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
1. 26. Let us make Man whence we conclude a Plurality in the Godhead But this cannot be a Plurality of Essences or Natures for then there would be a Plurality of Gods which is contrary to Scripture for this declares there is but one but a Plurality of Subsistences which we call Persons united in the same Nature This Plurality other Scriptures particularly Psal 33. 6. do determine to three viz. the Lord the Word and the Spirit and 1 John 1. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and this we call a Trinity as the Church ever did from the Apostles time But to this he saith God doth here speak of himself after the manner of Princes p. 21. and therefore is but one Person though he saith Us Ans 1. He could not speak this after the manner of Princes for then there was no Prince nor any Man in the World nor can he prove any such Custom in the Mosaic Age. Therefore this is an expounding the first Writings in the World after the Custom of later Ages which we cannot allow 2. In time Princes spoke of but not to themselves plurally which yet God doth do if this Gloss be true Therefore this Exposition which he pretends is after the manner of Princes is indeed without all Example 3. God himself expounds this Text our way Psal 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth that is by the Lord viz. the Father by the Word or Son and by the Spirit Now St. John c. 1. 1 3. teaches that by the Word viz. that Word which was God that Word which v. 14. was made Flesh were all things made Which directs us to understand that Word in this Psalm not of the Command but of the Eternal or Substantial Word or Son of God to whom together with that Spirit who Gen. 1. 1. moved upon the Waters preparing that indigested Matter for its several forms the Father said Let us make Man This was the Sense of all Antiquity Just Mart. Dial. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. he spoke to the Son and the Holy Ghost per quos in quibus omnia fecit by and in whom he made all things Tertul. de Resur carn c. 6. and adv Prax. v. 7. Orig. cont Cels 1. 6. and the Constitutions l. 5. c. 6. which pretend to give us nothing but what is Apostolical He proceeds to 2 Cor. 10. 2. Some who think of us which he saith S. Paul spoke of himself only Ans It is not probable that S. Paul spoke of himself after the manner of Princes when it is evident he lessened himself in almost every thing but Sin and Sufferings 2. When a Prince speaks plurally we know he must speak of himself because he is but one but the Apostles were many and under the same Censures therefore when S. Paul speaks plurally Us we have no necessity of understanding it of himself only buâ— have reason to believe he spoke of himself and them together 3. Suppose that S. Paul spoke plurally of himself as Princes have done for many Ages yet what Argument is there in either of these to prove that the Father is to be understood thus in Gen. 1 especially when the Scriptures so frequently ascribe the Creation to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father There is therefore nothing manly or cogent in this Quotation By this time I think his singular Pronouns have done him as little service as his Scriptures Consid 5. and 22. Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed which they say p. 23. was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion but that the Divinity of each is omitted there he would sain perswade the World This very Argument had almost perverted two of my Acquaintance the one a very ingenious Merchant in this City I shall therefore according to their desire give the fuller Answer to it and shall prove 1. That this Creed under the Apostles name was never composed by the Apostles and 2. Though it doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet it sufficiently teaches both 1. This Creed was never composed by the Apostles Some with more Presumption than Judgment think Irenaeus and Tertullian against us But if you consult those famous Places Iren. l. 1. c. 2 19. Tertul. de Virg. Veland c. 1. de Praes Haer. c. 2. and adv Prax. c. 2. you will find these Fathers differ so much from one another and each from himself both as to the Order and Points of Faith they deliver that they evidently seem to intend not any setled Form but the Substance of Faith contain'd in the Scriptures whence themselves might draw the Articles they deliver Irenaeus saith indeed that his Rule of Truth i. e. the Articles there writ came from the Apostles which some have thought sufficient to prove it of Apostolical Composure But 1. It s coming from the Apostles is no Argument for them for that might be from their Writings in the N. Test as well as from this Creed had they composed it 2. His calling it the Rule of Truth is against them for it was not customary so neither is it so proper to call a Creed the Rule of Faith as the Scriptures from whence all Creeds are taken and by which they must be proved And 3. There is not so much agreement between the Articles in Iren. and this Creed called the Apostles as between those Articles and some of those Creeds which are well known to be the different Creeds of different Churches Therefore there is nothing in this Father that can prove the Socinian Assertion but something that may incline to the contrary As for Tertullian the Case is more clear for he saith de Praes Haer. c. 13. that his Rule of Faith meaning the Articles there mentioned were taught by Christ but Christ composed no Symbol and adv Prax. c. 2. his Rule taught the Mission of the Holy Ghost but this Creed teaches no such thing Therefore from both he must intend the Scriptures not a Creed or if any yet however not this Arius in Epiphanius adv Haer. l. 2. to 2. Haer. 69. would fain have justified his Heresie against the Divinity of the Son from the Creed of Alexandria which differs to much from this under the Apostles name that none can pretend they are the same But it must be granted he would much rather have appealed to this had it then been or believed to be theirs and also thought not to teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost because a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves would have been of much more force and Authority than one composed by any particular Church whatever Therefore his Appeal to that but not to this is to me a Demonstration that this Creed was then not known or else not believed either
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
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
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
Authority Ans Here was not only the Name and Authority of God but also that Honor received which is due to God only for Moses by special Command did worship him but you have not one such Instance of an Angel that any way appeared to be a created Spirit that bore the Name and Authority of God and received the Honor due to God The Angel to the Blessed Virgin spoke otherwise and that to S. John forbad him to Worship him and that for a reason common to all created Angels Revel 19. 10. See thou do it not for I am thy Fellow-Servant As we find no such thing so neither can any such thing ever be for God hath said My Glory will I not give to another but this gives a Creature his Name his Authority and his Honor and these are his Glory Therefore the matter of this Objection is not only not found in the Scripture but is even contrary to it Object 4. The Law was given by the disposition of Angels Act. 7. 53. and was spoken by Angels Heb. 2. 3. whence he presumes that Jehovah who gave the Law was not the Son of God but a created Angel Ans This doth not follow for as it was given by Angels so it was Gal. 3. 19. in the hand of a Mediator that is of Christ as Theophylact and others take it But some say this Mediator was Moses be it so it is all one For if Moses was Mediator it was only as a Type of Christ and there must be an exact Agreement between the Type and the Anti-type therefore if the Law was given by Moses a typical Mediator it must be given by Christ the true and proper Mediator Whence the Result must be that Moses gave it immediately to the People but Christ gave it mediately by Moses and by those Angels which are ministring Spirits Therefore when S. John saith c. 1. 17. the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth i. e. the Gospel came by Jesus Christ he respects the immediate Delivery of both the Law was given immediately by Moses and the Gospel immediately by Christ which excludes Christ from only an immediate but not from a mediate Delivery of the Law But the Difficulty is from Heb. 2. 2 3. If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast and every Transgression and Disobedience received a just recompence of Reward how shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord Upon which Crellius saith the Gospel which is the great Salvation is preferred before the Law because the Law was given by Angels but the Gopel by the Lord and consequently Jehovah who gave the Law was not the Lord but an Angel Ans This Text which saith the Law was spoken by Angels doth no more exclude the Son than Joh. 1. 17. which saith the Law was given by Moses doth exclude those Angels for indeed it was given by all three Therefore the Opposition lies not between Jehovah and the Son who are the same and gave both Law and Gospel too but 1. Between his different manner of giving each for as before he gave the Law mediately by Angels but he gave the Gospel immediately by himself as the Eternal Word now made Flesh Upon which account Sin against the Gospel is a greater Affront to his Person and Authority than Sin against the Law And 2. Between the Nature of each considered in themselves this is a great Salvation in comparison of that And because Sin doth always arise proportionate to the means it is committed against therefore upon this Account also Sin against the Gospel is greater than Sin against the Law Whence this toping Argument of Crellius which he saith doth penitus evertere totally overthrow us doth neither exclude Jehovah the Son from giving the Law nor yet debase him to a created Spirit and consequently doth not at all affect us In fine we grant that Jehovah is sometimes called an Angel as he is sent from the Father but we deny that an Angel which is any way declared to be a created Spirit is ever called Jehovah Let the Socinian prove this and then we will dismiss this Argument else he faith nothing to the purpose 2. The Blessed Spirit is also called Jehovah for Exod. 17. 7. they tempted the Lord the Word is Jehovah This is repeated Psal 95. whence the Apostle Heb. 3. 7 8 9. thus the Holy Ghost saith When your Fathers tempted me Therefore according to the Apostles Application of these Seriptures the Holy Ghost is this Jehovah The Result is Jehovah is indeed but one God but yet is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost who are in the Godhead and therefore are this one God which was the thing to be proved Whence his next Scripture which is Isa 45. 5. I am the Lord the Word is Jehovah there is no God before me is easily answered For here Jehovah excludes a Plurality of Gods but not a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead He adds in his great Wisdom and Judgment Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Where because the Lord thy God is singular and that Word only excludes all others he thinks he hath found a proof that the Father only is God Ans This proves indeed that there is but one God which we all grant but it doth not prove there is but one Person in the Godhead or that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God which he undertakes But because Suppositions grant nothing we will suppose that this Text proves that the Father only is God but then it must be granted upon this Supposition that it doth also prove that the Father only is to be worshipped for him only shalt thou serve But the Socinians deny that the Son is God and yet worship him as well as the Father Whence it evidently follows that either their Religion must be an Heresie or themselves Idolaters for if the Son be God they are Hereticks in denying it if he is not they are Idolaters in worshipping him And certainly these Men are put to an hard shift for Scripture Proofs when all the Texts they cite do either not affect us or wound themselves He now proceeds to his singular Pronouns thus No Instance can be given in any Language of three Persons who ever spoke of themselves or were spoken to by singular Pronouns as I Thou c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom Grammar and Sense Ans To this that of the Learned Dean of St. Pauls Dr. Sherlock is the most apposite viz. There is no other Example in Nature of three Persons who are essentially one Whence this is an Impropriety in reference to the Creatures which is none in reference to God For he may speak of himself or be spoken to singularly because he is but one God and plurally because he is three Persons without any ungrammatical Solecism And sometimes he doth speak plurally as Gen.