this the Goings forth of the Lord Christ have been Decreed by God from the Days of Eternity But Grotius instead of From Everlasting or from the Days of Eternity hath Translated here from ancient Days and so All know the words may be rendred therefore he maketh the Sense to be this Whose Goings forth i. e. whose Descent Original or Pedigree is of Old from Ancient Times For Christ is come of that most Ancient Stock of David of the Town of Bethlehem Our Author may please in his next to try his Skill on these Solutions in the mean time I pass to what He hath objected from the New Testament CHAP. IV. On his Texts out of the Gospels THEY are not many Texts Sir on which our Author has insisted to prove his Proposition that our Lord Christ is true God but He assures us at P. 309. they are Choice Ones We have considered those He alledges from the Old Testament let us now examine what He hath urged out of the New On the Texts of St. Matthew He begins with Matth. 1.22 23. This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord by the Prophet saying A Virgin shall Conceive and shall bring forth a Son and they shall call his Name Immanuel which being interpreted is God with us He notes that these words are spoken of the Lord Christ and that the Name Immanuel or God with us has been appropriated to him by God for we no where find that He hath given this Name to any other But where God giveth a Name and the Spirit of God interprets it it cannot be insignificant from whence it follows that the Lord Christ is indeed God Eternal and God with us To this I say thô the Consonants of the Hebrew Name Immanuel may be so Pointed that the Name may be Interpreted God with Him which would turn the Objection from this Text upon our Opposers yet that is not here to be insisted on because we shall see presently that in giving that Name it was really intended the Child should be called or named God with Vs The Text here objected out of St. Matthew is taken from Isa 7. where that Prophet tells Ahaz King of Judah who was at that time invaded by the Confederate Kings of Syria and Israel that the Confederacy of these two Kings against Judah should in the end come to nothing and that Israel should be destroyed from being any longer a Nation within the term of 65 Years And for a Sign to you says the Prophet that God will bring this to pass a Virgin one who at present is a Virgin shall forthwith Conceive by her Husband and bring forth a Son whom God will have to be called Immanuel or God with Vs because before this Child is of Years of Discretion to know Good and Evil God will indeed appear to be on our Side He will withdraw by Death the two Kings who are Confederate against us There is no Learned Critic that doubts that the Child here promised by the Prophet to be a Sign of the Truth of what He had said about the Confederacy of the Two Kings and the final Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel is Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz Son of this Prophet by the Wise whom it should seem He had lately taken And They observe that this is the Reason why he saith in the next Chapter I and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for Signs in Israel from the Lord Isa 8.18 But whether the Child Immanuel was the Son of the Prophet or of some other this is certain that He was to be a Sign to King Ahaz and to the People of Israel and Judah This Child being to be such a Sign the Sign of so favourable a Providence to Judah and Ahaz had an Answerable Name given to him by order from God even Immanuel or God with Vs Therefore our Author's First Observation is certainly false that the Name Immanuel was Appropriated to the Lord Christ and no where given by God to any other Person And so too is his other Note that because God gave to him the Name Immanuel He must needs be true God for God gave the same Name to the Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah that God would be with them or for them by destroying their Enemies the Syrians and Israelites We see that the words of the Prophet were originally intended of a Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah and that there was a good reason why that Name should be given to him But St. Matthew accommodates and applies both the Prophecy and the Name to our Lord Christ because in him they had another and a second Completion we may say a more perfect Completion For the Lord Christ was our Immanuel or God with us not only as he was a Sign that God would be on our side which was the only reason of the Name of the first Immanuel but because he did really conciliate God to us and us to God and because God was with him and in him by an extraordinary Effusion of his Spirit upon him No one can be so blind or obstinate as not to acknowledg that this Interpretation which indeed is not ours but advanced by divers of the principal Trinitarian Interpreters is easy and rational perfectly agreeable to the scope of the Prophet and also to the manner of writing observed by this and the other Evangelists who very usually apply divers Texts of the Old Testament intended originally of other Persons to the Lord Christ because in him they had a second and very often a more perfect fulfilling Therefore let our Opposers show cause why we should depart from an Interpretation every way reasonable to imbrace and adhere to theirs which implies a Doctrine contrary to the first Commandment and to the whole Current of Scripture even this that there is more than one Divine Person or more than one who is true God His second Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost He observes here that the Son and Spirit are set equally with the Father as Objects of our Baptismal Faith which either proves their real Equality or is of dangerous Import for 't is apt to impress upon us false Notions of the Deity and to make us think those to be really equal who are not so He saith moreover that in other Texts where God is joined with his Creatures a distinction is made whereby to discern that one is God and the other but Creatures but not so in this Text we are bid here to be baptized equally and alike to the Father Son and Spirit without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another of them therefore they must be understood to be equal It may be our Author knows not that some Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe that these words of
designedly misreport it and besides his Epistles are supposed to be forged by most learned Men because they make mention of Rites and Persons that were not in Being in Innocent's time Lastly Whereas the Unitarians at Alba said that this Text has been added to St. Matthew since the first Nicene Council tho Cardinal Bellarmine has only denied this he might most easily have proved the contrary For Tertullian who flourish'd above 120 Years before the Nicene Council often quotes this Text. In his Book concerning Baptism Chap. 13. he saith The Law of baptizing is imposed and the Form prescribed Go saith he teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And again in his Book against Praxeas Chap. 26. After his Resurrection he commanded that they should baptize to the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to one of them only It is true none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do ever alledg this Form of Baptism to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Spirit but the reason of that was because tho they allowed that the Son might be called God on account of his perfect Conjunction by Love Unity of Will and Subjection with the Father who only is true God yet they thought otherwise of the Holy Ghost some of them understanding him to be only the Energy or Power of God others that he was a Creature of the Son and only the chief of the ministring Spirits or Angels But to return to our Opposer He saith We are baptized alike and equally to the Father Son and Spirit therefore the two latter are equal in all respects to the former or are God no less than he they are mentioned together in this Text without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another which were of dangerous Consequence and apt to lead Men into Error if only one of these is true God But 1. 'T is not true that here is no Note of Distinction or Superiority for the words at length are these All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit I would know of our Opposer what greater Distinction could be made than our Saviour here makes between God and himself doth he not here expresly profess and own that his Power is given to him that he hath received it from the Liberality of another and not from himself Can any one be said to give Power to himself And the Apostle hath told us how we are to understand it that all Power is given to the Lord Christ in these words to the Ephesians God gave to him to be Head over all things to the Church Ephes 1.22 As who should say He is over all things and hath all Power with respect to the Church 't is He and He only that must prescribe her standing Laws and Rites and appoint by what Persons and what Means the Church shall be first gathered and then preserved 2. But supposing now there had been no Note of Superiority here made or Distinction of Dignity and Power I see not what could be truly inferred from thence to the advantage of our Author's Cause For when God is joined in the same form of Speech with any others sure that needs not to be expressed which all Men know and acknowledg even God's Superiority above all others 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Elect Angels Rev. 22.17 The Spirit and the Bride say Come Will our Author say upon these Texts and upon that other parallel Text 1 Sam. 12.18 All the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Will he say that Samuel and David the Angels and the Bride i. e. the Church are equal with God or with the Spirit because they are mentioned together without any Note of Distinction or of Dignity and Superiority in one more than in the other The Acts of Religion mentioned in those Texts are no less solemn or important than Baptism is fearing the Lord worshipping the Lord adjuring by the Lord are the very highest Acts of Devotion and Religion yet even in them God is joined with Creatures without any Mark of Distinction or Superiority because as I said when God is joined with any others there is no need of such Note or Mark. Therefore the more learned of our Opposers especially the Ancients of the first 400 Years do not insist on this Text of St. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit by these words In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit they understand only to the Profession and to the Obedience of the Father Son and Spirit According to these Criticks the Sense of the objected Text is only this Baptize the Nations into the Profession and Obedience of the Father or God and of Jesus Christ whom the Father hath commanded us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us and of the other Teacher even the Spirit or Inspiration of God by which he advises and comforts the Faithful in all extraordinary Exigences Our Author may please to consult Mr. Pool's Collections on this Text where he will see divers such Interpretations as this all of them by the Criticks of his own Party and all of them consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is held by the Socinians Therefore all those Interpreters and Criticks must be understood as giving up to us this Text. CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel OUR Author's next Effort is from that well-known Context even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel The Clauses by him urged are these In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him namely by the WORD and without Him was not any thing made that was made He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Others have added to these And the WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us Also that Testimony of the Baptist He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses by Misrepresenting it and by concealing the remarkable and probable Proofs which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond which he saith is a full Explication and the Sense of the Catholic Church Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church so called and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John but that 's the very thing in question whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel
was not He himself but He by the Gift of God that shed forth the Spirit on them Let us hear the whole Verse Acts 2.23 Therefore He Christ being by the right Hand of God exalted and having received or obtained of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Here indeed the Spirit is said to be shed forth by the Lord Christ on the Apostles but not by Him himself but He shed it forth having saith the Text received it of the Father As who should say having received this Power from the Father which afterwards the Apostles also received of the Father even the Power of conferring the Spirit He now shed it forth on them not He himself by his own Authority or Power but by the Warrant Order Grant or Commission of the Father If our Saviour had conferred the Spirit on his Disciples by his own Power or Authority it would not have been said that having received of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost he shed it abroad on his Followers Let our Opposers show that the Lord Christ was more than the Instrument Minister and Mediator by Whom and at whose Instance God shed forth the Spirit neither this nor any other Context ascribes more to him and as much as is elsewhere ascribed to the Apostles Acts 10.44 Acts 19.6 They are words which our Saviour speaks to his Disciples As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But it follows not from hence that the Authority and Power of Christ was equal to the Power and Authority of the Father nay the contrary rather follows for the Messenger is but the Minister and Servant of the Sender After Jesus was ascended into Heaven his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name and by Faith in him Acts 3.6 In the Name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk Ver. 16. His Name through Faith in his Name hath made this Man strong We confess hereupon that Miracles were done by the Name or in the Name of the Lord Jesus and through Faith in his Name But how does this prove that he was God Such Miracles prove indeed that the Person in whose Name they are done is a most Powerful and Effectual Mediator with God but not that He himself is God they prove that he is acceptable to God and that what he desireth that also God willeth but not that he is the true proper Author of those Miracles 'T is a particular Honour that God is pleased to do to the Lord Christ that in his Name Wonders should be done and that some who believed in his Name should on that account be enabled to do Miracles But when our Opposers infer from hence therefore Christ is God this is no Necessary or Natural Consequence because nothing hinders but that God may confer the same Honour on any other Person or Thing Nor secondly is it a true Consequence because we are assured by innumerable express and clear Testimonies that the Lord Christ is not God As 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Jesus Christ Finally Our Lord promis'd that he would deliver his Apostle from the People and from the Gentiles and declares that we are sanctified by Faith in his Name or by believing in him Acts 26.17 18 c. He delivered indeed that Apostle from very many Machinations of the Jews and Conspiracies of the Gentiles but all this as Mediator not as God by his Intercession which as this Apostle saith he ever liveth to make on behalf of all the Faithful and more especially of such as are extraordinarily commissioned to the Work of propagating the Gospel in Heathen Nations as St. Paul was As to our being sanctified i. e. made Holy by Faith in Christ or by believing in him it was never questioned I think by any but the meaning of the Expression is only this that such as sincerely believe the Lord Christ and the Gospel or Doctrine by him delivered do sanctify themselves they refrain from every Evil Work and Word their Faith does dispose and incline them of its own Nature and Tendency to Sanctification and Holiness this is the only meaning of our being sanctified by Faith in Christ CHAP. IX On what is alledged from the Fathers OUR Author passes from sacred Authorities to Ecclesiastical and Profane for proving the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour He quotes the Account which Pliny gives to the Emperor Trajan concerning the Christians that they were wont to meet before Day Et Carmen Christo canere ut Deo To sing Psalms to Christ as if he were a God He cites also a Dialogue supposed to be Lucian's in which that Author jeers the God who is Three and One These two Authors were very Ancient within about 100 Years after Christ and their words before quoted show How early the belief of the Trinity and of the Divinity of our Saviour was found among Christians For Ecclesiastical Writers he brings some Fragments out of Justin Ignatius Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyprian Lactantius Gregory Thaumaturgus Faelix also out of the Councils of Nice Antioch and Constantinople He saith the Socinians are apt to appeal in these Questions to the Ante-Nicen Fathers before-named and that several great Men such as Erasmus Grotius Petavius and others yield this Point to Us. I will make no Advantage of our Author's Ignorance in this Matter I will freely own to you Sir that the Socinians never Appeal in these Questions to the Fathers whether Ante-Nicen or others who are now extant We grant they were in Sentiments very different from ours all the Ante-Nicen Fathers I mean whose works have been suffer'd to come down to our Times were in the Opinion concerning God and the Lord Christ afterwards called Arrianism except perhaps Clemens Alexandrinus who seems to have held the same with Savellius Nor do Erasmus Petavius Grotius and other Criticks grant to us as he supposes that the Ante-Nicen Fathers were of our Opinion they have granted those Fathers not to us but to the Arrians They grant those Fathers did not hold the Doctrine of the Trinity or of the Divinity of our Saviour in such manner as 't is now held by the Church for the Church holds a Trinity of Three Coequal and Coeternal Persons all of them jointly and equally Creators none of them Creatures but those Fathers held a Trinity in which only the First Person is truly God or the most high God the Second and Third are Creatures though also they were the Creators according to these Fathets of the other Creatures They say inded sometimes that the Son is Coeternal and a Creator but by Coeternal they mean only that he was not made in Time but in that Eternity which did precede Time and the Creation of the World They call that Duration Time which began with the World and which is both
on the Gospel it self I know not Sir what stronger or clearer Proofs any Man can require that this Text was anciently read by WHICH which Mystery of Godliness was manifested by Flesh i. e. by Man as the Law had been by Angels For you see we have for this reading first all the ancient Translations the Latin Armenian and Syriac then the Council of Nice so much extolled and reverenced by our Opposers besides these the Testimony of Trinitarian Historians Men of Learning and Dignity and contemporary to the Corruption of this Text also a vast number of the best and oldest Copies of the Original Greek and the Judgment of the ablest Criticks upon them If all this does not amount to a Demonstration on our side in the Judgment of indifferent Persons yet there is no Man of common Prudence and Caution but will allow that the reading for which our Adversaries contend GOD was manifested in Flesh is too uncertain doubtful and precarious to build on it as the Trinitarians do an Article of Faith or to innovate in the Doctrine of the Unity of God dictated to us by Natural Light and the principal Design of both the Testaments 2. But supposing now this Point were yielded to them that we are to read here GOD was manifested in or by Flesh it will nothing avail the Trinitarian Cause For by GOD here we may understand as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themselves do not the Person but the Will and Mind of God this was manifested to us by Flesh that is by Men by Jesus Christ and his Apostles 'T is true our Translators render the words by was manifested IN Flesh but they will not deny that they might have been rendred Manifested BY Flesh for themselves so interpret the Greek Particle in the very next Clause of this Verse was justified IN the Spirit that is say They was Justified or Proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit of God That the word God may be sometimes interpreted not of the Person but of the Will or Mind of God is not denied by the Trinitarian Interpreters nay themselves as I said before so interpret Thus for Example when St. Paul saith Gal. 1.10 Do I now perswade Men or God Our Opposers interpret it thus Do I seek to perswade Human Inventions the Devices and Figments of Men or the very Will and Commands of God The like on divers other Texts Therefore Sir if Mr. Milb has prevailed with you to read this first Clause by God was manifested you may for all that abide in your Sentiment about the Unity of God and interpret to him the whole Verse after this manner Without Controversy Great and Glorious is the Mystery of Godliness even the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus for 't is no less or other than the Will and Nature of God manifested to us by the Agreeable and sutable Ministry of Men of Flesh and Blood like to our selves not as the Law was by the Amazing and Terrible appearance of Flaming Ministers even the Spirits and Angels of Heaven This Will of God or this Revelation of his Nature and Will has been justified i. e. proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit Energy or Power of God it has been seen and admired by Angels who desire to look more accurately into this New Revelation which in part supersedes the Revelation of the Divine Will that was delivered by them it has been Preached to the Gentiles and Believed on in the World Did I say it has been Believed on it has not been Barely Believed but received generally speaking with great Honour and Glory From P. 82. where our Author takes leave of this famous Text to P. 309. He mortifies his Reader with a long Impertinence concerning the Reasonableness and Vsefulness of Mysteries in Religion and that 't was Necessary the Messias should be the Son of God We are not concerned in the Truth or Falshood of either of these Affirmations of our Author be it as He says thô his Allegations or any He can bring prove neither of them What are they to his Purpose If Mysteries are indeed so useful in Religion as he contends they are it will not follow from thence that we must admit as parts of our Religion all the Mysteries that fanciful or ignorant Men have devised much less that we are obliged to let all the Nonsense and Contradictions that Any may seek to impose on our Faith pass for Holy and Divine Mysteries That 't was Necessary that the Messias should be the Son of God I doubt very much and I think our Author has offer'd nothing in proof of it that is Considerable or Material but that de Facto it was so that our Lord Christ was indeed the Son of God the Socinians have always Granted and Affirmed because he was begotten by the Divine Power on a pure Virgin Therefore overpassing so much useless Scrible of this Author I come to his second Particular as He calls it at P. 309. That the Blessed Jesus was so the Son of God as to be God equal with his Father or was really and truly God as well as real Man CHAP. II. THAT our Lord Jesus Christ was true God Equal with his Father our Author undertakes to prove 1. From Texts of the Old Testament 2. From Texts of the New Testament 3. By the Actions and Miracles done by the said our Lord Jesus 4. From the Consent of the Primitive Church 5. From the Common and as he saith on every hand Approved practice of worshipping and praying to him His Proofs from the Old Testament accurately examined He alledges First the History of the Three Angels who at Gen. 18. appeared to Abraham One of these Angels is called Jehovah both by Abraham and by the Historian but the Name Jehovah which our Translators render LORD is saith our Author communicable only to God and that this Angel was indeed God appears fâ—rther by Abraham's calling him at V. 18. the Judg of the whole Earth He saith hereupon that by this History we gain the Certainty that our Saviour had a Being before he was born of the Virgin and that the Title Power and Acknowledgments belonging to the True God are given to Christ But all this while Mr. Milb you forget the one thing Necessary even to prove to us that this Angel or this Jehovah is the same Person that afterwards in Gospel-times is called the Lord Jesus When you evince that your Allegation of this History will indeed be a Proof of the Pre-existence of our Saviour till then we remain in that seemingly rational Belief that his Mother was Older than He. But neither can we grant to you that this Angel was indeed God because the Name Jehovah is given to him for that Name is bestowed in Holy Scripture on Angels when they are appointed to represent the Person of God as we shall presently see is confessed by some of the principal Critics of the Trinitarians themselves and
the objected Text In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of St. Matthew from the common Form and Practice of the Church in administring Baptism as 't is certain that these words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever have been added to the Lord's-Prayer in the same Gospel of St. Matthew from the Greek Liturgies or Forms of Common-Prayer These Criticks observe that Cardinal Bellarmine is very angry with the Unitarians who maintained the Dispute at Alba because they said those words were added to the Bible but only since the Nicene Council had corrupted the Faith all Antiquity saith the Cardinal is witness against them that those words were always read in the Gospel of St. Matthew But the Learned Cardinal does not produce one Testimony in Confirmation of what he says tho he uses to be very free in his Quotations of Fathers and ancient Ecclesiastical Historians In short we have nothing but Cardinal Bellarmine's word for it that the Ancients did read the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Whereas some pretend to find these words cited by St. Ignatius as spoken by our Saviour in the Epistle of the said Ignatius to the Philippians that Epistle is all of it a meer Forgery by Confession of all the Criticks who have publish'd the Works of Ignatius or have written Notes upon them They observe that Epistle is never quoted by any of the Ancients nor was heard of in the World before Ado Viennensis who flourish'd about the Year 859. Eusebius the famous Ecclesiastical Historian quotes the objected Text nine times in several parts of his Works but never with the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he reads thus Teach all Nations in my Name instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you The constant Practice of the ancient Unitarians was to baptize only in the Name of the Lord Christ and therefore it was ordered by the Councils of Nice and Laodicea that the Paulinists i. e. the Unitarians who came over to the Church should be re-baptized Whether they or the Catholick Church so called are in the right concerning the Form of Baptism is best determined from the Practice of the Apostles for we cannot well suppose that if the Form prescribed by our Saviour himself was In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles would depart from that Form or that 't was lawful for them so to do But where-ever there is mention in Scripture-History of the Administration of Baptism either by the Apostles or by their Order the Form of such Baptism was only In the Name of the Lord Christ or Vnto the Lord Christ Acts 2.38 Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus The same thing is said at Acts 8.16 Acts 10.48 Acts 19.5 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Cor. 1.13 Add to this that besides the School-men and other Moderns St. Basil St. Hilary and St. Ambrose do expresly own that the Apostles administred Baptism only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Finally the other Evangelists mention the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour after his Resurrection but they say not that he appointed it to be administred In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which 't is not likely they would have omitted if our Saviour had injoined that Form of performing the Rite of Baptism Nay it should seem by what St. Luke says that the Form of Baptism appointed by our Saviour was only in his Christ's Name not in the Name of more Persons Luke 24.46 47. Jesus said unto them that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name unto all Nations Here Remission of Sins seems to be no other thing but Baptism administred in Christ's Name as a sign of the Remission of Sins and therefore it is that elsewhere instead of Repentance and Remission of Sins the holy Writers say Repentance and Baptism so St. Peter speaks Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus To this effect speak the forementioned Criticks and from hence they infer that we cannot make use of this Text to warrant the Church's Form of Baptism In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit much less to prove that the two latter are God or Gods equal with the Father I desire and resolve Sir to argue this great Question concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or whether there is more than one Divine Person with all possible sincerity Therefore I will ingenuously own to you that tho the before-mentioned Exceptions to this Text are not without their weight yet I have observed divers things which make me to think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture was spoken by our Saviour and written by St. Matthew First 'T is found in all the Copies of the Bible both Printed and Manuscript and in all the ancient Translations which cannot be said of any other Text which is rejected by us or by our Opposers all the doubtful and suspected Texts are wanting in divers Copies of the Original Greek and of the Ancient Translations I conceive we ought not to argue against the Truth of any Text from only Negative Proofs or from some possible Interpretations of other Texts tho those Texts are perhaps many It ought to be shown that either Church-Historians or Fathers have said that such Text was not read or was otherways read in the Copies of their Times Secondly To the Allegations out of the Acts of the Apostles and some Epistles of St. Paul it may be answered That those Texts mention only the Name of the Lord Jesus and not the other two Names the Father and the Holy Ghost because by the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto the Lord Jesus they mean to the Profession of the Lord Jesus and of the Doctrine by him taught without at all intending to express by those words the Form of Baptism which every one knew to be In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I like this Interpretation because when St. Paul asked some Disciples at Ephesus whethey they had yet received the Holy Ghost and they had answered that they had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost He replies Vnto what then were ye baptized Acts 19.3 This Reply of the Apostle seems to suppose that if they were baptized with Christian Baptism and not only with the Baptism of John they must needs have heard of the Holy Ghost because the Form was in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thirdly The ancient Unitarians baptized only in the Name of the Lord Christ I think 't is grounded only on the Report of Pope Innocent I. who might not understand their Discipline or