Sabellius called Persons But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them as Father Son and Holy Ghost It is plain from hence that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases came from thence that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned as well as Arianism and Iudaism and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil that they look'd on one as bad as the other and they commonly joyn Iudaism and Sabellianism together But yet there arose Difficulties whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences as the Platonists and Marcionists held Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter where both Parties were desired to explain themselves Those who held three Hypostases were asked Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did of different Substances and separate Subsistences as Mankind and other Creatures are Or as other Hereticks three Principles or three Gods All which they stedfastly denied Then they were asked Why they used those terms They answered Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names and that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them but still they held but one Godhead one Principle and the Son of the same Substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son Then the other side were asked When they asserted but one Hypostasis whether they held with Sabellius or not and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence which they utterly denied but said that their meaning was That Hypostasis was the same with Substance and by one Hypostasis they intended no more but that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance for the Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature and upon these terms they agreed From whence it follows that the Notion of three Hypostases as it was received in the Christian Church was to be underâ—â—ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius and so by degrees the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases because they knew no other Sense of it but for Substance or Essence and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona and did agree in the Name of Persons as most proper to signifie their meaning which was That there were three which had distinct Subsistences and incommunicable Properties and one and the same divine Essence And since the Notion of it is so well understood to signifie such a peculiar Sense I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it As to it s not being used in Scripture Socinus himself despises it and allows it to be no good reason For when Franciscus Davides objected That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture Socinus tells him That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds and that if the sense of them were in Scripture it was no matter whether the terms were or not Hâ—ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters And our Vnitarians tell us that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise How doth that appear They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations which are so new so forced so different from the general Sense of the Christian World and which I may say reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles i. e. by making use of such Expressions which if they do not mean what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do must be intended according to them to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments and if they have any regard to Christianity not to trifle with Scripture as they do But say they The question only is Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God according to reason or not that is like Fools or like wise Men Like wise Men no doubt if they can hit upon it but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to take up some novel Interpretations against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times Is this to act like wise Men to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books they cannot answer and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason and to render all places suspicious which make against them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God when he knew himself to be a mere Man and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature when their design was to take away the Worship of all such who by Nature are not Gods Is this like wise Men to tell the World that these were only such Gods whom they had set up and God had not appointed as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools but like Wise Men because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand 1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter and that but a short one to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament and according to their Sense not one of them proves that which he aimed at viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels Heb. 1.5 as will appear by the Sense they give of
Blasphemy for making himself the Son of God and the High Priest adjured him to tell Whether he were the Christ the Son of God Did they mean no more but as any Good man is But Mr. Selden saith that by the Son of God the Jews meant the Word of God as he is called in the Chaldee Paraâ—hrast which was all one as to profess himself God And our learned Dr. Pocock saith that according to the Sense of the ancient Iews the Son of God spoken of Psal. 2. was the eternal Son of God of the same Substance with the Father And by this we may understand S. Peter's Confession Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God and Nathanael's Thou art the Son of God But it is plain the Iews in the Conference thought he made himself God by saying I and my Father are One Not one God say our Wise Interpreters but as Friends are said to be One. And what must they think of our Saviour the mean time who knew the Iews understood him quite otherwise and would not undeceive them But they say The Jews put a malicious Construction upon his Words How doth that appear Do they think the Iews had not heard what passed before in some former Conferences when they thought he had made himself equal with God and that he said That all men should honour the Son even as they honoured the Father These Sayings no doubt stuck with them and therefore from them they had Reason to think that he meant something extraordinary by his saying I and my Father are One. And if they were so Wise in interpreting Scripture as they pretend they would have considered that if these things did not imply his being really the Son of God according to the old Jewish Notion he would have severely checked any such Mis-constructions of his meaning and have plainly told them he was but the Son of Man But S. Paul's Character of him doth plainly shew that he was far from any thing like Vanity or Ostentation Although he was in the form of God and thought it no Robbery to be equal with God which must imply that he was very far from assuming any thing to himself which he must do in a very high measure if he were not really the Son of God so as to be equal with God The meaning whereof say our Wise Interpreters is he did not rob God of his Honour by arrogating to himself to be God or equal with God But what then do they think of these passages in his Conferences with the Iews Was he not bound to undeceive them when he knew they did so grossly mis-understand him if he knew himself to be a meer Man at the same time This can never go down with me for they must either Charge him with affecting Divine Honour which is the highest Degree of Pride and Vanity or they must own him to be as he was The eternal Son of God VI. Is this interpreting Scripture like Wise men to deny Divine Worship to be given to our Saviour when the Scripture so plainly requires it When I had urged them in my Sermon with the Argument from Divine Worship being given to Christ they do utterly deny it and say I may as well charge them with the blackest Crimes This I was not a little surprized at knowing how warmly Socinus had disputed for it But that I might not misunderstand them I look'd into other places in their late Books and from them I gather these things 1. They make no Question but some Worship is due to the Lord Christ but the Question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship 2. They distinguish three sorts of Worship 1. Civil Worship from Men to one another 2. Religious Worship given on the account of a Persons Holiness or Relation to God which is more or less according to their Sanctity or nearer Relation to God 3. Divine Worship which belongs only to God which consists in a Resignation of our Vnderstandings Wills and Affections and some peculiar Acts of Reverence and Love towards him The two former may be given to Christ they say but not the last From whence it follows that they cannot according to their own Principles resign their Vnderstandings Wills and Affections to Christ because this is proper Divine Worship Are not these very good Christians the mean while How can they believe sincerely and heartily what he hath revealed unless they resign their Vnderstandings to him How can they Love and Esteem him and place their Happiness in him if they cannot resign their Wills and Affections to him I think never any who pretended to be Christians durst venture to say such things before and all for fear they should be thought to give Divine Worship to Christ. But they confess That they are divided among themselves about the Invocation of Christ. Those who are for it say That he may be the object of Prayer without making him God or a Person of God and without ascribing to him the Properties of the Divine Nature Omnipresence Omniscience or Omnipotence Those who deny it they say do only refuse it because they suppose he hath forbidden it which makes it a meer Error And in the New Testament they say The Charge is frequently renewed that they are to Worship God only And as great Writers as they have been these last seven years they affirm that They have wrote no Book in that time in which they have not been careful to profess to all the World that a like Honour or VVorship much less the same is not to be given to Christ as to God And now I hope we understand their opinion right as to this matter The question is Whether this be interpreting those Scriptures which speak of the Honour and Worship due to Christ like wise Men And for that I shall consider 1. That herein they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his Followers as to the Sense of Scripture in those places 2. That they have done it in such a way as will justifie the Pagan and Popish Idolatry and therefore have not interpreted Scripture like wise Men. 1. That they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his followers who did allow divine Worship to Christ. This appears by the disputes he had with Franciscus Davidis and Christianus Francken about it The former was about the Sense of Scripture Socinus produced all those places which mention the Invocation of Christ and all those wherein S. Paul saith The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all and the Lord Iesus Christ direct our way c. and all those wherein a divine Power and Authority is given to Christ as head of the Church for the support of the Faith and Hope of all those who believe in him in order to Salvation And this Socinus truly judged to be proper divine Worship Georg. Blandrata was unsatisfied that Socinus did not say
World So that there is no way of dealing with them but by shewing the falsness weakness of the grounds they go upon and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture Antiquity or Reason which is the Design of this Vndertaking Worcester Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine Examined p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature p. 68. CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions p. 101. CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined p. 121. CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in point of Reason Answer'd p. 230. ERRATA PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 for unto which p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were p. 211. l. 1. dele that p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ lately reprinted in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time But I know not how it came to pass that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after and so it had continued to this day if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions or rather Heresies had not been more prevalent over them than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity For all who are but well-wishers to that do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings For upon my carefull Perusal of them which was occasion'd by reâ—rinting that Discourse I found nothing extraordinary as to depth of Judgment or closeness of Reasoning or strength of Argument or skill in Scripture or Antiquity but the old stuff set out with a new dress and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in viz. brisk and airy but withal too light and superficial But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject yet that is not the worst part of the character of them for they seem to be written not with a design to convince others or to justifie themselves but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith calling them Iargon Cant Nonsense Impossibilities Contradictions Samaritanism and what not any thing but Mahometism and Deism And at the same time they know that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament and as founded upon their authority So that as far as I can see the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour were understood to â—e received Members upon profession of â—â—e Faith of the Holy Trinity the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father Son and Holy Ghost and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it which to me seem plain and demonstrative argâ—ments that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning as will appear in the progress of this Discourse The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibility with which it is charged by our Vnitarians as they call themselves and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which I first preached and published some years since upon the breaking out of this controversie among us by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek as to the nature of Substances which are continually before our Eyes and therefore if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation we had no cause to wonder at it but our business was chiefly to be satisfied whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation As to which I proposed several things which I thought very reasonable to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters After a considerable time they thought fit to publish something which was to pass for an answer to it but in it they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith in which they were sure to have as many Friends as our Faith had Enemies and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner that I did not then think it deserved an Answer But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself which he hath very well discharged so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars which are fully answer'd already but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion But before I come to that since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for
them For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee These words say they in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not If not they are only an accommodation and no proof But they say even in that mystical Sense they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father but of his Resurrection from the dead But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God how doth this prove him above Angels Heb. 1.6 And again when he bringeth his first begotten into the World he saith And let all the Angels of God Worship him This one would think home to the business But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion i. e. they are nothing to the purpose But being told of this instead of mending the matter they have made it far worse for upon second thoughts but not wiser they say The words are not taken out of the Psalm but out of Deut. 32.43 where the words are not spoken of God but of God's People and if this be said of God's People they hope it may be said of Christ too without concluding from thence that Christ is the supreme God But we must conclude from hence that these are far from being wise Interpreters for what consequence is this the Angels worship God's People therefore Christ is superiour to Angels Heb. 1.8 Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever i. e. say they God is thy Throne for ever And so they relate not to Christ but to God And to what purpose then are they brought Heb. 1.10 Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands These words say they are to be understood not of Christ but of God Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel as was never thought of from the writing of it till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never taken in the Sense they put upon it for him that was to preach the Word in S. Iohn's time but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School as appears by Philo whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel and one of themselves confesses that Cerinthus did by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean something divine which rested upon and inhabited the Person of Iesus and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism so it left him at his Crucifixion That which I observe from hence is that there was a known and current Sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John to understand him in a Sense then commonly known and so he affirms the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in the beginning i. e. before the Creation for he saith afterwards All things were made by him and that he was with God and was God and this Word did not inhabit Iesus as Cerinthus held but was made Flesh and dwelt among us And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus it appears that they understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for any meer Man but for some Divine Power which rested upon the Person of Iesus So that this was a very late and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn And even Sandius Confesses That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church not only among the Fathers but the Hereticks as I have before observed For they agreed except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work that by the Word no meer Man was understood Let them produce one if they can saith Sandius even the learned and judicious Sandius Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools and not like Wise Men But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools what think they of the Deists whom they seem to have a better opinion of as to their Wisdom What if Men without Biass of Interest or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist as an indifferent Iudge But what say our Wise Interpreters to this Truly they say That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit is made to be a good part of the Proof which is alledged for these Doctrines If a Man happen to stand in their way he must be content with such a Character as they will be pleased to give him If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel and manner of expression he had been as Wise as the Alogi but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius as they call him by Eusebius by Porphyrius by Proclus and by Damascenus this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn when he cannot deny but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ while other Chrians asserted it But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius for they bring it in as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it whereas he only mentions it as a Confirmation of a probable Conjecture That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias as he proves from Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrast To which they give no manner of Answer But they affirm in answer to my Sermon p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was That Christ was called the Word because he was the Bringer or Messenger
But if we suppose a personal Union of the Word with the human Nature in Christ then we have a very reasonable Sense of the Words for then no more is imply'd but that Christ as consisting of both Natures should ascend thither where the Word was before when it is said that the Word was with God and so Grotius understands it 2. Grotius doth not make the Word in the beginning of S. John 's Gospel to be a mere Attribute of Wisdom and Power but the eternal Son of God This I shall prove from his own Words 1. He asserts in his Preface to S. Iohn's Gospel that the chief cause of his writing was universally agreed to have been to prevent the spreading of that Venom which had been then dispersed in the Church which he understands of the Heresies about Christ and the Word Now among these the Heresie of Cerinthus was this very opinion which they fasten upon Grotius viz. that the Word was the divine Wisdom and Power inhabiting in the Person of Iesus as I have shew'd before from themselves And besides Grotius saith That the other Evangelists had only intimated the divine Nature of Christ from his miraculous Conception Miracles knowing Mens Hearts perpetual Presence promise of the Spirit remission of Sins c. But S. John as the time required attributed the Name and Power of God to him from the beginning So that by the Name and Power of God he means the same which he called the divine Nature before 2. He saith that when it is said The Word was with God it ought to be understood as Ignatius explains it with the Father what can this mean unless he understood the Word to be the eternal Son of God And he quotes Tertullian saying that he is the Son of God and God ex unitate Substantiae and that there was a Prolation of the Word without Separation Now what Prolation can there be of a meer Attribute How can that be said to be the Son of God begotten of the Father without Division before all Worlds as he quotes it from Iustin Martyr And that he is the Word and God of God from Theophilus Antiochenus And in the next Verse when it is said The same was in the beginning with God it is repeated on purpose saith he That we might consider that God is so to be understood that a Distinction is to be made between God with whom he was and the Word who was with God so that the Word doth not comprehend all that is God But our Wise Interpreters put a ridiculous Sense upon it as though all that Grotius meant was That Gods Attributes are the same with himself which although true in it self is very impertinent to Grotius his purpose and that the Reason why he saith That the Word is not all that God is was because there were other Attributes of God besides But where doth Grotius say any thing like this Is this Wise interpreting or honest and fair dealing For Grotius immediately takes notice from thence of the Difference of Hypostases which he saith was taken from the Platonists but with a change of the Sense 3. When it is said v. 3. That all things were made by him Grotius understands it of the old Creation and of the Son of God For he quotes a passage of Barnabas where he saith The Sun is the Work of his hands and several passages of the Fathers to prove That the World and all things in it were created by him and he adds That nothing but God himself is excepted What say our Wise Interpreters to all this Nothing at all to the purpose but they cite the English Geneva Translation when they pretend to give Grotius his Sense and add That the Word now begins to be spoken of as a Person by the same Figure of Speech that Solomon saith Wisdom hath builded her house c. Doth Grotius say any thing like this And yet they say Let us hear Grotius interpreting this sublime Proeme of S. John 's Gospel But they leave out what he saith and put in what he doth not say is not this interpreting like Wise men 4. The VVord was made flesh v. 14. i. e. say the Vnitarians as from Grotius It did abode on and inhabit a humane Person the Person of Iesus Christ and so was in appearance made flesh or man But what saith Grotius himself The Word that he might bring us to God shew'd himself in the Weakness of humane Nature and he quotes the words of S. Paul for it 1 Tim. 3.16 God was manifest in the flesh and then produces several Passages of the Fathers to the same purpose Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person and so well known as Grotius Who after all in a Letter to his intimate Friend Ger. I. Vossius declares that he owned the Doctrine of the Trinity both in his Poems and his Catechism after his reviewing them which Epistle is Printed before the last Edition of his Book about Christ's Satisfaction as an account to the World of his Faith as to the Trinity And in the last Edition of his Poems but little before his Death he gives a very different Account of the Son of God from what these Vnitarians fasten upon him And now let the World judge how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn and his Commentator Grotius IV. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to make our Saviour's meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words For when he said Before Abraham was I am they make the Sense to be that really he was not but only in Gods Decree as any other man may be said to be This place the late Archbishop who was very far from being a Socinian however his Memory hath been very unworthily reproached in that as well as other Respects since his Death urged against the Socinians saying That the obvious Sense of the Words is that he had a real Existence before Abraham was actually in Being and that their Interpretation about the Decree is so very flat that he can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous And the wise Answer they give is That the words cannot be true in any other Sense being spoken of one who was a Son and Descendant of Abraham Which is as ridiculous as the Interpretation for it is to take it for granted he was no more than a Son of Abraham V. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to say that when our Saviour said in his Conference with the Iews I am the Son of God his chief meaning was That he was the Son of God in such a Sense as all the faithful are called Gods Children Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour Especially when they say That he never said of himself any higher thing than this which is true of every good man I am the Son of God And yet the Iews accused him of
a strange piece of boldness in him For Beza saith He had the use of them all from him and H. Stephens let him have his Father's Copy compared with 25 MSS. and he affirms That he found it in several of R. Stephens his old MSS. besides the Codex Britannicus and the Complutensian Copy and therefore he concludes that it ought to be retained And so it was after these Copies were come abroad in the Bishop's Bible under Queen Elizabeth without any distinction of character as likewise in our last Translation And it is observable that Amelote affirms that he found it in the most ancient Greek Copy in the Vatican Library but the Roman Criticks confess it was not in their 8 MSS. yet they thought it fit to be retained from the common Greek Copies and the Testimonies of the Fathers agreeing with the Vulgar Latin 2. This Verse was in the Copies of the African Churches from S. Cyprian's time as appears by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian Fulgentius Facundus Victor Vitensis and Vigilius Tapsensis which are produced by others F. Simon hath a bold conjecture of which he is not sparing that Victor Vitensis is the first who produced it as S. John 's saying and that it was S. Cyprian 's own Assertion and not made use of by him as a Testimony of Scripture But they who can say such things as these are not much to be trusted For S. Cyprian's words are speaking of S. Iohn before Et iterum de Patre Filio scriptum est hi tres unum sunt And it was not Victor Vitensis but the African Bishops and Eugenius in the head of them who made that address to Huneric wherein they say That it is clearer than Light that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God and prove it by the Testimony of S. John Tres sunt qui Testimonium perhibent in caelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi Tres unum sunt 3. In the former Testimony the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of and why is it rejected here When Morinus confesses there is no variety in the Copies of it Vulgata versio hunc versum constanter habet And he observes that those of the Fathers who seem to omit it as S. Augustin against Maximinus did not follow the old Latin Version Lucas Brugensis saith only That in 35 old Copies they found it wanting but in five As to S. Ierom's Prologue I am not concerned to defend it but Erasmus thought it had too much of S. Jerom in it and others think it hath too little F. Simon confesses that P. Pithaeus and Mabillon think it was S. Ierom's and that it was in the MSS. But I conclude with saying That whoever was the Author at the time when it was written the Greek Copies had this Verse or else he was a notorious Impostor X. The next thing I shall ask these wise Interpreters of Scripture is Whether when the Scripture so often affirms That the World was made by the Son and that all things were created by him in Heaven and in Earth it be reasonable to understand them of Creating nothing For after all their Shifts and Evasions it comes to nothing at last But that we may see how much they are confounded with these places we may observe 1. They sometimes say that where the Creation of all things is spoken of it is not meant of Christ but of God For in the answer they give to the place of the Epistle to the Colossians they have these words For by him all things were created are not spoken of Christ but of God the sense of the whole Context is this The Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God the first born from the dead of every Creature for O Colossians by him even by the invisible God were all things created they were not from all eternity nor rose from the concourse of Atoms but all of them whether things in Heaven or things in Earth whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers are Creatures and were by God created who is before them all and by him they all consist This is a very fair Concession that of whomsoever these words are spoken he must be God 2. But in the defence of this very Book they go about to prove That the Creation of the World is not meant by these words Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed And they tell us They cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ. Wise Men do not use to wonder at plain things For what is the old or first Creation but the making the World and creating all things in Heaven and Earth And these things are attribuâ—ed to the Word to the Son to Christ. But say they The Scripture does never say in express words that Christ hath created the Heaven and the Earth What would these wise Interpreters have Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply that Heaven and Earth were created by him But they have a notable observation from the Language of the New Testament viz That Christ is never said to have created the Heaven the Earth and the Sea and all that therein is but we are apt to think that creating all things takes in â—he Sea too and that in the Scripture Language Heaven and Earth are the same with the World and I hope the World takes in the Sea and the World is said to be made by him and do not all things take in all No say they all things are limited to all Thrones Principalities and Powers visible and invisible Then however the making of these is attributed to Christ. And if he made all Powers Visible and invisible he must be God Not so neither What then is the meaning of the words By him were all things created that are in Heaven and in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him Surely then these Dominions and Powers were created by him No say they that which we render created ought to be rendred modelled disposed or reformed into a new Order Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts One while these words are very strong and good proof of the Creation of the World against Atheists and Epicureans and by and by they prove nothing of all this but only a new modelling of some things called Dominions and Powers Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting Well but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order And who are these Dominions and Powers they answer Men and Angels How are the Angels created by him and for him Did he die to reform them as well as Mankind No but they are put under him And so they were created by him that is they were not created by him but only made subject
words 1. They say That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority For Christ owns that his Power was given to him by the Father There is no question but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross had Power given to him after his Resurrection but the true Question is whether his Sonship were then given to him He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sins in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost He doth not say in the name of Iesus who suffer'd on the Cross nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted but in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost the one as to his Royal Authority over the Church the other as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles yet neither of these are so much as intimated but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal without any Relation to any Gift either as to the Son or Holy Ghost But if the ancient Iews were in the Right as we think they were then we have a plain account how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it 2. They bring several places of Scripture where God and his Creatures are joyned without any Note of distinction or Superiority as The people feared the Lord and Samuel 1 Sam. 12.18 They worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Chron. 29.20 I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ and his elect Angels 1 Tim. 5.21 The Spirit and the Bride say come Revel 22.17 But can any Man of Sense imagine these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions in the former places the Circumstances were so notorious as to God and the Civil Magistrate that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both but with such a different Intention as all men understood it What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy together with God and the Lord Iesus Christ What can this prove but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity but it would have been strange indeed if they had said Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose But they say farther That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit As to the first Three hundred years I have given an account already and as to the Fourth Century I could not have thought that they would have mention'd it since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time who had occasion to do it but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit Athanasius saith That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature from the Father and Son he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism no more than an Angel or any other Creature For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible which it could not be if any created Being were in it and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism although performed with the same Words because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism To the same purpose argue Didymus Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil and others within the Compass of four hundred years whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius to whom I refer the Reader if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice who are so expressly against them and therefore I pass it over as a slip 4. They object That the Form of Baptism implies no more than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father and deliver'd by his Son and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost So much we grant is implied but the Question still remains whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from whom those Effects came are not here chiefly intended For if no more had been meant but these Effects then the right Form of Admission had not been into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost but in the Name of the Father alone as Revealing himself by his Son and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father as the only subsisting Person 5. They tell us That it is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or Thing is God because we are baptized into it for some were baptized into Moses and others into John's Baptism and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods and to be baptized into a Person or Persons and in the name of such a Person is the same thing Grant this yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism and of the Author of a Religion into which they are baptized The Israelites were baptized unto Moses but how The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen and so S. Augustin reads it And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is Act. 7.53 compared with Gal. 3.19 And the force of the Apostle's Argument doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses and into Christ but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed The other place implies no more than being enter'd into that Profession which John baptized his Disciples into But doth any one imagine that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism therefore they must believe him to be God