mind to be captious may cavil at these places as the Sadduces of old did at those passages in the Old Testament tending to prove a Resurrection And not those only but even some of our own who would have us think that the Fathers before Christ had only Promises of Temporal blessings not of Heavenly and Eternal Though St. Paul tells us when of the hope and resurrection of the dead he was called in question that he did so worship the God of his Fathers believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets and had hope towards God which they also allowed that there should be a Resurrection of the dead both of the Just and Vnjust and that it was a promise made of God to their Fathers to which their twelve Tribes instantly serving God day and night hoped to come which were no other things than what Moses and the Prophets had said should come to pass and which to King Agrippa who if not a Jew was at least well acquainted with their Doctrines should not seem strange Act. 23.6 Act. 24.14 15. Act. 26.2 3 6 7 8 22. And Heb. 11.13 that all these died in faith not having received the promises that is they died in the belief of better things than what they had yet received But saw them afar off and were perswaded of them and embraced them and confessed they were but strangers and Pilgrims upon Earth And our Saviour proves it out of the Old Testament Mat. 22.32 by such an Argument as if one of us should have urged it would perhaps have been ridiculed I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living And the Apostle pursues the same Argument Heb. 11.9 10 14 15 16. They sojourned in the Land of promise as in a strange Land dwelling in Tabernacles movable from place to place for they looked for a City which hath foundations a fixed City not flitting as were those Tabernacles whose builder and maker of God Declaring plainly that they did seek a Country Not such as that from whence they came but a better Country that is a Heavenly wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City where he directly argues that God's Promise to be their God was a Promise of Heaven And no doubt but the Prophets and Men of God had taught them all along to put a Spiritual Sense upon those seemingly Temporal Promises though the Sadduces would not believe it but cavilled at it in so much that not only the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law but even the Women embraced it even before Christ's Resurrection I know saith Martha of her dead Brother Lazarus that he shall Rise again in the Resurrection at the last day Joh. 11.24 And of such Spiritual Senses we have copious Instances in the Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere frequently And as they did without any reluctances readily embrace the Doctrine of the Resurrection when more clearly declared by the Apostles as a thing not wholly new to them so neither do we find in them any Reluctance to that of the Trinity for which in likelihood they had in like manner been before prepared but readily closed with the Form of Baptism in the Name not Names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 And that Solemn Benediction 2 Cor. 13.14 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen Where we have all the Three Persons reckoned together as they are also in that celebrated place 1 Joh. 5.7 The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost these Three are One. And as they had been before by Christ himself Joh. 14.26 The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My Name He shall teach you all things And Joh. 15.26 The Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which Proceedeth from the Father He shall testify of Me. And to name no more places Mat. 3.16 17. Jesus when he was baptized went straitway out of the Water And lo the heavâ—ns were opened unto him and he John the Baptist saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove and lighting upon Him And lo a voice from heaven saying This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased 4. There is yet another Consideration which doth confirm this opinion that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown to the Jewish Church before Christ From the footsteps thereof yet extant in Heathen Writers 'T is well known to those conversant in such Studies that much of the Heathen Learning their Philosophy Theology and Mythology was borrowed from the Jews though much Disguised and sometimes Ridiculed by them Which things though they be Fabulous as disguised in a Romantick dress yet they are good Evidence that there was a Truth in History which gave occasion to those Fables None doubts but Ovid's Fable of the Chaos of which all things were made took its rise from Moses's History of the Creation And Deucalion's Flood from that of Noah and the Titan's fighting against the Gods from the Builders of Babel's Tower And that of Two-faced Janus from Noah's looking backward forward to the World before and since the Flood And many the like of which we may see in Natalis Comes in Bochartus and others And of which we have a large Collection in Theophilus Gale's Court of the Gentiles And in Dr. Duport's Gnomologia Homerica wherein is a Collection of Homer's Sayings which look like Allusions to like Passages in Sacred Scripture and seem to be borrowed most of them from those Books of it which were written before Homer's time who yet is one of the most Ancient and most Famed of Heathen Writers Plato hath borrowed so much of his Philosophy History and Theology from the Jewish learning as that he hath obtained the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses disguised in a Greek dress And may seem because the name of Jews was odious to cite them rather by the names of certain Barbarians Syrians Phoenicians Egyptians c. From that Title of God in Exodus I AM 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the Equivalent names of Jah and Jehovah he borrows his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Being or that which Is the very Being the true Being which are the Titles he gives to the Supreme God For his Immortality of the Soul he reckons the best Argument to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Divine Revelation which he had by Tradition from certain Ancients who lived as he speaks nearer to the Gods as if he had borrowed even this Phrase from Deut. 4.7 What nation is so great who hath God so Nigh unto them And much more as hath been noted by others And I am so far from thinking as the Socinians would have us
and united by the Heavenly Sacraments can be separated in the Church Where he argues for the Unity of the Church not to be divided by Schism by two Arguments from this place One from the firm Unity of God noted in ver 7. The Father Son and Holy Ghost are One from whom this Church proceeds de divina firmitate venientem The other from their being United by the same Sacraments sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem which relates to ver 8. The Spirit the Water and the Bloud agree in One. Which double Argument from the two Verses shew that then they were both read And as to the former of them which is that in question He cites it again in his Epistola ad Jubaianum where disputing against Baptâ—sm by Hereticks he thus argues Si baptizari quis apud Haereticos potuit utique remissam peccatorum consequi potuit Si peccatorum remissam consecutus est sanctificaâ—us est templum Dei factus est Quaero Cujus Dei Si Creatoris non potuit qui in eum non credidit Si Christi nec hujus potuit fieri templum qui negat Deum Christum Si Spiritus Sancti cum tres Unum sint quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest qui aut Patris aut Fiâ—ii inimicus est That is If by Hereticks one could be baptized then he might obtain remission of sins If he obtain remission of sins then is he sanctified and become the Temple of God I ask then of What God Of the Creator that he cannot be who did not in Him believe Of Christ Neither can he be His Temple who denies Christ to be God Of the Holy Ghost No. Foâ— seeing these Three are One How can the Holy Ghost be at Peace with him who is at Enmity with either the Father or the Son 'T is manifest therefore that These Three are One was thus read in Cyprian's time as being by him twice cited before the Arian Controversie was on foot And before him it is cited by Tertullian in his Book adversus Praxeam cap. 25. Connexus Patris in Filio Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero qui Tres Unum sunt non Unus quomodo dictum est Ego Pater Unum sumus ad Substantiae Unitatem non ad Numeri Singularitatem Where he doth not only cite the place but doth likewise Parallel and Compare These Three are One in this place with I and the Father are One in the other place as being of a like import That is The Connexion of the Father with the Son and of the Son with the Paraclete or Holy Ghost makes these coherent one with the other Which Three are ONE Unum not Unus One Thing not One Person like as it is said I and the Father are One one Thing as to the Unity of Substance though not as to Singularity of Number They are One Being One Substance though otherwise they may be Three 'T is therefore no New Interpolation but was anciently so read by Cyprian and Tertullian the two most ancient of the Latin Fathers long before the Arian Controversie was on foot And hath been urged by others afterward against the Arians Nor is there any prejudice that I know of against its being so read as now we read it save that some of the Fathers it is said have omitted to Urge it against the Arians when there hath been occasion of so doing But this beside that it is onely a Negative Argument and I know not how well grounded might very well happen if it chanced to be wanting in that particular Copy which such Father used For we are not to suppose they had then such plenty of Bibles as are now in our hands but some one Manuscript Copy was to serve many And because that in St. John's Gospel I and the Father are One did fit their purpose as well or rather better than this in his Epistle These Three are One. For the Controversie then on foot was not so much that of the Trinity as that of the Divinity of Christ. To return therefore to the place which is before us From what hath been said it is manifest enough that St. John in calling the Father the Onely True God did not intend to exclude the Son from being the same True God whom himself doth elsewhere call the True God also 1 Joh. 5.20 No more I say than what is said by name of God the Redeemer Isa. 44.6 8. is to be thought exclusive of God the Creator or God the Father Thus saith the Lord the REDEEMER the Lord of Hosts I am the first and I am the last and beside ME there is no God Which is applied to Christ in particular Rev. 22 1â— 16. But is not exclusive of the Father because God the Creator or God the Father is the same God with God the Redeemer and therefore not another God beside him And therefore both of them or rather the same God under both Considerations indifferently called especially in the Old Testament God indefinitely the Lord of Hosts the Holy One of Israel Nor is that which is said of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 15 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ who Onely hath Immortality intended to exclude the Father as if the Father were not also Immortal or were not what is there said of Christ the blessed and onely Potentate the King of kings and the Lord of lords But only that our Lord Jesus Christ is that God which God is the blessed and onely Potentate the King of kings and Lord of lords and who only hath Immortality And as was before noted by S. Austin The Father is not excluded from being Lord notwithstanding that of 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is but One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ or that of Eph. 4.5 6. One Lord one Faith One Baptism one God and Father of all For the Father and the Son are the same God the same Lord. The same of whom it is said Isa. 45.5 I am the Lord and there is none else there is no God beside me And again ver 6. I am the Lord and there is none else Where note that the Word Father in that phrase God and Father of All is different from the sense of it in the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that relating to the common Nature this to the Person And as in these places what is saâ—d of the Son that he onely hath Immortality that he is the onely Potentate that he is the One Lord that beside him the Redeemer there is no God are not to be understood exclusive of the Father so what is here said of the Father that he is the Onely True God is not to be understood exclusive of the Son who is not another but the same True God I thought here to have inserted as in a proper place a Discourse of some other Points relating to the Trinity which I find it necessary here to omit or to defer
Creature And in imitation of them some others have since so used it But this is a New sense of later Ages since the time of those Fathers nor do the Schoolmen in this sense without a Metaphor apply it to the Sacred Trinity We cannot therefore conclude from hence What was the Fathers sense of it 4. To find out therefore the true sense of tâ—e word Person as applied to the Trinity we are not so much to consider what now-a-days the word doth sometime signifie with us in English nor what sense the Schoolmen have put upon it since the time of those Fathers As what was the true sense of the word Persona at or before their times in approved Latin Authours Which is quite another thing from either of these senses For what in English we sometimes mean by Three Persons taken indifferently for Men Women and Children the Latins would not have called tres Personas but tres Homines Though if considered in such Relations as Father Mother and Child they might so be called tres Personae Nor do I find that in approved Latin Authours the word Persona was wont to be attributed by them as by the Schoolmen it hath since been to Angels nor to their Genii or Heathen Gods But 5. It did signifie the State Quality or Condition of a Man as he stands Related to other Men. And so I find the Latin word Persona Englished in our Dictionaries Suppose as a King a Subject a Father a Son a Neighbour a Publick or Private Person a Person of Honour and the like And so as the Condition varied the Person varied also though the same Man remained As if an ordinary Person be first made a Knight and then a Lord the Person or Condition is varied but he is still the same Man that he was before And he that is this Year a Lord Mayor may be next Year but an Alderman or not so much Hence are those Latin Phrases frequent in approved Authours Personam imponere to put a Man into an Office or confer a Dignity upon him Induere personam to take upon him the Office Sustinere personam to Bear an Office or Execute an Office Deponere personam to Resign the Office or lay it down so Agere personam to Act a Person and many the like So that there is nothing of Contradiction nothing of Inconsistence nothing Absurd or Strange in it for the same Man to sustain divers Persons either successively or at the same Time or divers Persons to meet in the same Man according to the true and proper Notion of the word Person A Man may at the same time sustain the Person of a King and of a Father if invested with Regal and Paternal Authority and these Authorities may be Subordinate one to another and he may accordingly Act sometime as a King and sometime as a Father Thus Tully who well understood the Propriety of Latin words Sustineo Unus tres Personas meam Adversarii Judicis I being One and the same Man sustain Three Persons That of my Own that of my Adversary and that of the Judge And David was at the same time Son of Jesse Father of Solomon and King of Israel And this takes away the very Foundation of their Objection Which proceeds upon this Mistake as if Three Persons in a proper sense must needs imply Three Men. 6. Now if Three Persons in the proper sense of the word Person may be One Man what hinders but that Three Divine Persons in a sense Metaphorical may be One God What hinders but that the same God considered as the Maker and Sovereign of all the World may be God the Creator or God the Father and the same God considered as to his special Care of Mankind as the Ruthour of our Redemption be God the Redeemer or God the Son and the same God as working effectually on the Hearts of his Elect be God the Sanctifier or God the Holy-Ghost And what hinders but that the same God distinguished according to these three Considerations may fitly be said to be Three Persons Or if the word Person do not please Three Somewhats that are but One God And this seems to me a Full and Clear Solution of that Objection which they would have to be thought Insuperable Objection V. It may perhaps be Objected further Why must we needs make use of the word Person and call them Three Persons if Three Somewhats will serve as well I answer First We have no such need of the word Person but that we can spare it Hypostasis will serve our turn as well And if they think the Latin word Persona be not a good Translation of the Greek Hypostasis Let them retain the Greek word We mean the same by both And then perhaps they will find themselves at a loss to fasten some of their Objections upon the word Hypostasis which they would fasten upon Persona 2. But Secondly If the Thing be thus far agreed That these Three Somewhats thus considered may be One God I see not why they should contend with us about the Name Person For this is only to quarrel about a Word or Name when the Notion is agreed 3. If it were admitted which I see no reason for that the word Person doth not fitly express that Notion which it is intended to design the most that can be inferred from it is but That we have not given it so fit a Name And to cavil at that when the Notion intended by it is understood were just as if one should argue There never was such a Man as whom they called Pope Pius because the Man who was so called was not a Pious Man 4. But I see not why the word Person should not be thought a very fit word for this purpose For Two of these Three are represented to us in Scripture under the Names of Father and Son and this Son as Begotten of the Father and therefore these Names are not to be quarrelled with But all this in a Metaphorical sense For no Man can suppose that this Father doth so Beget this Son as these words do properly signifie amongst Men Now the Relations of Father and Son in a proper sense are such as are properly denoted by the word Persona in its proper Acceptation And consequently the Father and Son in a Metaphorical sense may by a Continuation of the same Metaphor be fitly called Persons in that Metaphorical sense And in what sense they be Father and Son in a like sense they be Persons according to the Propriety of the Latin word Persona For such Relatives the Latins called Personas And if the Father and Son may fitly be so called no doubt but the Holy Ghost may be so called also as One Proceeding or Coming forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from them As in Joh. 14.26 The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name he will teach you all things And Joh. 15.26 The Comforter whom I will send you from the Father even the Spirit of
Truth which proceedeth from the Father He shall testifie of Me. Where it is manifest that in what sense the Father and Son are to be reputed Persons the Comforter or Holy Ghost is in the same sense so to be reputed So that I think I have clearly Vindicated not only the Notion That these Three Somewhats may be One God But the Name also That these Somewhats may fitly be called Persons Objection VI. I shall name but one Objection more which when I have satisfied I shall conclude for this time That 6 th Objection and 't is but a weak one is this The Trinitarians do not all agree but differ among themselves in expressing their Notions in this Matter Very well And do not the Antitrinitarians differ much more Doth not the Arian and the Socinian differ as much from one another as either of them do from us and declare that they so do And do not the Arians among themselves and the Socinians amongst themselves differ more than do the Trinitarians Certainly they do It must be confessed that different Men as well in the same as in different Ages have very differently expressed themselves according to their different Sentiments of Personality and of the particular Distinctions of the three Persons among themselves But so it is in all the most obvious things in the world As in Time Place Space Motion and the like We are all apt to think that we all know well enough what we mean by those Words till we be asked But if we be put to it to express our selves concerning any of them What it is whether a Thing or Nothing or not a Thing or somewhat of a Thing and what that somewhat is it would be long enough before we should all agree to express our selves just in the same manner and so clearly as that no man who hath a mind to cavil could find occasion so to do I might say the like of Heat and Cold of Light Sight and Colour of Smells and Tâ—sts and the different Sorts of them Can we never be sâ—id to agree in this That the Fire doth Burn and Consume the Wooâ— till we be all agreed what is the Figure of those Fiery Atoms and what their Motion and from what Impulse which enter the Pores of â—he Wood and separate its parts and convert some of them to Smoak some to Flame and â—â—me to Ashes and which to which and in what manner all this is done What a folly then is it to require that in the things of God we should all so agree as to express our thoughts just in the same manner as is not possible to do in the most obvious things we meet with And in such a case as wherein to express our Notions we have no Words but Figurative it is not to be thought strange that one man should make use of one Metaphor and another of another according as their several Fansies serve But thus far I think the Orthodox are all agreed That between these Three which the Scripture calls The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost or the Father the Word and the Spirit there is a Dâ—stinction greater than that of what we call the Divine Attributes but not so as to be Three Gods And this Distinction they have thought fit to denote by the Word Hypostasis or Person They are also all agreed that one of these Persons namely the Son or the Word was Incarnate or Made Flesh and did take to himself our Humane Nature But as to the particular Modes or Manner How either how these two Natures are United or how these three Persons are Distinguished each from other we may be content to be Ignorant farther than God hath been pleased to Reveal to us We know that our Immortal Soul is joined with an Humane Body so as to make One Man without ceasing that to be a Spirit and this to be a Body But 't is hard for us to say How And accordingly we say that the Man Christ Jesus without ceasing to be Man and God manifested in the Flesh without ceasing to be God are One Christ But what kind of Union this is which we call Hypostatical we do not throughly understand We know also that the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten the Holy Ghost to Proceed But neither do we fully understand the import of these Words nor is it needful that we should But so far as was said before we do all agree and we may safely rest there Now to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost three Persons but One God be Honour and Glory and Praise now and for ever The End of the Second Sermon A Third SERMON Concerning the TRINITY JOH xvij 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent I Have in a former Discourse from this Verse entered upon the Doctrine of the Trinity not so much as being contained in it as occasioned by it I have shewed that the word Onely is here restrictive not of the Subject Thee but of the Predicate True God Affirming the Father to be the Onely True God though not the Father Onely Nor is it exclusive of the Son who is also the same True God and is so expresly called by this same Writer 1 Joh. 5.20 where speaking of Jesus Christ he says This is the True God and Eternal Life as if it were spoken with a direct aspect to the words before us Now that Christ is often called God neither the Arians nor the Socinians do deny And it is so frequent and so evident as not to be denyed Not only in the place last cited but in many others Thy throne O God endureth for ever Heb. 1.8 The Word was with God and the Word was God Joh. 1.1 My Lord and my God Joh. 20.28 The Being over all God blessed for ever Amen Or the Supreme Being the ever blessed God Rom. 9.5 And elsewhere Objection VII But to this they Object That though he be sometime called God yet by God is not there meant the Supreme God But either a mere Titular God as the Socinians will have it as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8.5 one who is called God but indeed is not but a mere Man however highly dignified Or as the Arians will have it that he is God indeed but not the Supreme God not the same God with the Father but an Inferiour God Deus factus a made-God a Creature-God who was indeed before the World but not from Eternity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Time a Moment a Quando when he was not when he had not a Being In Answer to both which I shall endeavour to shew by the most signal Characters whereby the Supreme God the Onely true God is set forth to us in Scripture and by which he is therein Distinguished from
is said of Christ Joh. 10.30 I and the Father are One is said of all Three by the same St. John â— Joh. 5.7 The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost thâ—se Three are One. Objection III. It is Objected that these words last cited are said to have been wanting in some Translations or some ancient Copies Answ. Be it so And so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Translations And considerable parts of some other Chapters But we are not therefore to cast them away as not Genuine The II d. and III d. Epistles of St. John and that of Jude are said to have been wanting in the Syriack and Arabick Translations And the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery Joh. 8. wanting in the Gothick Gospels And part of the last Chapter of St. Mark 's Gospel is said to be wanting in some Books And the Doxology in the close of the Lord's Prayer And the like in divers others But we must not thence conclude them not to be Genuine and put them out of our Bibles because they have chanced to be omitted in some Books And it is so far from being strange that such Omissions should sometimes happen that it is very strange if there were not a great Providence of God to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire that there should be no more such mistakes than what are found For before the convenience of Printing was found out when Copies were to be singly transcribed one from another and even those but in a few hands 'T was very possible and hardly avoidable even for a diligent Transcriber sometime to skip a line Especially which is the case here when some of the same words do again recur after a line or two Men are very subject both in Writing and Printing as those well know who are versed in either to leap from one word to the same recurring soon after Nor is such Omission when it happens readily discerned if as here the sense be not manifestly disturbed by it Now when such variety of Copies happens that words be found in some which are wanting in others this must either happen by a Casual mis-take without any design of Fraud or by a willful Falsification as to serve a particular turn which I take to be the case of the Papists Indices Expurgatorii And as to the words in question If the difference of Copies happened at first by a Casual mistake as I am apt to think 't is very easy for a Transcriber unawares to leave out a Line which was in his Copy especially where such omission doth not manifestly disturb the sense but not to put in a line which was not there And in such case the Fuller Copy is likelyest to be True and the Omission to be a Fault Which happening as it seems it did some hundreds of years ago in some one Copy it might easily pass unobserved into many others transcribed thence and so to others derived from those Transcripts But an Insertion of what was not in their Copy must needs be willful and not casual On the other side If this variety of Copies were at first from a willful Falsification It is much more likely to be a willful Omission of the Arians in some of their Copies which might be done silently and unobserved than by a willful Insertion of the Orthodox For the Insertion of such a clause if wholly New and which had never before been Heard of would have been presently detected by the Arians as soon as ever it should be urged against them Nor was any advantage to be made of it by the Orthodox since the Divinity of Christ which was the Point then in question might be as strongly urged from that in St. John's Gospel I and the Father are One as from this in his Epistle These Three are One. And therefore it is not likely that the Orthodox should willfully make any such Falsification from whence they could promise themselves no advantage Nor do I find it was ever charged upon them by the ancient Arians in those days though Athanasius and others urged it against them And in very ancient Copies in which it had been left out it is found supplied in the Margin as having been faultily omitted And it is the more likely to be Genuine because in this clause The Father the Word and the Holy-Ghost the second Person is called sunpliciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which is St. John's Language both here and in his Gospel Joh. 1. And is I think peculiar to him and not so used by any other of the Holy Writers of the New Testament I do not deny but that this second Person may be called the Word of God in Heb. 11.3 By Faith we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God And 2 Pet. 3.5 7. By the Word of God were the Heavens of old and the Earth c. and by the same Word they are kept in store As he is by the same St. John Rev. 19.13 His name is called the Word of God But to call him the Word absolutely without other addition I think is peculiar to St. John And therefore much more likely in this place to have proceeded from the same Pen and not to have been inserted by an Interpolater some hundreds of years after And that clause These Three are One in the Epistle agreeing so well with I and the Father are one in the Gospel is a further confirmation of their being both from the same Pen. Add to this That the Antithesis which we find in the 7 th and 8 th Verses is so very Natural that it is a great Presumption to be Genuine There are Three that bear record in Heaven The Father the Word and the holy-Holy-Ghost and these Three are One And there are Three that bear witness in Earth The Spirit and the Water and the Blood and these Three agree in One. Which as it stands is very Natural but the latter clause would seem lame without the former and the words in Earth wholly redundant in the latter if not by Antithesis to answer to the words in Heaven in the former Verse And that it was anciently so read appears from St. Cyprian by whom it is twice cited in his Book De Unitate Ecclesiae and in his Epistle ad Jubaianum before the Arian Controversy was on foot In the former place arguing for the Church's Unity not to be broken by Schisms he speaks thus Dicit Dominus Ego Pater unum sumus Et iterum de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto scriptum est Et hi tres unum sunt Et quisquam credit hanc Unitatem de divina firmitate venientem sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem scindi in Ecclesia posse That is Our Lord saith I and the Father are One And again of the Father Son and Holy Ghost It is Written These Three are One. And who can believe that this Unity of the Church proceeding from this Firm Union in God
above and upon earth beneath there is none else And Isai. 42.8 I am JEHOVAH that is my name and my Glory will I not give unto another And Deut. 6.4 Hear O Israel the LORD thy God is one LORD or JEHOVAH thy God is one JEHOVAH there is no other Jehovah but he And Deut. 28.58 That thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name THE LORD THY GOD or JEHOVAH thy God And to the same purpose Deut. 32.39 1 Sam. 12.2 and in many other places I will not despute whether this name JEHOVAH were never made known till God did thus declare it to Moses at Exod. 3.15 It might seem so to be by that of Exod. 6.3 I appeared unto Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob by the name of God Almighty but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them 'T is true that God is often so called in the Book of Genesis But that Book was written by Moses after the time that Moses speaks of in Exodus And Moses might so call him by a name known at the time when he wrote though it had not been known at the time whereof he wrote As when Abraham is said to go forth from Vr of the Chaldees or of Chasdim Gen. 11.31 though Chesed the Son of Nahor from whom in likelihood the Chaldees were called Chasdim was not born till afterwards as appears Gen. 22.22 So Exod. 12.40 where the Children of Israel are said to have sojourned four hundred and thirty years it must be reckoned backward as far as Abraham's coming forth from Vr of the Chaldees at which time they could not be called the Children of Israel for Israel was not then born but it was that people who were afterwards called the Children of Israel And many such Prolepses or anticipations of Names there are in all Historians But whether it be upon this account or some other that he is said by his Name JEHOVAH not to have been known to them is not material to our present business 'T is enough that Jehovah is now known to be the signal Name of the True God and I think no where given to any other Now that our Saviour Christ is called Jehovah is not to be denied And it is for this reason that the Socinians would have us think that this Name is not peculiar to God In Jer. 23.5 6. he is called Jehovah Tzidkenu the LORD our Righteousness Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will raise unto David a Righteous Branch and a King shall reign and prosper and shall execute judgment and justice on the Earth In his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell in safety which is agreed by Jews and Christians to be understood of the Messias And this is the name whereby he shall be called JEHOVAH Tzidkenu the LORD our Righteousnâ—â—s JEHOVAH our Righteousness And to the same purpose Jer. 33.15 16. In Psal. 102. which is called A prayer of the afflicted when he poureth out his complaint before the LORD Jehovah It begins thus Hear my prayer O LORD Jehovah and let my cry come unto thee And he to whom this prayer is made is eight or nine times called the LORD Jehovah Now he to whom this prayer is made we are told Hebr. 1.8 10 11 12. is our Lord Christ Vnto the Son he saith Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the works of thy hands They shall perish but thou remainest They all shall wax old as a garment and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail All which is cited out of that Prayer made to the Lord Jehovah So I the LORD Jehovah the first and the last Isai. 41.4 Thus saith the LORD Jehovah before me there was no God neither shall there be after me Isai. 43.10 Thus saith the LORD Jehovah the King of Israel and his Redeemer Jehovah the LORD of Hosts I am the first and I am the last and beside Me there is no God Isai. 44.6 which are the Characters applied to Christ Rev. 1.8 9. 2.8 21.6 22.13 as was shewed before 'T is true that in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament the name Jehovah is no where retained but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think every where put for it Whether because of a Jewish Superstition no where to pronounce that Name or because it could not conveniently be expressed in Greek Letters I will not determine And for that reason because the Septuagints did not use it it is not used in the New Testament which doth mostly comply with the Language of the Septuagints as being the Greek Translation then in use And therefore we are not to look for the Name Jehovah there applied to Christ. But divers places are in the New Testament applied to Christ wherein the name Jehovah was used in the Old Testament And the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord by which both the Septuagints and the New Testament do constantly render the Hebrew Name Jehovah is so frequently applied to Christ in the New Testament as that throughout the New Testament it is almost his constant Character the Lord the Lord Jesus Christ c. One Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 8.6 Our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory Jam. 2.1 My Lord and my God Joh. 20.28 No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12.3 And elsewhere so often that none can be ignorant of it CHARACTER IV. The last Character which I shall insist upon of the True God the Only God is that of the Lord God of Israel Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. Deut. 6.4 And the Lord thy God is almost the constant Language of Moses to the Children of Israel And it is the Character which God directs him to use Thus shalt thou say unto the Children of Israel The Lord God of your Fathers the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me this is my name for ever and this is my memorial unto all Generations Exod. 3.15 and the Lord God of the Hebrews ver 18. And elsewhere very often throughout the Bible And doubtless he that was the Lord God of Israel is the true God the only God 'T is He who tells us I am the Lord thy God Thou shalt have no other God but Me Exod. 20.3 And Besides Me there is no other God Isai. 44.6 and so often elsewhere that it is needless to name the places And this Character as well as the rest is expresly given to Christ also Luk. 1.16 17. where we are expresly told of John the Baptist that many of the Children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord Their God to the Lord God of Israel for he shall go before Him in the spirit and power
of Elias Now we all know whose fore-runner John Baptist was and before whom he was to go in the Power and Spirit of Elias And he before whom he was thus to go is the Lord God of Israel and therefore not only a Titular God or a Creature God but the True God the Supreme God the same God with that God who is the Lord God of Israel whom no man doubts to be the True God the Supreme God the Only God I might add many other Characters given to Christ proving him to be the True God as that Rev. 2.13 I am he which searcheth the Reins and Hearts and I will give unto every one according to his Works and to the same purpose Rev. 22.12 and elsewhere which God the True God claims as his peculiar Prerogative Jer. 17.9 10. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked Who can know it I the LORD search the Heart I try the Reins to give to every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings And to the same purpose Jer. 11.20 Jer. 20.12 1 Chron. 28.9 Psal. 7.9 Psal. 139.1 and in many other places And that likewise of Isai 9.6 His Name shall be called Wonderful Councellor the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace c. with many other Characters of like nature which can never agree to any but the True God But it is not my business in this short Discourse to say All that might be said but what may be sufficient He therefore that is as hath been shewed God the True God the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Eternal God the First and the Last before whom nothing was and after whom nothing shall be that Was and Is and shall Be the same yesterday and to day and for ever the Almighty by whom the World was made by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made that was made who laid the foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of his hands who when the Heavens and the Earth shall fail his years endure for ever who searcheth the heart and the reins to give to every one according to his works who is Jehovah the Lord God of Israel the Supreme being which is over all God blessed for ever who is the Blessed and only Potentate the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who only hath immortality to whom be Honour and Power Everlasting Amen That God I say of whom all these great things are said is certainly not a mere Titular God who is called God but is not a Creature God or only a dignified Man For if these be not Characters of the True God by what Characters shall the True God be described I know the Socinians have imployed their Wits to find out some tricks to evade or elude some of these plain places which I shall not trouble my self or you to repeat or to give an answer to them For they are so weak and so forced that the plain words of Scripture read together with the forced senses they would put upon them are answer enough nor do they need or deserve any further answer OBJECTION VIII The last Objection which I shall now take notice of is this That the Doctrine of the Trinity was not known to the Jewish Church before Christ. To which I answer 1. If it were not made known to them it was not necessary for them to know For matters of pure Revelation are not necessary to be known before they are revealed nor farther than they are revealed But may be so to us to whom they are Revealed The whole Doctrine of our Redemption by Christ was doubtless unknown to Adam before his Fall And had he not fallen it would have been no fault in him not to have known it at all And when after his fall it was first made known to him in that first promise that the Seed of the Woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 it was yet so dark that he could know very little as to the particulars of it of what is now known to us And as God by parcels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at sundry times and in divers manners declared more of it to Abraham to David and the Prophets so were they obliged to know and believe more of it and when in the last days he had declared the whole of it by his Son Heb. 1.1 2. it is now necessary for us to believe much more of which they might be safely ignorant And of the Trinity likewise if it were not then revealed 2. But Secondly There were many things which though not fully revealed so as to be clearly understood by All were yet so insinuated as to be in good measure understood by some and would more be so when the Veil should be taken off from Moses's face 2 Cor. 3.13 15 16. Thus the Death and Resurrection of Christ were not understood even by his own Disciples till after his Resurrection Yet we must not say that these things were not before intimated in the Scriptures though covertly for when their understandings were opened to understand the Scriptures and what had been written of him in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms they then perceived that it was so written and that it behooved Christ to Suffer and to Rise from the dead the Third day Yet this was therein so covertly contained that they seem no more to have understood it than that of the Trinity And St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews declares a great deal to have been covered under the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies which certainly most of the Jewish Church did not understand though in good measure it might be understood by some I might say the like of the Resurrection which was but darkly discovered till Immortality was brought to light through the Gospel 2 Tim. 1.10 We must not yet say it was wholly unknown to the Jewish Church of whom many no doubt did believe it Yet neither can we say it was generally received For we know the Pharisees and the Sadduces were divided upon that point Act. 23.6 7 8. And so little is said of it in the Old Testament that those who had a mind to be captious might have found much more specious pretence of cavilling against it then than our Adversaries now have against the Doctrine of the Trinity 3. I say Thirdly as of the Resurrection there were then divers intimations which are now better understood in a clearer light than at that time they were So I think there were also of the Doctrine of the Trinity I shall instance in some of them 1. That there was in the Unity of the God-head a Plurality of Somewhat which now we call Persons seems fairly to be insinuated even in that of Elohim-bara Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created where Elohim God a Nominative Case Plural is joined with Bara a Verb Singular which is as if we should say in