with these Titles to this only did Abraham bow himself and direct his Discourse Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distinguished from these Men as he was before from that Angel and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World which neither is true nor was ever affirmed of any created Spirit it must needs be that this Jehovah is God But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father because 1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape as to Joshua to Moses so to Abraham whence himself and the two with him are called Men v. 2 but the Father never appeared in humane shape and the Teaching that he did was antiently as well as justly condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie and 2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2 because they were sent as the Word imports but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity cannot be sent from any The Result then is here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men but the Father never did appear in this likeness therefore this could not be Jehovah or God the Father but must be Jehovah or God the Son whom the Father sent in Humane shape as an intimation of his future Incarnation This is evident from Joshua for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword and asks Who he was for The Man answered v. 14 As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man this Captain is himself Jehovah the Lord for after he had answered Joshua and commanded him to put off his shooe because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15 then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord i. e. this Man this Captain said to Joshua Therefore the former Jehovah or Lord is the Father whose Host this was and the latter Jehovah or Lord is the Son who was sent from the Father as Captain of it This was the Sense of all Antiquity for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar c. 6. and adv Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were followed by Cyprian Origen and the rest Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord Jehovah rained down Fire from the Lord Jehovah in Heaven The Series of this History shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch 18 whence the latter must be the Father who was in Heaven This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers but also of the first Council of Sirmium And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Jehovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World Gen. 18. 25. We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius who de Nomine Jehovah objects several things against us with a design to perswade that Jehovah is not a Name proper to God but is sometimes given to Angels properly taken and consequently that this Jehovah was not tht Son but only an Angel of God Object 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2. Ans They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me 1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God as well as these three Men be Angels And then 2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels but this he stiled Jehovah whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all created Beings and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Creator God blessed for ever Object 2. He who is called Lord Jehovah in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God but common to Created Spirits Ans Angel doth note his Office as being sent from the Father and Jehovah notes his Nature as being of the same Substance with the Father for v. 6. this Jehovah saith I am the God of Abraham and v. 14. he stiles himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting which is not competible to any Creature Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31 32. Have ' ye not read not what God spake to you by his Angel but that which is spoke to you by God saying I am the God of Abraham Where our Saviour himself who is the best Interpreter of Scripture teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit but even God himself Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Christ And Tertul. adv Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum Moysi God that is the Son of God was seen by Moses the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv Judae 1. 2. c. Object 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God but yet is sometimes given to Angels as they personate God i. e. bear his Name and
contends for where observe 1. What trust we may repose in Socinian Quotations for if he is so false where he makes a particular Reference what must the Reader expect where he only names an Author This Answer will prove what I here assert against the whole Party of 'em That throughout this Letter there is not one Quotation in seven but what is either false or not to his Purpose If they will have this an Argument of their Learning they may but I am sure it is no proof of their Honesty 2. The Socinian denies that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation but this Creed saith That he was before all Ages and made all things I demand therefore of our Socinians that they profess this Faith or acknowledge themselves the Perverters of Truth and Debauchers of Antiquity And indeed like the Harpies they rarely settle upon any place but they so pollute it that it wants a laborious Pen to cleanse and restore it to it self He hath then Presumption only but no colour of Proof that the Apostles composed this Creed We therefore proceed to the next part of our Argument 2. Though this Creed called the Apostles doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost yet it sufficiently teaches both For 1. It doth stile the Son his only Son which Words indeed in themselves import only this That he is a Son in such sort as none else is which the Socinian would perswade respects not his Divinity but his being born of a Virgin but take them together with the Scriptures whence they are themselves taken and by which they must be explained and then it will sufficiently appear that his only Son is a Son by Nature Whence S. Austin in Symb. l. 1. c. 2. Quando Unicum audis Dei filium agnosce Deum the only Son of God is God This some other Parts of our Dispute will evince so far as the Letter hath led us to this Argument But 2. As to the Holy Ghost he thinks nothing can be here pretended to prove him a Divine Person excepting only the Phrase of believing with the Preposition in which is set also before the Church and therefore can ascribe a Divinity to the one no more than to the other But his Thoughts are very short and dull For though this hath been a common Error which some at this day will hardly be drawn from yet we declare that we neither do nor need for the establishing this Doctrine hold any such force in this Phrase See Dr. Hammod's Practical Catechism lib. 5. Dr. Peirson and Heylen upon this Article who absolutely deny it because not this Creed only but all Antiquity apply it to Men and so do the Sacred Scriptures They instance in Exod. 14. 31. The People believed in the Lord and in Moses and 1 Sam. 27. 20. Achish believed in David To which we add that of our Blessed Saviour Joh. 5. 45. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom ye believe or trust as we translate it They with Musculus and others impute the Notion to S. Austin and Jerom whose Translation first omitted the Preposition in these Texts of the Old Testament which other Translations follow A little before these Fathers Greg. Naz. acknowledges the Preposition in the Translations of his time but yet saith this Phrase ought to be applied to none but the Lord for the People did believe in Moses not as Moses but as a Type of the Lord and consequently this did not terminate in Moses but did refer ultimately to the Lord. But he did not consider that Achish believed in David but he could not believe in David as a Type of the Lord when he knew neither the Lord nor that David was any Type at all Hence Ashwel took his Notion of the Peoples believing in Moses as subordinate to the Lord but there could be no such subordinate Faith in this Heathen Prince who yet believed in David This was therefore an Error growing and setling it self in the Church sometime before Jerom and Austin but however it was these two that fixed the Point and by that Omission in that Translation as well as otherwise occasioned others to e rt with them But you will say then where or how doth this Creed teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost I answer that the Son and the Holy Ghost are put into this Creed as equally Objects of Faith and Worship with the Father and this is the very thing that declares the Divinity of both Nor is this from Men but from God for it was so done upon the special Precept of our blessed Saviour in the form of Baptism which is the Original of all Creeds I confess the Fathers use this Phrase in their Disputes for a Trinity So Greg. Nys to 2. cont Eunom l. 1. if the Holy Ghost be not God Tì 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why do Men believe the H. Ghost But observe he doth not here Dispute from the sole force of that Phrase of believing in but from our believing in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father which makes the Blessed Spirit equally with the Father a sharer in our Faith and Adoration In this sense is Hila. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. who teaches that we cannot believe in the Father without the Son whence he concludes they must be the same in Nature But this Conclusion is drawn not from the Form of the Expression that we believe in but from the Matter expressed that they are both equally the Objects of our Faith And indeed there is no such Extravagance in the World as to teach that we believe in God in a Creature and a simple Power that he who will not give his Glory to another should set a meer Creature and a naked Power or Inspiration which is no Person equal with himself in the Faith and Adoration of his People So falsly doth this Letter pretend from this Creed that the Apostles did believe as the Socinians believe when neither did the Apostles compose it nor is it any way servicable to the Socinian Hypothesis SECT V. Now as if he had proved his Point when he had proved nothing but what we may safely grant him he concludes p. 24. parag 6. Theirs viz. the Socinians is an Accountable and a Reasonable Faith Answ A Faith just as Reasonable as this Inference For as this is drawn from no due Premises so that stands founded on neither Scripture nor good Argument A reasonable Faith indeed which makes a Finite God and an Infinite Creature Which denies the Son to be God and yet doth Worship him A reasonable Faith which cannot support itself without expunging some Texts out of the Sacred Canon without transposing the parts of others contrary to the Ancient and most Authentick Reading and without expounding some contrary to the very Letter and most evident Design of the place Socinus himself was so sensible of the reasonableness of this Faith that he not only rejects the sense of
Nature and Testimony too which Exposition doth not lose but secure the design of this Text. For since they are One in Nature and that Nature is Divine they must be One in Testimony and that Testimony must be infallible too because three Divine Persons who are one in Nature can neither agree in a false Testimony nor disagree in that Testimony they give Can we now think that this Doctrine which teaches there are Three who are but one God is false and impossible when it is so evidently founded on this and other concurring Texts which are the Word of Truth and which therefore can teach nothing which is false and impossible If any thing we teach seems absurd and contradictory or false and impossible as the Letter words it it is not from the Doctrine it self but from the Socinians Misrepresentation of it For 1. They say we teach that there are but One hereby suggesting to others and arguing themselves as if we mean in One respect only which is indeed impossible Whereas we teach that Three in one respect are but One in another which according to their own Doctrine takes away the Impossibility For the Socinian himself grants us upon these Words I and my Father are One that Two in one respect may be but One in another And if Two may be One why not Three Since the difficulty lies not between Two and One but between a Plurality whether they be Two or Three and an Vnity They allow the Thing it is only the Modus or Manner how Two or Three can be but One in which we differ Therefore since we so far agree they ought to set forth how we hold Three to be hut One together with our Reasons for this Doctrine which would lead even a prejudiced Reader to some deliberation and not by a partial and Sophistical Representation make our Doctrine seem prima facie absurd and impossible to the end they may huff off all consideration of it Indeed their manner of Vnion is common among Men but if ours is plainly founded on Divine Revelation as we maintain it is the singularity of the thing is not able to destroy the Thing it self and therefore ought in Justice to be so proposed as to leave Men to examine and consider it and not to be rejected without either 2. They say Let. p. 159. we teach there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them the true and most high God and yet there is but One true and most high God Ans We teach there are Three Divine Persons who together are the true and most high God They are every one a Divine Person or God as they have every one a Divine Nature but they are together the true and most high God as that Divine Nature is but One tho common to all Three The Distinction arises from the distinct manner of Subsistence but the Unity from the Sameness of Essence This speak Three that are God but not Three Gods because these are all within the Godhead as having but one and the same Substance and consequently can be but One God 3. Their Objections arise from the want of Parallel Instances in Nature whence they speak it absurd and impossible but the Absurdity lies on their side who measure Supernatural things by Natural and will believe nothing of God but what they see in the Creature as if an Infinite Nature must be in all things commensurable to the Nature and Thoughts of what is Finite 4. They declare it absurd and impossible because we cannot demonstrate the manner of it how Three can be but One when thâ— thing being matter of pure Revelation we had known nothing of it unless it had bâ—en Revealed and therefore now can know no more than is revealed Now it is revealed that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet these are not Three Gods but One God But how this is Revelation doth not tell us Therefore we are not absurd who teach what the Scriptures teach but they are absurd in demanding more The Church indeed uses the distinction of Personal and Essential that they are Three Personally and but One Essentially that is they are Three Persons and but One God Not that these Terms are fully and so clearly expressive of this Mystery as to remove all Cavils and Difficulties but that she may the best she can express her own Sense the Sense of Antiquity and the import of those Scriptures that respect a Trinity Let them give us more proper and significant Terms and we will use them but let them not reject a Divine Truth for the sake of those Terms which Heresie hath forced us to make use of 5. This method of theirs implies a whole train of Absurdities for we are to prove First That a thing is and then how it is If we prove the former that must be granted because proved though we should never be able to prove the Latter But they contrary to all the Rules of Art and method require us to prove how it is in order to their believing that it is And do reject that part which is proved only because the other is not According to this method they must deny a thousand things which they see which all Mankind will say is absurd with a witness They say p. 158 that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true that holds forth either a Doctrine or a Consequence that is absurd contradictory or Impossible Ans We readily grant it and such is that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned in the next Page For God is a Spirit but not a Body Because body is compounded of parts is subject to Dissolution and cannot be in all places at once therefore those Scriptures which ascribe humane parts to God cannot be true in a literal sense but only in an improper one And when these Men have proved such an absurdity contradiction ot impossibility in the Doctrine of a Trinity we will dispute no more They may indeed prove that three Men cannot be one or one Man three but as the Learned Bishop of Worcester Dr. Stillingfleet observes they can never prove that an infinite Nature cannot communicate it self to three different Subsistences without such a division as is among created Beings Because a Finite capacity can never comprehend the Powers and Operations of an infinite Nature So absurd are these Men as to decry revealed Truths for absurd and impossible only because they cannot understand them Should they do the like in natural things they would quickly become the contempt of Mankind We are not ashamed to own a Mystery in the Divine Nature when we find little but Mystery in common Nature her self Nor can we think it unreasonable that God should command us to believe that a thing is though he hath not told us how it is any more than it is unreasonable that Nature should oblige us to assent where the most refined reason can find no place of Entrance God
hath revealed so much as is fit for us to know and ignorance is neither a Sin nor a Reproach where he hath not instructed us But we must declare it not absurd only but blasphemous too to deny what God hath told us only because he hath not told us more or not baffled our Cavils by a demonstration as if they dare not believe him any farther than they can see A right Nicodemus temper which stumbles at Divine Truths only with an How can these things be Sect. 6. From their Reasonable Faith he proceeds to complement its professors for Learned and Reasonable Men Which he saith is their Character among their worst Adversaries Ans We do not envy what Learning and Reason they are thought to have But we charge them with the abuse of both Their Guilt this way will easily appear to any that can but understand an Author their Arguments being fallacious and their Quotations false But as for this Epistler poor Man though we cannot admire his Talents yet we must declare he misimploys that little he hath This will abundantly appear as from what he hath done so likewise from his History of the Sorinians which we now proceed to For p. 26 thus those whom we call Socinians were by the Fathers and first Ages of Christianity called Nazarens by which name St. Paul is accused before Felix Acts 29. 5. Ans A Christian signifies a Disciple of Christ and Nazaren in this place a Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth And did then denote nor a Party but the whole Body of Christians So Epiphanius adv Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Christians were then called Nazarens and that by way of contempt from the Jews as they afterwards were Galilaeans by the Apostate They are indeed branded for a Sect in the place quoted but not as a party broke off from the body of Christians but as the Church of Christ now separated from the Jews I beseech you then what peculiar honour and advantage can the Socinians claim to themselves from hence was the thing they plead true when as Christians they have this honour but in common with others and as Sorinians can pretend to but one of the smallest shares of it The same Father c. 7. tells us of a Sect of Nazarens even before the Incarnation tho indeed Petavius rejects the Account nor can I see any sufficient grounds for it but however I mention it to pleasure our Socinians who are seeking a Pedigree Therefore take it thus some of these he saith professed Christ but denied his Divinity in other things they were Jews still for they observed Circumcision the Sabbath and other Ceremonies and therefore stood distinct both from Jews and Christians Whence Jerom Epist ad Aug. gives this Character of 'em viz. they are called Minaeans or Nazarens sed dum Volunt Judaei esse Christiani nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani While they would pass both for Jews and Christians they are neither And if these Men will claim from hence you have in them this Character of a Socinian That he is one who is neither Jew nor Christian Hence I suppose this Epistler is none of the Reasonable or Learned among them since he hath mentioned this either to no purpose or to his own disadvantage He there saith they were also called Ebionites Ans These were of two sorts Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 27. the one held that Christ was born of Joseth and Mary the other of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin But both observed Jewish Rites and rejected St. Paul's Epistles calling him an Apostate They received no Gospel but Sr. Matthew and that mutilated too Epiphan adv Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 30. which Petavius observes was depraved by them and was the same with the Gospel to the Hebrews which was used by none but Hereticks Orig. cont Cels l. 5. saith they teach the Law and reject the Epistles of St. Paul And Optat Mileu l. 4. they held it was not the Son but the Father that suffered They were these Men who troubled the Apostles and drew their Disciples back to Mosaic Rites under Menander Cerinthus and others whose Heresy was substantially the same for divers Ages Whence St. Paul brands them for False Brethren Gal. 2. 4. elsewhere for corrupters of the Word and such as he in wait to deceive This was the Reason they rejected his Epistles because he so constantly censures them And Ebion himself was branded by all Antiquity for one of the Gnostic Hereticks Tertul de Praes Haer. c. 33. Yet our Socinian Author makes himself and Party the same with these No matter what poyson men suck in so they deny the Divinity of Christ This one Bleasphemy sanctifies all By this Rule they are the same with Simon Magus the Father of Hereticks and with the Devil the Father of Lies for they both denied the Divinity of the Son the one in making himself a Saviour the other in tempting him excepting this that the Devil afterwards confessed this Truth which the Socinian still denies An hopeful Brood indeed that Glories in such Fathers He proceeds the Socinians were also called Artemonites Theodotians Symmachians Paulinists Samosatenians Photinians and Monarchians Ans Grant this and it must be granted too that as these Men were always condemned for Hereticks so the Socinians were always condemned in them And strange it is they should always be in the right and yet be always condemned for it They were called Artemonites Photinians c. to signifie they were the Followers not of Christ but of Artemon Photinus c. And did the Socinians seriously reflect upon their Blasphemies and their palpable Corruptions both of the Letter and Sense of the Sacred Scriptures as well as of all Antiquity it nearly concerns them to consider how far this is applicable to themselves that is in plain English whether the Name Socinian doth not better suit them than that of Christian The Monarchians boasted that they held the World was governed by a Monarchy that is by One God in opposition to the Orthodox who they say introduced Three Gods by the Doctrine of a Trinity Whence I grant that these and our Socinians are Men of the same Pride and Falshood In answer to whom the Orthodox always declared as we do that they held no other than a Monarchy and that the Doctrine of a Trinity is no way contradictory to this For when some in Tertullian adv Prax. c. 3. cried Monarchian tenemus We profess but One God he proves that the Orthodox or If he will the Trinitarians did hold but One God too for Proof of which he argues c. 4. that he deduces the Son from the Substance of the Father and the Holy Ghost from both which doth no way destroy but as he there pleads confirms a Monarchy for being all Three but of One Substance or Nature they can be all Three but One God Upon the same bottom the most strenuous asserters of a Trinity
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indivisible removes not from place to place but is in all places but is contained in none Again he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Mind all Eye beholding all things This sufficiently proves Clemens no Arian since he so manifestly declares the Divine nature of the Son Strom. l. 5. he Collects certain Notions out of Plato which he saith can signify nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Trinity For he puts the Father as the cause of all things then descends to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a second who is conversant about second things and to a third who is imployed about third things he seems to understand by the former the Son who continues and by the latter the Holy Ghost who finishes things This he saith Plato had from the Hebrews which Argument he abounds in pleading that the Gentiles had their choicest Notions from the Jews mediately or immediately But whether this was the sense of Plato or not is totally foraign from my Argument It is enough to me that this Father is so far from being either Arian or Socinian that he looked upon the Doctrine of a Trinity as so plain a Truth that he thought an Heathen could spell it out of the Old-Testament Tertullian wrote under Zepherine if not under Vict r too and yet adv Prox. c. 2. satih the Divinity of the Son was taught from the beginning and what he understands by his Divinity himself explains c. 3. where he declares that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father These are most undenyable Proofs of the shameless impudence of this Letter which will have all the principle Fathers of those times to be Patrons of the Arian Herefy As for Origen he not only lived in the Age after Victor but also upon Revel 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last the Almighty doth declare that in these words St. John asserts the Divinity of the Son These things so totally ruine this part of the Letter which would have Arianism the swaying Religion of those times that I should perswade my self they would never more offer these falshoods to the World did I not find they have the Confidence to revive old rotten Heresies and both to adorn and support their own by them who were the worst of Men as well as the most erroneous of Christians However the Letter proceeds p. 28 29 this Doctrine being advanced by Justin Origen and others became the more currant Doctrine of the Church till in the Council of Nice it was Condemned and another more popular and so more taking than that as attributing to the Son Eternity and Equality with the Father did generally obtain Ans As Justin Origen and others of Note in the Church as the Letter speaks never taught any such Doctrine so the Council of Nice did Establish no other but what had always been the Doctrine of the Church according to that of Athanasius de Synod Nicaen decret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Faith Established at Nice is the Faith of the Catholick Church What this Father saith we may easily prove both as to the Doctrine it self and also as to the terms that express it 1. The Doctrine Established at Nice is this that the Son is of the same Substance Essence or nature with the Father and therefore is properly God as the Father is but that this was always the Doctrine of the Church is sufficiently evident from what we have already cited from Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian To whom I shall add Ignatius who was cotemporary with the Apostles That his Epistles are Genuine is acknowledged by their beloved Sandius and is Proved by Doctor Peirson against Dailly even to the shame of all future doubts and opposition These often stile the Son God Epist ad S nyr begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I glorifie Jesus Christ who is God And p. 7. Vos Edit he asserts the Divinity again But I refer the Reader to one Place which can never be evaded by any Arian or Socinian Artifice and that in his Epist ad Ephes there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which words the Author doth distinguish between the Humane and Divine Nature of Christ for he Catnal and Spiritual of Mary and of God he is begotten and unbegotten i. e. begotten as Man and unbegotten as God For his Eternal Generation respects not his Nature by which he is God but his Person by which he is the Son of God Again he is passible and impassible that is passible as Man so not only his Body was peirced and crucified but Mat. 26. 38. his Soul was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exceeding sorrowful or encompassed round with Sorrows whence proceeded his Agonies and Bloody Sweat therefore he is Impossible only as God This I think considered together with the whole Quotation demonstrates that it is the Design of this Author to assert the Divine Nature of Christ because nothing but that can be Vnbegotten and Impassible 2. The Terms in which this Council doth assert the Divine Nature of the Son are that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantial or of the same Substance with the Father but this was no invention of that Council For Iren. l. 3. c. 26. but now quoted saith that his generation of the Virgin speaks him man but his substance speaks him God And if so he must be God in substance and if God in substance he must be as the same substance with the Father because there can be but one Divine Substance Essence or Nature as there is but One God Tertullian is more large in this Point for adv Pâ—ax c. 2. and 3. he expresly saith that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three non substantia not in Substance that is they are not substantially distinct but they are Vnius substantiae of one and therefore of the same Substance Now I pray what is the difference between the Fa h r and the Son 's being Vnius Substantiae of our Substance and between the Son's being in the Phrase of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantial with the Father Even none For he that is consubstantial with another must be of the same substance with that other In the same place the same Father varies the Phrase but keeps to the matter saying that he deduces the Son de Substantia Patris from the Substance of the Father which implies what is imported by the two other Phrases And this he saith was taught ab iâ—tio Evangelii from the beginning of the Gospel Therefore the Nicene Council did determine no more in this partscular than what was taught by the Church even from the beginning of the Church it self So plain is it that the Nicene Fathers did