he saith John 14. 8. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father because as Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. glosses the Father is seen in the Perfections of the Son and consequently the Son must be of the same Nature with the Father Our Doctrine then is not simply impossible and contradictory to common sense as the Letter pretends but theirs is palpably false and absurd for all these Arguments as he calls them run upon these two false suppositions viz. 1. That there is but one Nature in Christ for he proves that Christ is Man and thence concludes he cannot be God when the Scriptures abundantly declare that he is both 2. That there is but one Person in the God-head for he often proves that Christ is not God viz. the Father as many of his quotations must be understood and thence concludes he is not God though the Scriptures prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Thus he supposes what we deny that there is but one Nature in Christ and but one Person in the God-head but proves only what we grant viz. that Christ is Man and that the Son is not the Father But let him prove first that there is but one Nature in Christ and then that Christ is Man and again first that there is but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head and then that the Son is not the Father from each of which it will follow that the Son cannot be God nothing less can conclude his point but this method of his proves nothing against us but only betrays the Socinians want either of Honesty or Judgment However he concludes his Arguments as he calls them with a Socinian Confidence asserting p. 13. that there is in Scripture no real foundation for the Divinity of the Son For proof of which he now flyes above common Argument and can stoop to nothing below Demonstration § Demonst 1. par 8. p. 13. So many Scriptures expresly declare that only the Father is God For proof of this he quotes John 17. 1 3. Father this is Eternal Life that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Answ The Letter saith that Only the Father is God which denyes the Son and Holy Ghost is God but this Text saith the Father is the only true God this excludes the Gentile Gods but not the Son and the Holy Ghost who with the Father are the only true God He here removes the exclusive particle only from the praediciate the true God to the subject thee for pardon the repetition the Apostle saith thee the only true God but the Socinian saith only thee the true God which is such a corruption of the Text contrary to all antient and authentick reading that utterly perverts the very sense and design of it You have then a Demonstration indeed not that only the Father is God but that the Scriptures and Socinianism are at odds and that the one or the other must be Reformed The next words and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent do Distinguish the Son from the Father as to Office so doth 1 Cor. 8. 6. there is but one God and One Lord but they do not Distinguish him as to Nature The same is true of other Quotations under this Head and consequently none of 'em prove what he undertakes viz. that only the Father is God Demonst 2. parag 9. p. 14. If Christ were God as well as Man it had been altogether Superfluous to give the Holy Ghost to his said Human Nature as a Director and a Guide For what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell His Quotations are Luke 4. 1. Act. 1. 2 and Ch. 10. 38. Which prove only this that the Holy Ghost was given to the Human Nature of Christ Which the poor Man thinks a Demonstrative proof that Christ was not United to the Eternal Word or Son of God and Consequently was not God 1. This Demonstration as he calls it is founded not upon Scripture but upon a Socinian Presumption For no Scripture saith that if the Son was God he should not have had the Presence and Conduct of the Spirit of God And certainly it is a Monstrous way of Arguing that this or that is necessary for God to have done or not to have done and then to conclude he hath or hath not done it For this is no better than to limit the Almighty to give Rules to Infinite Wisdom and to make not the Scripture but our own blind Conceits the Rule of our Faith In this way the Romanists Demonstrate an Universal Head of the Church Some the Divine Right of this or that Form of Church-Government and after the same Methods others may as well Demonstrate away all Religion and introduce what they please of their own 2. His Foundation is utterly false For the Church is the Body of Christ which Ephes 4. 15 16. is said to be fitly joyned to him our Head to intimate that he doth actuate and guide it and yet notwithstanding standing this the Spirit is sent to lead her into all Truth Where let the Socinian tell me why both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit may not guide the Human Nature as well as Myslical Body of Christ 3. It follows that the same works of God are ascribed now to one Person then to another Thus we find it in this of Conduct in that of Creation c. but this doth not destroy but rather declare and confirm the Doctrine of a Trinity Because it proclaims those Powers and Operations which the Socinian would Limit to one Person to be common to all three whence it follows that all three must be God Demonst 3. parag 10. p. 15. We have an Instance of this in the Demonstration now before us For he would not have the Son to be God because he Ascribes his Miracles to the Holy Spirit Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God Now this doth not prove the Son is not God any more than the Ascribing Creation to the Son doth prove that the Father did not Create But it is a good step toward the proving that the Holy Ghost is God For Miracles cannot be wrought but by a Divine Power therefore if the Holy Ghost hath such a Power of Miracles that they are wrought by him if he be a Person which we shall easily prove he must be a Divine Person and that is God Demonst 4. parag 11. p. 15. Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament would not Describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman Answ They Describe him as such but not barely as such for they Describe him also as God Thus Isa 40. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord make strait in the Desert an High way for our God This is evidently spoke of the Messias and the Evangelists
with one consent apply it to Christ Mat. 3. 3. Mark 1 2 3. Luk. 3 4. and Joh. 1. 23. Where they all agree that the Voice in the Wilderness was the Baptist and that the way he was to prepare was the way of the Messias therefore according to their Application of Scripture the Prophet doth Stile the Son the Lord our God Observe farther that this Text calls the Messias Lord in the Hebrew it is Jehovah which we shall prove is an Incommunicable Name of God which therefore Asserts the Divinity of him to whom it is applyed And consequently the Prophet in this place declares him to be God in a proper Sense Compare Psal 46. 6 7. with Heb. 1. 8. and Psal 102. 25. with Heb. 1. 10. and you will find that according to the Apostle's Application of those Texts the Psalmist Ascribes to the Son an Everlasting Throne and the Creation of the World and certainly this Describes him not as the Seed of the Woman but as God § 4. This Pen having thus attack'd the Divinity of the Son now turns it self against that of the Holy Ghost affirming p. 16. that the Holy Ghost is only the Power and Inspiration of God at least is not himself God which they bold is ascertain'd by these Considerations Consid 1. The Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are spoken of as one and the same thing 1 Cor. 2. 4 5. Luke 1. 35. Ch. 11. 2c Mat. 12. 28. Luk. 24. 49. Compared with Act. 1. 4 5. Answ He is here to prove that the Holy Ghost is only the Power and Inspiration of God but is not himself God but these Texts say no such thing and consequently do not ascertain this Position 2. The Blessed Spirit is not properly the Inspiration of God but something distinct from it For 1 Cor. 12. 8 9 10. Wisdom Faith c. are given by the Spirit Whence Heb. 2. 4. they are called the Gifts of the Holy Ghost Hence each Text Distinguishes between the Spirit and these Gifts But neither of them are the Inspiration of God For Inspiration is the Act whereby the Holy Ghost Conveighs these Gifts to Men which v. 11. is called a dividing them This is clear from 2 Tim. 3. 16. all Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspired or given by the Inspiration of God Here Scripture is the gift or thing inspired God is the giver or inspirer therefore Inspiration can be but the Act whereby it is given or Inspired Therefore as the Graces before mentioned viz. Wisdom Faith c. are the Gifts of the Holy Ghost so the Holy Ghost must give them by way of Inspiration The Socinian then doth here confound the Agent and the Act making the Giver and the Giving the same thing which is as false and absurd as to say my Act of Donation is my Person 3. He Asserts that the Holy Ghost is only the Power of God that is as he often explains himself is neither God nor a Person But this is neither proved nor ever can be because such Power can know no more of God than a Grace or Vertue can do which are qualities not persons But 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God Whence the Spirit must be not a simple Power but a Person endowed with an Infinite knowledge and that can be no other than God What the Letter opposes the Scriptures are clear in for Act. 5. Ananias did lye to the Holy Ghost whence v. 4. saith he lyed not to Man but to God Therefore the Holy Ghost must be God Eniedinus who is much more Manly in his performances than this Epistler Parallels this of Ananias lying to the Holy Ghost and to God with the Jews Rejecting Samuel and God Thus the Jews Rejected Samuel immediately who was set over them but they Rejected God mediately who did set Samuel over them So Ananias lyed to the Holy Ghost immediately who was given to the Apostles But he lyed to God mediately who gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whence as the Jews did Sin differently against Samuel and God viz. immediately and mediately so did Ananias against the Holy Ghost and God whence he would have the Holy Ghost and God as much distinct as Samuel and God and that is essentially Answ That place as put by the Objector is not parallel with this For that saith they Rejected not Samuel but God but this doth not say that Ananias lyed not to the Holy Ghost but to God Therefore this Text doth not distinguish between the Holy Ghost and God as that doth between Samuel and God And consequently the Holy Ghost and God are not here made so distinct as Samuel and God But take these Texts right and we may allow a Parallel But then it must lye between Samuel and Peter and again between God and the Holy Ghost thus the Jews thought they Rejected Samuel only as Ananias thought he lyed to Peter only but saith God to Samuel they Reject not thee but me And saith Peter to Ananias thou hast lyed to the Holy Ghost that is not to Men but to God Therefore while that Text distinguishes between Samuel and God as different this Unites the Holy Ghost and God as the same Consid 2. p. 17. A Manifest Distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Ghost So that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself His Quotations are Rom. 5. 5. the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3. 36. ye are the Temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you and Rom. 8. 27. He the Spirit v. 26. makes intercession for the Saints according to the Will of God Answ He knows we grant there is a personal Distinction that as the Son so the Holy Ghost is not God the Father This is all these Texts do prove without which there could not be a Trinity But none of 'em prove that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God which is the design of this Consideration But because Rom. 8. 27. here quoted Ascribes Personal Acts to the Holy Ghost he makes Intercession Therefore that he may at once destroy his Divinity and Personality both he pleads that the Holy Ghost is spoke of as a Person by the same Figure that Charity is described as a Person 1 Cor. 13. 4 5. The Argument lyes thus Personal Acts cannot prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person because they cannot prove that Charity is a Person Answ This doth as effectually destroy the Personality of the Father and the Son as of the Holy Ghost For according to this Argument Personal Acts do not prove the Father or the Son to be Persons because they do not prove that Charity is a Person but that Argument which proves too much proves nothing at all 2. The Scriptures do Ascribe to the Holy Ghost not only those Personal Acts which they do not to
of Essences that is it teaches that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not the Father but yet one God This sense St. Paul expressed to the Ephesians and therefore must intend it to these Corinthians Now the Text thus explained is not only a benediction to this Church but also a Prayer to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that this Grace may descend upon it We never pray to God but we pray to Father Son and Holy Ghost which was the judgment of Antiquity For Justin Martyr who florished in the middle of the Age next after the Apostles saith in his Apologie we Christians worship Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet against gentile Polytheism in the same Apology declares that they worshiped God only therefore they must necessarily understand it that all three Persons together are that one God whom they worshiped and to whom they prayed which is one part of Worship But you will say what is the reason then we are not commanded to pray expresly and particularly to the Holy Ghost as we are to God Answ 1. In divers Scriptures God is put essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost therefore in those Scriptures all Commands and Examples of praying to God are to be understood inclusively of all three Persons who are essentially one and the same God 2. The Father is the first Person in the Trinity of and from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost are therefore as for this reason the Son refers things principally to the Father but not exclusive of himself so for the same reasons Prayers are directed principally to the Father but yet are to be understood inclusive of the Son and Holy Ghost but not exclusive of them 3. The Father is principal Agent in the Government of the World and the first mover in all Divine Operations saying to the Son and the Holy Ghost let us make Man whence the Son saith John 5. 17. my Father works hitherto and I works by which he speaks the Father principle Operator but himself a Co-operator with him Again the Son from the Father hath the Government of the Church whence it is called the Kingdom of Christ to which the Father Exalted him and from the Father and the Son the Holy Ghost is in the Ministration of it Upon which Accounts Prayers are directed primarily and expresly to the Father but yet are intended as extensive to the Son and Holy Ghost They are directed most particularly to him from his Priority of Order and Operation but yet they belong to all three in regard of the sameness of their Nature These things are suited to the Rules and Methods of the Divine Oeconomy and may seem difficulties but had our Considerer considered well he had never made them supports of an Heresie Consid 4. p. 19. If the Holy Spirit and our Lord Christ are God no less than the Father then God is a Trinity of Persons or three Persons but this is contrary to the whole Scripture which speaks of God as but one Person and speaks of him and to him by singular Pronouns such as I Thou We Him c. Answ We deny that any one Text of Scripture doth prove that God is but One Person He quotes Job 13. 7 8. Will ye speak wickedly for God Will ye accept his Person Whence he thinks there can be but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head To which we Answer thus 1. The letter of these Texts doth not say that God is but One Person Or that there is but one Person in the Godhead which is the thing to be proved 2. The Reason and Design of 'em cannot possibly import any such thing For these expressions are used to signifie only the doing unjustly for God as Men do for others when said to accept their Persons For Job hereby accuses his Friends of Injustice and Partiality in that they justified God's Visitations upon by Condemning him of Hypocrisie Therefore these Texts are not suited to the Nature of God nor designed to Determine whether there be only one or more Persons in the God head but to signifie unjust Censures and therefore must import not a Singularity or Plurality of Persons but only Partiality in their Judgment between God and himself Will ye speak wickedly for God and talk deceitfully for him Will ye accept his Person 3. Phrases that are taken from the common ufuages of Men or as common forms of Speech are not to be used in an Argument in which the Holy Pen-man did not intend them to the Contradiction of those Texts which professedly speak of that point this all Men of Reason and Judgment must grant me because in expounding Scripture we are to consider not only Words but Phrases together with the Scope and design of the place and if so it must be granted in this Case before us that these Texts in Jobe which concern not the Nature of God ought not to be brought to prove there is but one person in the God-head when so many Texts on set purpose declare the Divine Nature of three He quotes also Heb. 1. 1. 2 3 God hath spoken to us by his Son who being the express Image of his Person Answ 1. God here must signifie the Father because he speaks to us by his Son whence the Son is the Image of his Father's Person But however this doth not reach his Case for it proves indeed that God the Father is but one Person which we all grant But it doth not prove there is no other Person in the God-head which is the thing in controversie Nay 2. This Text is not only not for but is really against him For if the Son be the express Image of his Father he must duly Represent the Father as Images duly Represent those things whose Images they are And if he the Living Image of his Father duly Represents the Father he must have in himself all the Perfections of his Father and consequently must be infinite himself else he could not in his own Person or Nature Represent infinite Perfections and that he doth so is evident not only from his being Termed the Image of his Father but also from those words of his once quoted already Joh. 14. 8. he that hath seen me hath seen the Father So far is this Text from proving but one Person in the God-head that it consequentially introduces a second He cites Deut. 6. 4 5. the Lord our God is One the word is Jehovah whence the Letter saith Jehovah is one and that the Jews Morning and Evening Repeated this Verse to keep it in perpetual Memory that Jehovah or God is one only not two or three Answ The meaning is there is but One God which is spoke in opposition to Gentile Gods which the Jews were so much inclined to not that there is but One Person in the God-head which was never disputed among them We say then that Jehovah or God is but One viz. Nature or Substance that is there
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.
properties of God and the Creature because it makes the Creature infinite as well as the Creator and 4. Our Saviour saith Revel 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart Which Phrase search the Heart was never applyed to any of the Prophets but only to Father Son and Holy Ghost Yet he saith not only I do it but I am he that do it which is more Emphatical and implies that this is his own Act and consequently that his Knowledge of the Heart is from his own self Therefore his Knowledge was not like the Prophets for their's was Finite but his Infinite Their 's Communicated his Inherent For which Reasons as well as others Antiquity put that Sense upon these Texts which might not deny but establish not his Omniscience only but such as is not Communicated but Inherent too For Greg. Naz. Ora. 36. Athanas tom 1. Contr. Ar. Ora. 4. c. he knows this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God And consequently must know it of himself but he knew it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Man hereby making those words none knows to exclude not what is God and therefore not the Son as God but all the Creatures and therefore the Son as Man In the same Sense must we take that of St. Mathew Ch. 24. 36. of that Day and Hour knows no Man no not the Angels of Heaven but my Father only For here Father must not be taken personally for the Father in opposition to the Son and the Holy Ghost But essentially for God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in opposition to that word Man of that Day and Hour knows no Man but the Father only therefore these words the Father only exclude the Son from this Knowledge as Man but not as God This exposition is cleared and confirmed from hence 1. That in the Scriptures Father doth often signifie God essentially including Son and Holy Ghost who are of and from the Father 2. This Sense must be granted else you make this one Text to contradict all those which say the Son knows all things c. and 3. These Exclusive Particles none knows or the Father only i. e. God only knows Must be so Interpreted in divers places of Scripture as particularly Luk. 10. 22. No Man in the Greek it is here also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none knows who the Son is but the Father or the Father only Whence they may as well exclude the Holy Ghost from the Knowledge of the Son as the Son from knowing the Day of Judgment because this Particle none must be as Exclusive in that Text as in this But this Word cannot Exclude the Holy Ghost from the knowledge of the Son because 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God Which word search doth imply that this Knowledge is perfect and from himself when applyed to the Spirit as well as when applyed to the Father in the searching the Heart And consequently by parity of Reason it cannot Exclude the Son from the Knowledge of that Day Therefore when I find these Texts cited by the Socinians confineing these Knowledges to God and yet meet with others which ascribe infinite Knowledge to the Son and the Holy Ghost I must conclude not that the Son and Holy Ghost are either ignorant of some things for then I must contradict those Texts which say they know all things or that they are Creatures indowed with an infinite Knowledge because this as is Disputed already is utterly impossible But I must conclude they are God and therefore are not Excluded by those Texts from knowing those things of themselves but are included with the Father in the God-Head and therefore are with the Father that One God to whom all things are open and naked He proceeds Christ ascribed the Infallibility of his Judgment to the Father Joh. 8. 16. If I Judge my Judgment is true for I am not alone but I and my Father that sent me Which he thinks an Argument against his Divinity Answ I am not alone but I and my Father that is the Father hath not left me alone but bears witness to me by Miracles This speaks not the insufficiency of his Judgment but the incredulity of this People and the abundant means that he vouchsafed them Whence he so often appeals to his Works Joh. 10. 25. The Works that I do in my Fathers Name they testifie of me and v. 38. though ye believe not me yet believe the Works Therefore this proves the Grace of God the Father but doth not disprove the Divinity of the Son He insists God cannot be tempted Jam. 1. 17. but the Son was Tempted of the Devil Answ If God cannot be Tempted what is the meaning of Mat. 4. 7. Jesus said thou shalt not Tempt the Lord thy God St. James saith God cannot be Tempted with or to evil No more was our Blessed Saviour for he complyed not with the Temptation He cites Luke 18. 19. Why callest thou me Good There is none good save One that is God On which the Letter saith he refused to be called Good because God only is Good Answ The true meaning is he refused to be called good unless in Relation to his Divinity implying that himself is good not by Participation as Man is but essentially as God is Therefo r he asks why callest thou me good viz. as Man or as God That sense he Rejects this he claims as his due So Athanastom 1. de Hum. Nat. Suscept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you think me Man and not God call me not good Suppose this Text is of it self capable of those two senses the one of which speaks him but Man the other God Wee may easily determine which Sense to take it in for their's contradicts all those Scriptures which declare his Divinity But our's comports with them without Contradiction to any Therefore not their's but our's must be admitted because it must be interpreted in concurrence with other Scriptures but not in contradiction to ' em Arg. 6. p. 10. God gives what and to whom he pleases but Christ saith to Sit on my right Hand and on my left is not mine to give Mat. 20. 23. Answ Is not mine to give i. e. as Man not mine Exclusive of the Father or contrary to the Divine Oeconomy according to which something is ascribed as peculiar to every Person in the Sacred Trinity That this is the meaning is evident from Joh. 10. 28. I give unto them Eternal Life Nothing can be greater than this yet the Son gives this as well as the Father Therefore in what Sense the other is not his to give in the same Sense Eternal Life is not his to give But in what Sense he gives Eternal Life in the same Sense he gives the other too whatever you please to understand by it This they know is our Doctrine and therefore ought not only to propose this Scripture
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
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
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
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
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