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
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.
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
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
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
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
Nature and Testimony too which Exposition doth not lose but secure the design of this Text. For since they are One in Nature and that Nature is Divine they must be One in Testimony and that Testimony must be infallible too because three Divine Persons who are one in Nature can neither agree in a false Testimony nor disagree in that Testimony they give Can we now think that this Doctrine which teaches there are Three who are but one God is false and impossible when it is so evidently founded on this and other concurring Texts which are the Word of Truth and which therefore can teach nothing which is false and impossible If any thing we teach seems absurd and contradictory or false and impossible as the Letter words it it is not from the Doctrine it self but from the Socinians Misrepresentation of it For 1. They say we teach that there are but One hereby suggesting to others and arguing themselves as if we mean in One respect only which is indeed impossible Whereas we teach that Three in one respect are but One in another which according to their own Doctrine takes away the Impossibility For the Socinian himself grants us upon these Words I and my Father are One that Two in one respect may be but One in another And if Two may be One why not Three Since the difficulty lies not between Two and One but between a Plurality whether they be Two or Three and an Vnity They allow the Thing it is only the Modus or Manner how Two or Three can be but One in which we differ Therefore since we so far agree they ought to set forth how we hold Three to be hut One together with our Reasons for this Doctrine which would lead even a prejudiced Reader to some deliberation and not by a partial and Sophistical Representation make our Doctrine seem prima facie absurd and impossible to the end they may huff off all consideration of it Indeed their manner of Vnion is common among Men but if ours is plainly founded on Divine Revelation as we maintain it is the singularity of the thing is not able to destroy the Thing it self and therefore ought in Justice to be so proposed as to leave Men to examine and consider it and not to be rejected without either 2. They say Let. p. 159. we teach there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them the true and most high God and yet there is but One true and most high God Ans We teach there are Three Divine Persons who together are the true and most high God They are every one a Divine Person or God as they have every one a Divine Nature but they are together the true and most high God as that Divine Nature is but One tho common to all Three The Distinction arises from the distinct manner of Subsistence but the Unity from the Sameness of Essence This speak Three that are God but not Three Gods because these are all within the Godhead as having but one and the same Substance and consequently can be but One God 3. Their Objections arise from the want of Parallel Instances in Nature whence they speak it absurd and impossible but the Absurdity lies on their side who measure Supernatural things by Natural and will believe nothing of God but what they see in the Creature as if an Infinite Nature must be in all things commensurable to the Nature and Thoughts of what is Finite 4. They declare it absurd and impossible because we cannot demonstrate the manner of it how Three can be but One when thâ— thing being matter of pure Revelation we had known nothing of it unless it had bâ—en Revealed and therefore now can know no more than is revealed Now it is revealed that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet these are not Three Gods but One God But how this is Revelation doth not tell us Therefore we are not absurd who teach what the Scriptures teach but they are absurd in demanding more The Church indeed uses the distinction of Personal and Essential that they are Three Personally and but One Essentially that is they are Three Persons and but One God Not that these Terms are fully and so clearly expressive of this Mystery as to remove all Cavils and Difficulties but that she may the best she can express her own Sense the Sense of Antiquity and the import of those Scriptures that respect a Trinity Let them give us more proper and significant Terms and we will use them but let them not reject a Divine Truth for the sake of those Terms which Heresie hath forced us to make use of 5. This method of theirs implies a whole train of Absurdities for we are to prove First That a thing is and then how it is If we prove the former that must be granted because proved though we should never be able to prove the Latter But they contrary to all the Rules of Art and method require us to prove how it is in order to their believing that it is And do reject that part which is proved only because the other is not According to this method they must deny a thousand things which they see which all Mankind will say is absurd with a witness They say p. 158 that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true that holds forth either a Doctrine or a Consequence that is absurd contradictory or Impossible Ans We readily grant it and such is that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned in the next Page For God is a Spirit but not a Body Because body is compounded of parts is subject to Dissolution and cannot be in all places at once therefore those Scriptures which ascribe humane parts to God cannot be true in a literal sense but only in an improper one And when these Men have proved such an absurdity contradiction ot impossibility in the Doctrine of a Trinity we will dispute no more They may indeed prove that three Men cannot be one or one Man three but as the Learned Bishop of Worcester Dr. Stillingfleet observes they can never prove that an infinite Nature cannot communicate it self to three different Subsistences without such a division as is among created Beings Because a Finite capacity can never comprehend the Powers and Operations of an infinite Nature So absurd are these Men as to decry revealed Truths for absurd and impossible only because they cannot understand them Should they do the like in natural things they would quickly become the contempt of Mankind We are not ashamed to own a Mystery in the Divine Nature when we find little but Mystery in common Nature her self Nor can we think it unreasonable that God should command us to believe that a thing is though he hath not told us how it is any more than it is unreasonable that Nature should oblige us to assent where the most refined reason can find no place of Entrance God