contends for where observe 1. What trust we may repose in Socinian Quotations for if he is so false where he makes a particular Reference what must the Reader expect where he only names an Author This Answer will prove what I here assert against the whole Party of 'em That throughout this Letter there is not one Quotation in seven but what is either false or not to his Purpose If they will have this an Argument of their Learning they may but I am sure it is no proof of their Honesty 2. The Socinian denies that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation but this Creed saith That he was before all Ages and made all things I demand therefore of our Socinians that they profess this Faith or acknowledge themselves the Perverters of Truth and Debauchers of Antiquity And indeed like the Harpies they rarely settle upon any place but they so pollute it that it wants a laborious Pen to cleanse and restore it to it self He hath then Presumption only but no colour of Proof that the Apostles composed this Creed We therefore proceed to the next part of our Argument 2. Though this Creed called the Apostles doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost yet it sufficiently teaches both For 1. It doth stile the Son his only Son which Words indeed in themselves import only this That he is a Son in such sort as none else is which the Socinian would perswade respects not his Divinity but his being born of a Virgin but take them together with the Scriptures whence they are themselves taken and by which they must be explained and then it will sufficiently appear that his only Son is a Son by Nature Whence S. Austin in Symb. l. 1. c. 2. Quando Unicum audis Dei filium agnosce Deum the only Son of God is God This some other Parts of our Dispute will evince so far as the Letter hath led us to this Argument But 2. As to the Holy Ghost he thinks nothing can be here pretended to prove him a Divine Person excepting only the Phrase of believing with the Preposition in which is set also before the Church and therefore can ascribe a Divinity to the one no more than to the other But his Thoughts are very short and dull For though this hath been a common Error which some at this day will hardly be drawn from yet we declare that we neither do nor need for the establishing this Doctrine hold any such force in this Phrase See Dr. Hammod's Practical Catechism lib. 5. Dr. Peirson and Heylen upon this Article who absolutely deny it because not this Creed only but all Antiquity apply it to Men and so do the Sacred Scriptures They instance in Exod. 14. 31. The People believed in the Lord and in Moses and 1 Sam. 27. 20. Achish believed in David To which we add that of our Blessed Saviour Joh. 5. 45. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom ye believe or trust as we translate it They with Musculus and others impute the Notion to S. Austin and Jerom whose Translation first omitted the Preposition in these Texts of the Old Testament which other Translations follow A little before these Fathers Greg. Naz. acknowledges the Preposition in the Translations of his time but yet saith this Phrase ought to be applied to none but the Lord for the People did believe in Moses not as Moses but as a Type of the Lord and consequently this did not terminate in Moses but did refer ultimately to the Lord. But he did not consider that Achish believed in David but he could not believe in David as a Type of the Lord when he knew neither the Lord nor that David was any Type at all Hence Ashwel took his Notion of the Peoples believing in Moses as subordinate to the Lord but there could be no such subordinate Faith in this Heathen Prince who yet believed in David This was therefore an Error growing and setling it self in the Church sometime before Jerom and Austin but however it was these two that fixed the Point and by that Omission in that Translation as well as otherwise occasioned others to e rt with them But you will say then where or how doth this Creed teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost I answer that the Son and the Holy Ghost are put into this Creed as equally Objects of Faith and Worship with the Father and this is the very thing that declares the Divinity of both Nor is this from Men but from God for it was so done upon the special Precept of our blessed Saviour in the form of Baptism which is the Original of all Creeds I confess the Fathers use this Phrase in their Disputes for a Trinity So Greg. Nys to 2. cont Eunom l. 1. if the Holy Ghost be not God Tì 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why do Men believe the H. Ghost But observe he doth not here Dispute from the sole force of that Phrase of believing in but from our believing in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father which makes the Blessed Spirit equally with the Father a sharer in our Faith and Adoration In this sense is Hila. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. who teaches that we cannot believe in the Father without the Son whence he concludes they must be the same in Nature But this Conclusion is drawn not from the Form of the Expression that we believe in but from the Matter expressed that they are both equally the Objects of our Faith And indeed there is no such Extravagance in the World as to teach that we believe in God in a Creature and a simple Power that he who will not give his Glory to another should set a meer Creature and a naked Power or Inspiration which is no Person equal with himself in the Faith and Adoration of his People So falsly doth this Letter pretend from this Creed that the Apostles did believe as the Socinians believe when neither did the Apostles compose it nor is it any way servicable to the Socinian Hypothesis SECT V. Now as if he had proved his Point when he had proved nothing but what we may safely grant him he concludes p. 24. parag 6. Theirs viz. the Socinians is an Accountable and a Reasonable Faith Answ A Faith just as Reasonable as this Inference For as this is drawn from no due Premises so that stands founded on neither Scripture nor good Argument A reasonable Faith indeed which makes a Finite God and an Infinite Creature Which denies the Son to be God and yet doth Worship him A reasonable Faith which cannot support itself without expunging some Texts out of the Sacred Canon without transposing the parts of others contrary to the Ancient and most Authentick Reading and without expounding some contrary to the very Letter and most evident Design of the place Socinus himself was so sensible of the reasonableness of this Faith that he not only rejects the sense of
the Church but in his Epistle to Balcerovicius he allows the offering any force to the Sacred Scriptures rather than to their own Sentiments in which our present Socinians are his strict Disciples And de Jesu Chris Salvat parag 3. c. 6. to 2. he vents himself thus if I find such things non semel sed saepè not once but often in the Scriptures non id circo tamen it a reâ— prorâ—us se habere crederem I will not for all that belive it And if this be an accountable and a reasonable Faith which is founded not on the Scriptures but on the Wills of Men then all Heresies must be accountable and reasonable too But on the contrary this must be a most unaccountable and a most unreasonable nay a blasphemous and most dangerous Faith which makes the Writings of Socinus as Maâ—â—met did his Alcoran the Peoples Bible and their Rule of Faith But that of the Trinitariâ—â—s he saith is absurd and contrary both to Reason and it self And therefore is not only false but impossible His Reason is that we teach there are Three Almighty and most Wise Persons and yet but one God Answ The Scriptures cannot teach any thing absurd or impossible but the Scriptures doteach there are three who are but one God therefore this Doctrine of ours is not absurd and impossible Now that there are three who are but one God is evident as from other Places so likewise from 1 John 5. 7 8 There are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and those three are one And there be three that bear Witness in Earth the Spirit the Water and the Bloud and these three agree in one Which Texts I will so clear from all their Cavils that they shall sufficiently vindicate our Doctrine from being absurd and impossible Euiedinus and the rest would expunge the last Clause in the 7th Verse these three are one Because 1. Some Fathers who wrote professedly on the Trinity have iâ— not Whence he makes them to be added by some Enemy of the Arians Ans 1 St. Cyprian in the middle of the Age before Arius hath this Text intire de Vnit Eccâ—es and St. Jerom soon after Arius censures the Omission of this Clause Now that of Eniedinus is impossible for these Words could not be added by some Enemy of the Arians in the time of St. Cyprian who flourished almost an Age before Arius himself was But the careless or designed Omission of 'em is necessarily true because the 4 th Age wanted them after St Cyprian in the 3 d Age had ' em Nor do we find many that quarrell'd with St. Jerome for censuring this Omission which some would certainly have done had he not had a ground for this Censure which is an Argument that St. Cyprian himself had this Clause and that it was not afterwards foysted in by some other hand 2 They plead that V. 7. is not in the Syriac nor Arabick whence some reject the whole Ans We grant it but V. 8. is in both which is linked to V. 7. by a Conjunction Copulative and beside which the Sense Coherence and Dependance of these with and upon one another speak this imperfect without that Whence Beza whom Letter 4 p. 152 quotes on his side saith both must be expunged or reteined together and then concludes for the reteining both And indeed this Case is so clear that since the Socinians receive V. 8 they must receive V. 7. too or renounce their own reason We proceed to confirm the whole Verse to be authentick 1. These words I and my Father are one are allowed on all hands to be St. John's therefore rhose Words these Three are One from the Likeness both of Stile and Matter seem to be his too For such a Likeness between Text and Text is as good an Argument according to the proportion of Matter to prove that each have the same Author as it is between that Gospel and his Epistle But all Learned Men allow of this Argument therefore the Socinian must allow of that or differ from the World of the Learned as they do already from the World of Christians 2. Our Learned Bishop of Salisbury Dr. Burnet in his Letter from Zurie observes that among Ten Copies he had seen abroad Nine had either the 7 th V. or St. Jerome's Epistle or Preface which condems the Omission while One only wanted both Therefore among Ten Copies one only was purely Arian or Socinian because the Omissions in them that wanted are condemned not only by that Epistle or preface but by them also who added that Epistle or Preface to those Copies 3. Suppositions grant nothing therefore suppose we that this Text it self is not authentick yet the Matter of it is taught by all those Scriptures which assert the Divinity of the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and the Existence of but one God for they taken together do assert that these Three are One that is One God or One in Nature therefore was the Socinian a Man of that Reason he pretends he could not think the expunging this Text out of the Sacred Canon of so much moment when divers others taken together speak the same thing He is then imployed about a Work he can never effect or if effected yet can do him but little if any service For which reasons they betake themselves to other Methods For they farther plead If this Text be Authentick yet it cannot intend one in Nature but One in Testimony because each verse speaks of each three as Witnesses Ans True each intend Testimony as Beza Calvin Erasmus and others observe But this doth not prove that v 7. intends no more nor do these Authors Exclude an Unity of Nature But the variation of the Phrase implies a restriction of the matter For v. 7. saith the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are One which is equally extendible to Nature and Testimony But v. 8. saith the Spirit the Water and the Blood agree in One Which is applicable not to Nature but to Testimony especially where Testimony is mentioned or evidently intended therefore we understand the former of One in Nature and Testimony both else we do not take the Phrase in its full latitude nor make it comport with those other Texts which declare the Divine Nature of Father Son and Holy Ghost And yet that these three are but One True and Almighty God because that Nature is numerically one in which they all agree But we understand the latter of Testimony only because the phrase designs no more nor do any other Scriptures declare that the Spirit the Water and the Blood do agree in Nature as the other do But they insist thus The Expounding v. 7. of Nature doth lose the design of these Texts which speak of Testimony Ans The Expounding it of Nature only exclusive of Testimony would have gave some colour of Reason to his Objection But we Expound it both of
but also to prove an inconsistency between this Scripture and this Doctrine This he doth not attempt not will ever be able to perform But it seems it is enough for a Socinian to start an Error and then leave it to the World in hope some may take it as the Man did the Snake into their Houses He proceeds God needs no aid of any other but Christ saith he that sent me is with me Answ The thing in Controversie is whether the Son be God as well as Man The Socinian brings this Text against us but if we at present only suppose that he is both which we must do till it be disproved he can never tell me why the Fathers presence with the Human Nature of Christ should necessarily imply a denial of his Divine Nature and consequently this Text is no due Medium whence to conclude his point He adds God cannot Pray for himself and People but Christ Prays for himself and Disciples Luk. 22. 42 Heb. 5. 7. c. Answ We Teach that Christ is both God and Man Now he Prayed for himself only as Man Luk. 22. 42. that this Cup viz. his Passion now at hand might pass from him He Prayed for others as Priest Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh he offered up Prayers Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God that is to say his Praying must hinder the Human Nature from being united to the Divine for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason Nay as Man he dyed yet notwithstanding this was United to the Divinity And if his Death could not hinder this Union much less can his Praying But to shew the weakness of this Argument we will add though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God for so there is nothing above him yet he may Pray considered personally as the Son of God viz. the Father for as Son he is subordinate to the Father and consequently as Son may Pray the Father This is an Argument then no more to his purpose than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Travels or Noah's Planting a Vinyard He urges farther Christ Dyed and the Father raised him from the Dead Ephes 1. 19 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God He that dyed and was raised must be Man but his Argument implies that he who raised him must be God which is enough to our purpose For he raised himself John 2. 19. destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which v. 21. saith he spake of the Temple of his Body Therefore according to his own Hypothesis the Son must be God as well as Man But the Socinian pretends Let. 3. p. 89. That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father and accordingly his being raised is always attributed to the Father not to himself Answ This is false for that Text doth attribute it to himself I will raise it up Therefore either the Son must be the Father or else his Resurrection is not always attributed to the Father 2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father then he must be raised by the Father for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised and consequently he could not say I will raise it 3. This notion makes the Raiser and the raised to be the same which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker and the thing made to be the same Therefore when he saith I will raise it up he speaks not as Man for as such he was to be raised but as God who alone is the raiser of the dead And 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father for then those Texts of which some ascribe it to the Father others to the Son must be contradictory But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both because now both must be God or else they could not raise the dead His next Scripture which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me is already answered in Arg. 2. For this Power here given him respects only the Government of the Church to which he was now exalted which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion but this doth not prove that he had not antecedent to this a Power with the Father in the Government of the World This proves he had now a new Government but doth not prove that therefore he was not God because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World but yet was God Such additionals prove an alteration in the things added but not in those Divine Persons to whom they are added All the difference is this Power was given the Son True but this as before speaks the Son subordinate to the Father but doth not destroy his Nature by which he is God Argum. 7. p. 11. Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and is described to be the Son of God and the Image of God Answ He is personally distinct and therefore is not God the Father but he is not essentially distinct and therefore must be God the Son If the Socinian then would gain his point he must prove not only a distinction which we grant but such a distinction which we deny But he hath said that Christ is the Son of God and the Image of God whence he concludes p. 12. thus it is as impossible that the Son or Image of the one true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image be the very thing whose Image it is Answ Profoundly argued and like a a Socinian For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God when Father Son and Holy Ghost are together the one true God Therefore take the One true God and the invisible God personally for the Father only and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be that One true God because the Son cannot be the Father and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God because as he saith the Image cannot be that very thing whose Image it is But take the One true God and the invisible God essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost and then the Son with the Father and Holy Spirit is that One true God and the Image of the invisible God with the Father and Holy Ghost is that invisible God because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God because as an Image represents that very thing whose Image it is so the Son represents the Father as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both Whence
he saith John 14. 8. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father because as Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. glosses the Father is seen in the Perfections of the Son and consequently the Son must be of the same Nature with the Father Our Doctrine then is not simply impossible and contradictory to common sense as the Letter pretends but theirs is palpably false and absurd for all these Arguments as he calls them run upon these two false suppositions viz. 1. That there is but one Nature in Christ for he proves that Christ is Man and thence concludes he cannot be God when the Scriptures abundantly declare that he is both 2. That there is but one Person in the God-head for he often proves that Christ is not God viz. the Father as many of his quotations must be understood and thence concludes he is not God though the Scriptures prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Thus he supposes what we deny that there is but one Nature in Christ and but one Person in the God-head but proves only what we grant viz. that Christ is Man and that the Son is not the Father But let him prove first that there is but one Nature in Christ and then that Christ is Man and again first that there is but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head and then that the Son is not the Father from each of which it will follow that the Son cannot be God nothing less can conclude his point but this method of his proves nothing against us but only betrays the Socinians want either of Honesty or Judgment However he concludes his Arguments as he calls them with a Socinian Confidence asserting p. 13. that there is in Scripture no real foundation for the Divinity of the Son For proof of which he now flyes above common Argument and can stoop to nothing below Demonstration § Demonst 1. par 8. p. 13. So many Scriptures expresly declare that only the Father is God For proof of this he quotes John 17. 1 3. Father this is Eternal Life that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Answ The Letter saith that Only the Father is God which denyes the Son and Holy Ghost is God but this Text saith the Father is the only true God this excludes the Gentile Gods but not the Son and the Holy Ghost who with the Father are the only true God He here removes the exclusive particle only from the praediciate the true God to the subject thee for pardon the repetition the Apostle saith thee the only true God but the Socinian saith only thee the true God which is such a corruption of the Text contrary to all antient and authentick reading that utterly perverts the very sense and design of it You have then a Demonstration indeed not that only the Father is God but that the Scriptures and Socinianism are at odds and that the one or the other must be Reformed The next words and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent do Distinguish the Son from the Father as to Office so doth 1 Cor. 8. 6. there is but one God and One Lord but they do not Distinguish him as to Nature The same is true of other Quotations under this Head and consequently none of 'em prove what he undertakes viz. that only the Father is God Demonst 2. parag 9. p. 14. If Christ were God as well as Man it had been altogether Superfluous to give the Holy Ghost to his said Human Nature as a Director and a Guide For what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell His Quotations are Luke 4. 1. Act. 1. 2 and Ch. 10. 38. Which prove only this that the Holy Ghost was given to the Human Nature of Christ Which the poor Man thinks a Demonstrative proof that Christ was not United to the Eternal Word or Son of God and Consequently was not God 1. This Demonstration as he calls it is founded not upon Scripture but upon a Socinian Presumption For no Scripture saith that if the Son was God he should not have had the Presence and Conduct of the Spirit of God And certainly it is a Monstrous way of Arguing that this or that is necessary for God to have done or not to have done and then to conclude he hath or hath not done it For this is no better than to limit the Almighty to give Rules to Infinite Wisdom and to make not the Scripture but our own blind Conceits the Rule of our Faith In this way the Romanists Demonstrate an Universal Head of the Church Some the Divine Right of this or that Form of Church-Government and after the same Methods others may as well Demonstrate away all Religion and introduce what they please of their own 2. His Foundation is utterly false For the Church is the Body of Christ which Ephes 4. 15 16. is said to be fitly joyned to him our Head to intimate that he doth actuate and guide it and yet notwithstanding standing this the Spirit is sent to lead her into all Truth Where let the Socinian tell me why both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit may not guide the Human Nature as well as Myslical Body of Christ 3. It follows that the same works of God are ascribed now to one Person then to another Thus we find it in this of Conduct in that of Creation c. but this doth not destroy but rather declare and confirm the Doctrine of a Trinity Because it proclaims those Powers and Operations which the Socinian would Limit to one Person to be common to all three whence it follows that all three must be God Demonst 3. parag 10. p. 15. We have an Instance of this in the Demonstration now before us For he would not have the Son to be God because he Ascribes his Miracles to the Holy Spirit Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God Now this doth not prove the Son is not God any more than the Ascribing Creation to the Son doth prove that the Father did not Create But it is a good step toward the proving that the Holy Ghost is God For Miracles cannot be wrought but by a Divine Power therefore if the Holy Ghost hath such a Power of Miracles that they are wrought by him if he be a Person which we shall easily prove he must be a Divine Person and that is God Demonst 4. parag 11. p. 15. Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament would not Describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman Answ They Describe him as such but not barely as such for they Describe him also as God Thus Isa 40. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord make strait in the Desert an High way for our God This is evidently spoke of the Messias and the Evangelists
Christi sed mirum videri non debet si sequor interpretem Ecclesiam cujus Authoritate persuasus credo Scripturis Canonicis I could be of the same mind with the Arians and Pelagians if the Church had approved what they taught Not that the words of Christ do not satisfy me but it ought not to seem strange if I follow the Judgment of the Church by whose Authority I believe the Canonical Scripture which place is certainly against him For 1. He saith the words of Christ do satisfie him i. e. as to Arianism and Pelagianism before mentioned 2. He puts Arianism and Pelagianism together implying that he had no more favour for that than for this which I do not remember he was ever charged with Therefore 3. His design is not to favour this or t'other Heresy but only to shew how far he could give up his Faith to the Judgment of the Church And consequently his own sense must be much distant from both these Perswasions else this could be no Argument of his wonderful submission to the Churches Authority A Romanist may make good advantage of this and therefore the Paris Doctors never put it among their Censures But it no more helps the Socinian than the things he calls his Arguments and Demonstrations He proceeds p. 31. Grotius is Socinian all over and p. 32. there is nothing in all his Annotations which they viz. the Socinians do not approve and applaud Ans Upon Joh. 1. 1. these words in the beginning Grotius will have to be taken from Gen. 1. 1. and understands them of the Creation properly or of the beginning of the Creature As he doth also v. 2. by him were all things made For which he quotes the Epistle of Barnabas Justin Athenagoras Tatian Tertullian and others This word was he renders jam tum erat then was or did exist when all Creatures began By which Existence before time he understands an Eternal Existence And yet he holds the Word or Son not for the Command or simple Power of God but for a Person Where observe that Grotius teaches that the Son is a Person eternally existing who in a proper sense made or created the World and if either Arian or Socinian approve or applaud this they must each depart from his own Heresy Therefore when upon those words Colos 1. 16. by him viz. the Son as Grotius himself takes it were all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created he saith this word is sometimes applied to the New Creature we must understand him as shewing the Various Acceptations of the word not as designing hereby to deny the Son to be Creator because he so expresly ascribes Creation to him upon that Text of St. John 3. In p. 32. he pretends that Petavius grants that the Fathers before the Nicene Council did agree in their Doctrine concerning God with the Socinian and concerning the Son and Holy Spirit with the Arians Ans 1. Petavius saith no such thing Let the Socinian vindicate himself by referring us to the places 2. Had he said so the Quotations we have given the Readet out of Ignacius Justin Iraeneus Clemens Tertullian and others would abundantly confute him 3. Patanius himself was a Trinitarian as appears from what he hath wrote upon this Argument And 4. He did not accuse these Fathers of Arianism or Socinianism but only censured some of those Arguments by which they would establish the Doctrine of a Trinity 4. The Letter reports Episcopius suspected of Arianism p 34 35. he saith the Father is so first as to be first in Order i. e. in time Ans 1. Episcopius saith the Father is first in Order which we all grant But it is the Socinian Comment that makes the first in Order to be the first in time which we deny Because though the Father is first in Order yet the Son is Co-eternal with the Father as before 2. This Author denies a Co-ordination and asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity But this Subordination doth not destroy but only Explains the Doctrine of a Trinity as is noted already And 3. In his Institut Theol. l. 4. c. 32. He ascribes a Divine Nature to Father Son and Holy Ghost and teaches that they are all properly Persons And if this be Arianism or Socinianism we are all such 5. He Complements his dear Friend Sandius for a Gentleman of Prodigious Industry and Reading and no less ingenious than Learned Ans Whatever his Industry and Learning was I mâ—st deny both his Judgment and Honesty 1. His Judgment For he knows not how to distinguish between the genuine doubtful and spurious Writings of the Antients but thinks Clemens the Father of the Constitutions under his Name Which is utterly impossible because l. 7 c. 48. the Author mentions three Bishops of Jerusalem made by the Apostles James Simeon and Judas But St. John the last of the twelve Died and this Clemens himself suffered Martyrdom in the year 100. while Simeon lived about seven years after How then the Apostles could appoint Judas his Successor or Clemens their Scribe Record it neither their Learned Sandius nor our Socinians those Men of Wit and Reason can resolve me They as well as the Apostolic Canons were probably written about the end of the Second Century and seem to owe themselves excepting their Corruptions to Clemens of Alexandria He receives likewise the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius and de Vet. Script Eccles he would prove the Legitimacy of that ad Philip. by this Argument viz. Origen who flourished about the middle of the Third Age hath something upon St. Luke like something in that Epistle where observe 1. Origen doth not mention either Ignatius or this Epistle 2. Ignatius and Origen might hit upon somewhat like Notions without Communication And 3. These ascribed Epistles are not mentioned by Eusebius Jerom or any other hefore them whence we ought in all reason to reject them Dr. Peirson late Bishop of Chester observes they appeared not till 400 years after Ignatius whence he declares them spurious Vind. Epist 8. Ignat. c. 10. 2. By such intolerable Errors he creates difficulties to himself For the design of his History is to prove that all Antiquity is Arian Bur the Epis ad Heron. which is one of the ascribed saith that if any asserts that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man which phrase was always used in opposition to his Divinity Iren. l. 3. c. 26. and Eusebius in the case of Ebion the same is a Jew and a Murtherer of Christ Now had he like a Man of Art and Judgment rejected these Epistles he had removed this Block at which he must now stumble and fall 2. I deny his Honesty For Hist l. 1. Secul 1. he will have the Creed called the Apostles to be composed by them to be the only Creed used in the Church and that very Creed too which was established at Nice And that Evag. H. l. 3. c. 17. saying we are Baptized into a Creed composed by 318 Bishops intended no other but this When this was never mentioned in that Council and the Concert is totally Ruined by the Testimonies we have already produced upon this Argument Sect. 4. Should I draw out all the instances of weakness and knavery I â—hould leave but little of that book behind me A fit man for an Ecclesiastical Historian whose want of Judgment and Honesty makes his writings like a sword in some mens hands dangerous to them that come in the reach of it Sure I am no Student ought to read him till he is well acquainted with the true state and doctrine of antiquity His accounts of antiquity and the brief history of the Socinians may go together and if each will be pretenders to wit and reason I matter not so long as we have on our side better pretensions to truth and Honesty Dr. Wallis in one of his letters gives an account of this Sandius's conversion and his dying in the Trinitarian Faith I earnestly pray that the same Mercy and Goodness would open the eyes of all Arians and Socinians that they may no longer lye under strong delusions and the belief of a Lye but may come to the knowledg of the truth and be saved FINIS Boeks Printed for John Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-Street AN Enquiry into Several Remarkable texts of the old and new Testament which contain some difficulty in them with a probable Resolution of them In two parts By John Edwards B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge A new Discourse of Trade wherein is Recommended several weighty Points relating to Companies of Merchants The Act of Navigation Naturalization of Strangers and our Woollen Manufactures the Ballance of Trade and the nature of Plantations and their Consequences in Relation to the Kingdom are seriously Discussed And some Proposals for erecting a Court of Merchants for determining Controversies relating to Maritime Affairs and for a Law for Transferrance of Bills of Debts are humbly Offered By Sir Josiah Child Miscellaneous Essays By Monsieur St. Euremont Translated out of French with a Character by a Person of Honour here in England continued by Mr. Dryden Monarchia Microcosmi The Origin Vicissitudes and Period of Vital Government in Man For a farther Discovery of Diseases incident to Human Nature By Everard Maynwaringe M. D.
Charity or to any thing else which is not a Person But a Subsistence to the Father Son and Holy Ghost together in the same Text 1 John 5. 7. there are three the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost implying that the Subsistence of the Holy Ghost is as Real and Personal as that of the Father and the Son They Ascribe to him also Life Understanding Will and Power For 1 Cor. 12. 11. he divides the Manifold Gifts of God to every one as himself Will Whence these two Cases are so unlike that even Biddle the Socinian was ashamed of it For notwithstanding this of Charity he Asserts the Personality of the Holy Ghost even while he denies his Divinity 3. Scripture must not be taken figuratively without a necessity else you may turn the whole into an Allegory and loose at once both the Letter and Design in a Cabalistical Sense Now this necessity doth lye in the Case of Charity as much as in that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned Let. 4. p. 159. For all Men do as well know that Charity can be no Person as that God can have no Human Parts as Eyes Ears Hands c. but this is so far from lying in the Case of the Holy Ghost that Let. 3. p. 99. doth consess that all the Arrians and many Socinians do acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is a Person Whence this is a conceit so weak as well as Novel that even the Vnitarians themselves as he idlely calls them are divided upon it It is plain then that in the Judgment of their own Party as well as of the Church in all Ages here is no necessity of a Figurative Interpretation and consequently no such ought to be admitted The Socinian Arguments we see are like Ghosts that appear only to whom they please since none but a few of their own Party have yet discerned ' em Consid 3. p. 18. The Spirit is obtained for us of God by our Prayers Act. 15. 8. Luk. 11. 13. Whence he thinks the Spirit is not God because he is given by another Answ By the Spirit he here understands the Gifts of the Spirit as himself explains it whence he proceeds thus but they viz. the Socinians say also That if the Holy Spirit were at all a Person much more God his Gifts would be bestowed by himself which 1. Convinces him of contradiction for he saith they are the gifts of the Spirit yet denyes that they are given by the Spirit which is as much as to say they are given by the Spirit and yet are not given by the Spirit which is a contradiction in terms And 2. This utterly destroys his Argument which is this that the Spirit doth not bestow his own gifts therefore the Spirit is not God but the Spirit must bestow his own gifts else they could not be his own gifts but must be the gifts of him that bestows 'em therefore the antecedent being false the consequent must be false too Now that the Spirit doth bestow these things which he acknowledges to be the gifts and graces of the Spirit is expresly asserted by St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. 8 9 10 11. where he saith of these very gifts and graces of the Spirit that the Spirit divides them to every one as he will and if he devides 'em to Men he must give 'em to Men because these are Synonymous Terms which are both expressive of the same thing The Texts he quotes do prove these things are given by the Father we grant it but this and other Texts do prove they are given also by the Spirit but those Texts can no more exclude the Spirit than these can exclude the Father Therefore they must be given by both as indeed they are by the whole Trinity for which reason they are ascribed now to one Person then to another as Faith Repentance c. which are the gifts of the Spirit are attributed not to the Spirit only but sometimes to the Father as himself proves and sometimes to the Son as the Apostle declares Act. 5. 31. him viz. the Son hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance which implyes Faith to Israel and Act. 2. speaking of the gift of Tongues saith v. 32 33. that Jesus who was raised from the dead being by the right hand of God exalted he viz. the same Jesus hath shed forth this which ye do see and hear The result is 1. That the Socinian is partial and unjust in quoting one Text of Scripture in opposition to another And 2. He hath not only lost his own Argument but hath also furnished us with one against himself for he argues thus the Spirit doth not give these gifts to men therefore the Spirit is not God which implyes that if the Spirit doth give these gifts then the Spirit is God but we see he doth give these gifts and therefore must be God And indeed he can be no other than God who divides these manifold gifts of God according to his own Will He proceeds there is no Precept nor Example in all Holy Scripture of Prayer made to the Spirit on this or any other occasion which on the Trinitarian supposition that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God no less than the Father is very surprizing nay utterly unaccountable Answ We deny it for 2 Cor. 13. 16. we read thus The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all which Text we shall first explain and then apply it to the present Argument That word God the love of God must not be taken essentially for God as if the Son and Holy Ghost were not God but personally for God the Father and therefore can distinguish them only from the Father My reasons are these 1. Other Scriptures as we have said do not only stile the Son and the Holy Ghost God but do also ascribe to them infinite Perfections which are not competible to any Creature and likewise attribute to them the Name Jehovah which is proper to God as we shall prove anon Therefore if you make that word God in this Text to signifie God essentially and consequently to exclude the Son and Holy Ghost from the Deity then this Text must contradict all them but that cannot be the true sense of one Text which contradicts another And 2. St. Paul himself doth thus explain it Ephes 6. 23. Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ where he distinguishes the Son not simply from God but from God the Father this denyes that the Son is the Father but still implyes that the Son is God Now this Text being the more full and perfect explains that in the Corinthians by teaching us to supply these words the Father The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God viz. the Father and the Communion of the Holy Ghost Now this Text thus supplyed and perfected by that doth make a distinction of Persons but not
is but one God which is all this Text can pretend to and all that our Socinian can prove But we say likewise that Jehovah or God is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost That the Father is Jehovah or God the Socinian grants us and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah or God we will prove 1. That the Son is Jehovah or God will appear from hence In Exod. 33 1 2 3. the Lord the word is Jehovah said I will send my Angel but I will not go up into the midst of thee Now as the Letter supposes that Jehovah is God so in this very place it can signifie no other than God properly Because ◠Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel as such and therefore from every Angel I will send my Angel but I will not go and 2. He declares his propriety in this Angel for it is my Angel An Angel that is mine that is my Creature and my Servant Which gloss I found upon this bottom that we never find in all the Scripture that one Angel speaks thus of another for though there be different orders of Angels yet they are all Servants of God not the Servants one of another Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in and that Power over this Angel which God has to in and over his Creatures Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah appeared to Abraham v. 2. expresses it by three Men but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah or Lord the same is so called again v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two Men but this Jehovah This only was Dignified with these Titles to this only did Abraham bow himself and direct his Discourse Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distinguished from these Men as he was before from that Angel and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World which neither is true nor was ever affirmed of any created Spirit it must needs be that this Jehovah is God But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father because 1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape as to Joshua to Moses so to Abraham whence himself and the two with him are called Men v. 2 but the Father never appeared in humane shape and the Teaching that he did was antiently as well as justly condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie and 2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2 because they were sent as the Word imports but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity cannot be sent from any The Result then is here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men but the Father never did appear in this likeness therefore this could not be Jehovah or God the Father but must be Jehovah or God the Son whom the Father sent in Humane shape as an intimation of his future Incarnation This is evident from Joshua for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword and asks Who he was for The Man answered v. 14 As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man this Captain is himself Jehovah the Lord for after he had answered Joshua and commanded him to put off his shooe because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15 then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord i. e. this Man this Captain said to Joshua Therefore the former Jehovah or Lord is the Father whose Host this was and the latter Jehovah or Lord is the Son who was sent from the Father as Captain of it This was the Sense of all Antiquity for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar c. 6. and adv Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were followed by Cyprian Origen and the rest Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord Jehovah rained down Fire from the Lord Jehovah in Heaven The Series of this History shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch 18 whence the latter must be the Father who was in Heaven This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers but also of the first Council of Sirmium And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Jehovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World Gen. 18. 25. We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius who de Nomine Jehovah objects several things against us with a design to perswade that Jehovah is not a Name proper to God but is sometimes given to Angels properly taken and consequently that this Jehovah was not tht Son but only an Angel of God Object 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2. Ans They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me 1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God as well as these three Men be Angels And then 2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels but this he stiled Jehovah whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all created Beings and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Creator God blessed for ever Object 2. He who is called Lord Jehovah in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God but common to Created Spirits Ans Angel doth note his Office as being sent from the Father and Jehovah notes his Nature as being of the same Substance with the Father for v. 6. this Jehovah saith I am the God of Abraham and v. 14. he stiles himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting which is not competible to any Creature Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31 32. Have ' ye not read not what God spake to you by his Angel but that which is spoke to you by God saying I am the God of Abraham Where our Saviour himself who is the best Interpreter of Scripture teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit but even God himself Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Christ And Tertul. adv Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum Moysi God that is the Son of God was seen by Moses the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv Judae 1. 2. c. Object 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God but yet is sometimes given to Angels as they personate God i. e. bear his Name and
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.
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉