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
say the Socinians began to persecute the Apostolic Doctrine of One God or which is the same that God is One in the Year 194 but with little success till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians grew into general credit for Justin Martyr Origen and other principal Fathers teaching as the Arians afterwards did that the Father is before the Son and the Holy Ghost in Time Dignity and Power yet that the Word or Son was ereated sometime before the World and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son Ans The Letter tells us That the Socinians say this and indeed it may pass for a Socinian Story for it hath not one Word of Truth in it For 1. The Doctrine of One God or that God is One that is One person as they explain it never was the Apostolic Doctrine as Eusâ—bius now quoted by himself doth declare both from the Scriptures and from the most ancient Fathers as well as from the Hymns composed in honour of Christ from the beginning of the Cospel 2. The Doctrine of One God or that God is One that is not One person exclusive of other persons but One God exclusive of other Gods was the Doctrine of the Apostles and Apostolic Men appears from the same place in Eusebius and from all the same Topicks already mentioned 3. That Victor did persecute and root out the Heresie be contends for doth not appear from any Monuments of those times nor is in any reason to be supposed because that Heresie had not then obtained in that Church and what he did was only according to the common Rules and Practice of the Church to quash this Heresie in its beginning 4. The Letter makes it that that pretended Persecutition did little succeed till it was assisted by the Doctrine of Justin Martyr and Origen which supposes that their Doctrine began under that Persecution which is impossible for this Persecution the Letter saith began A. D. 194. but Justin suffered about 30 years before that time and Origen did not appear till the middle of the Age after And 5. Neither these nor any other Fathers from the Apostles to Origen did ever teach any such Doctrine which might be easily proved by an induction of Particulars so far as their Works are come down to our hands Justin Martyr saith indeed Apol. p. 60. that beside the Father we worship the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second place and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third Now here is a Priority of Order or Prace but where is that of Time and Power Not in this Father I am sure but in the Socinian Comment only We charge him with Falshood let him clear himself by a particular Reference What Justin here saith ever was and still is the Doctrine of the Church So Novat de Trin. c. 31. Pater qua pater the Father as Father is before the Son and yet he declares that the Son is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father which speaks as we said a Priority of Order or Place but not of Time because the Father and Son are co-eternal This must necessarily be the Sense of our Justin for in the same Apology p. 64. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We worship God only Wence any Man in his Wits must conclude that they held that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Else how could they worship all Three and yet worship none but God And if they are God they cannot be after the Father in Time or Power but must be co-eternal and co-equal with him Had Justin taught that the Son and Holy Ghost are after the Father in time and yet had worshipp'd them he would hereby have totally ruin'd the very Reason and Design of this as well as of other Apologies which were purposely written to justifie the Christians who suffered any thing rather than worship the Gentile Gods for this very Reason that they were not from Eternity and consequently were not Gods but Creatures Our Socinian it seems thinks it enough to Name an Author tho he can find nothing in him to his purpose having neither Authority nor Argument for what he saith Iren l. 3. c 26. Indeavours to prove that the Son is God by Nature and after some time spent on this Argument thus diligenter igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus per ea quae dicta sunt generationen ejus quae ex Virgine substatiam quoniam deus The blessed Spirit diligently signifies by what things are spoken his Generation which is of the Virgin and his substance as he is God By his Generation he intends his humane Nature and by his Substance as God the Divine This he saith is expressed Isa 7. 14. by that word Immanuel God with us of God in our Nature He proceeds his humanity appeaâ—s from his eating Butter and Hony and his Divinity from his choosing the good and refusing the Evil v. 15. This last he saith is added least by his eating Butter and Hony mude solummodo eum hominem intelligeremus we should think he is merely Man And again the Word Immanuel intimates that we cannot see God in his own Nature but as he is manifested in our's It is therefore impossible that Irenaeus should hold that the Son is God as to Title or Office only as the Arians afterwards did when he so plainly teaches that he understood him to be God in the Trinitarian sense and that is in Substance or Nature This shows what sense we are to take him in l. 1. c. 2. where he lays down this as one Article in the Christian Faith that Christ is Lord and God which Faith he faith the Church throughout the World received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the Apostles and Apostolic Men And c. 3. this Faith the Church keeps as if she had but one Soul and but one Heart where observe 1. That God must here signifie God by Nature or Substance because he so explained himself in the place before quoted 2. It is impossible that the Doctrine against the Divinity of the Son could be the Doctrine of the Church from the Apostles to Victor when the Deity of the Son was the Doctrine of the whole Church from the Apostles to Irenaeus who was cotemporary with Victor as appears from the Fragments of his Epistle to this Victor himself in Euseb H. l. 5. c. 24. Clemens of Alexandria who flourished under Victor and Zepherine both is as clear in this matter â—as Pen can write for he not only saith adm ad Gent. that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both God and Man and Paed. l. 2. he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I can render no better than in the Words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Fiesh but he also ascribes those things to the Son which all Men must grant us can be true of none but God For Strom. l. 7. the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
properties of God and the Creature because it makes the Creature infinite as well as the Creator and 4. Our Saviour saith Revel 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart Which Phrase search the Heart was never applyed to any of the Prophets but only to Father Son and Holy Ghost Yet he saith not only I do it but I am he that do it which is more Emphatical and implies that this is his own Act and consequently that his Knowledge of the Heart is from his own self Therefore his Knowledge was not like the Prophets for their's was Finite but his Infinite Their 's Communicated his Inherent For which Reasons as well as others Antiquity put that Sense upon these Texts which might not deny but establish not his Omniscience only but such as is not Communicated but Inherent too For Greg. Naz. Ora. 36. Athanas tom 1. Contr. Ar. Ora. 4. c. he knows this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God And consequently must know it of himself but he knew it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Man hereby making those words none knows to exclude not what is God and therefore not the Son as God but all the Creatures and therefore the Son as Man In the same Sense must we take that of St. Mathew Ch. 24. 36. of that Day and Hour knows no Man no not the Angels of Heaven but my Father only For here Father must not be taken personally for the Father in opposition to the Son and the Holy Ghost But essentially for God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in opposition to that word Man of that Day and Hour knows no Man but the Father only therefore these words the Father only exclude the Son from this Knowledge as Man but not as God This exposition is cleared and confirmed from hence 1. That in the Scriptures Father doth often signifie God essentially including Son and Holy Ghost who are of and from the Father 2. This Sense must be granted else you make this one Text to contradict all those which say the Son knows all things c. and 3. These Exclusive Particles none knows or the Father only i. e. God only knows Must be so Interpreted in divers places of Scripture as particularly Luk. 10. 22. No Man in the Greek it is here also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none knows who the Son is but the Father or the Father only Whence they may as well exclude the Holy Ghost from the Knowledge of the Son as the Son from knowing the Day of Judgment because this Particle none must be as Exclusive in that Text as in this But this Word cannot Exclude the Holy Ghost from the knowledge of the Son because 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God Which word search doth imply that this Knowledge is perfect and from himself when applyed to the Spirit as well as when applyed to the Father in the searching the Heart And consequently by parity of Reason it cannot Exclude the Son from the Knowledge of that Day Therefore when I find these Texts cited by the Socinians confineing these Knowledges to God and yet meet with others which ascribe infinite Knowledge to the Son and the Holy Ghost I must conclude not that the Son and Holy Ghost are either ignorant of some things for then I must contradict those Texts which say they know all things or that they are Creatures indowed with an infinite Knowledge because this as is Disputed already is utterly impossible But I must conclude they are God and therefore are not Excluded by those Texts from knowing those things of themselves but are included with the Father in the God-Head and therefore are with the Father that One God to whom all things are open and naked He proceeds Christ ascribed the Infallibility of his Judgment to the Father Joh. 8. 16. If I Judge my Judgment is true for I am not alone but I and my Father that sent me Which he thinks an Argument against his Divinity Answ I am not alone but I and my Father that is the Father hath not left me alone but bears witness to me by Miracles This speaks not the insufficiency of his Judgment but the incredulity of this People and the abundant means that he vouchsafed them Whence he so often appeals to his Works Joh. 10. 25. The Works that I do in my Fathers Name they testifie of me and v. 38. though ye believe not me yet believe the Works Therefore this proves the Grace of God the Father but doth not disprove the Divinity of the Son He insists God cannot be tempted Jam. 1. 17. but the Son was Tempted of the Devil Answ If God cannot be Tempted what is the meaning of Mat. 4. 7. Jesus said thou shalt not Tempt the Lord thy God St. James saith God cannot be Tempted with or to evil No more was our Blessed Saviour for he complyed not with the Temptation He cites Luke 18. 19. Why callest thou me Good There is none good save One that is God On which the Letter saith he refused to be called Good because God only is Good Answ The true meaning is he refused to be called good unless in Relation to his Divinity implying that himself is good not by Participation as Man is but essentially as God is Therefo r he asks why callest thou me good viz. as Man or as God That sense he Rejects this he claims as his due So Athanastom 1. de Hum. Nat. Suscept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you think me Man and not God call me not good Suppose this Text is of it self capable of those two senses the one of which speaks him but Man the other God Wee may easily determine which Sense to take it in for their's contradicts all those Scriptures which declare his Divinity But our's comports with them without Contradiction to any Therefore not their's but our's must be admitted because it must be interpreted in concurrence with other Scriptures but not in contradiction to ' em Arg. 6. p. 10. God gives what and to whom he pleases but Christ saith to Sit on my right Hand and on my left is not mine to give Mat. 20. 23. Answ Is not mine to give i. e. as Man not mine Exclusive of the Father or contrary to the Divine Oeconomy according to which something is ascribed as peculiar to every Person in the Sacred Trinity That this is the meaning is evident from Joh. 10. 28. I give unto them Eternal Life Nothing can be greater than this yet the Son gives this as well as the Father Therefore in what Sense the other is not his to give in the same Sense Eternal Life is not his to give But in what Sense he gives Eternal Life in the same Sense he gives the other too whatever you please to understand by it This they know is our Doctrine and therefore ought not only to propose this Scripture
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.