be declared in Scripture we ought to Believe But I see not why it should be thought of it self more necessary to salvation if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture for a man to know that her Name was Mary than that the Name of Adam's Wife was Eve or Abraham's Wife Sarah or that one of Iob's Daughters was called Iemima for all these are declared in Scripture and supposing that we know them so to be ought to be believed as part of the Catholick Faith Nor do I know that it is of it self more necessary to know that the Name of the Judge who condemned our Saviour was Pontius Pilate than that the Name of the High-Priest was Caiaphus And though one of these and not the other be put into the Apostles Creed whereby we are more likely to know that than the other yet both of them being True and declared in Scripture they are both of them parts of the Catholick Faith and to be believed but neither of them I think with such necessity as that who knows them not cannot be saved And what I say of this General Preface in the beginning is in like manner to be understood of the General Conclusion in the end which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Of which I shall say more anon After the General Preface concerning the necessity of holding the Catholick Faith he proceeds to two main Branches of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation with the Consequents thereof which he declares likewise as what ought to be believed That of the Trinity he declares thus in General And the Catholick Faith is this that is this is one main part of the Catholick Faith namely That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity Neither Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which is what we commonly say There be Three Persons yet but One God And this General which after some particular Explications he doth resume is what he declares ought to be believed But he doth not lay such stress upon each Particular of that Explication though True He thus explains himself For there is one Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost Which Persons therefore are not to be confounded But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One. That is one Substance one God Which is what he said of not Dividing the Substance as if the Three Persons should be Three Substances or Three Gods According as Christ says of Himself and the Father Iohn 10. 30. I and the Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one Thing one Substance one God not one Person And 1 Iohn 5. 7. These Three are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hi Ires sunt Unum not Unus These three Who 's are one What. They are one Thing one Substance one God though Three Persons And as their Godhead or Substance undivided is all one so it follows The Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal Such as the Father is as to the common Godhead such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate The Father incomprehensible the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible The Father eternal the Son eternal and the Holy Ghost eternal For all these are Attributes of the common Deity which is the same of All. And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal Not Three Eternal Gods though Three Persons but One Eternal God As also there are not three Incomprehensibles nor three Uncreated but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible One and the same Substance or Deity uncreated and incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty and yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word by which the Greeks do express the Hebrew Name Iehovah the proper incommunicable Name of God the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord and yet not Three Lords but One Lord. Not three Iehovahs but one Iehovah For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord so are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say There be Three Gods or Three Lords Which are so many particular Explications or Illustrations of what was before said in general of not Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which Explications though they be all true and necessary Consequents of what was before said in general yet to none of them is annexed such Sanction as that whosoever doth not Believe or not Understand these Illustrations cannot be saved 'T is enough to Salvation if they hold the true Faith as to the substance of it though in some other form of words or though they had never heard the Athanasian Creed Nor is any such Sanction annexed to the Personal Properties which next follow The Father is made of none neither Created nor Begotten The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Begotten but Proceeding Where by the way here is no Anathematization of the Greek Church of which those who would for other reasons disparage this Creed make so loud an out-cry 'T is said indeed He doth proceed and so say they but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son And 't is said He is Of the Father and Of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some way or other and even this I suppose they would not deny but whether by procession from both or if so whether in the same manner it is not said but warily avoided Though indeed it seems to favour what I think to be the truth and what in the Nicene Creed is said expressly that he doth proceed from both and for ought we know in the same manner which yet we do not determine Nor do I see any reason why on this account we should be said to Anathematize the Greek Church or they to Anathematize us even though we should not exactly agree in what sence he may be said to be Of the Father and in what Of the Son And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and the Languages of the present Greek Churches than most of us are do assure us that the differences between them and us are rather in some forms of expressions than in the thing it self However those who would make so great a matter of this should rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed than the Athanasian where it is expresly said of the Holy Ghost that he proceedeth from the Father and from the Son 'T is not therefore for
or wrong this is no fair play For hardly can any thing be so plain but that somebody may find a pretence to cavil at it It is enough for us therefore if it be thus meant without saying it is impossible to put a forced sence upon it But this would have spoiled his design in mustering up a great many forced sences not that he thinks them to be true for surely they be not all true and I think none of them are nor telling us which he will stick to but only that he may cast a mist and then tell us which is all that he concludes upon it the place is abscure he knows not what to make of it But when the Mist is blown off and we look upon the Words themselves they seem plain enough as to all the Points he mentions The Word which was with God and was God and by whom the World was made and which was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we saw his glory and of whom Iohn bare witness must needs be a Person and can be no other than our Lord Iesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary And this Word which was in the beginning and by whom the World was made must needs have been pre-existent before he was so born And this Word which was with God the true God and was God and by whom the World was made and who is one with the Father Joh. 10. 30. and who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. is no other God than God Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth And this plain sence the words bear without any force put upon them Without any Incoherence Inconsistence or Contradiction sâ—â—e that they do not agree with the Socinian Doctrine And there is no other way to avoid it but what Socinus adviseth in another case Quantacunque Vis verbis adhibenda putting a Force upon the words no matter how great to make them not to signifie what they plainly do Or else to say which is his last refuge that St. Iohn writes Nonsence But let him then consider Whether this do savour of that respect which he would have us think they have for the Holy Scripture and whether we have not reason to suspâ—â—t the contrary of some of them And Whether we have not reason to complain of their putting a forced sence upon plain words to make them comply with their Doctrine And lastly Whether it be not manifest that the true Bottom of their aversion from the Trinity whatever other subsidiary Reasons they may alledge is because they think it Nonsence or not agreeable with their Reason For set this aside and all the rest is plain enough but because of this they scruple not to put the greatest force upon Scripture Nor is there any other pretence of Nonsence in the whole Discourse save that he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Nonsence So that the whole Controversie with him turns upon this single Point Whether there be such Impossibility or Inconsistence as is pretended That of 1 Iohn 5. 7. There be three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One is wanting he says in some Copies And it is so and so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Copies But we will not for that quit the place For we have great reason to think it genuine If this difference of Copies happened at first by chance upon an oversight in the Transcriber in some one Copy and thereupon in all that were transcribed from thence it is much more likely for a Transcriber to leave out a line or two which is in his Copy than to put in a line or two which is not And if it were upon design it is much more likely that the Arians should purposely leave it out in some of their Copies than the Orthodox foist it in Nor was there need of such falsification since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes as strongly as to a Plurality of persons and of the Son in particular which was the chief controversie with the Arians as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as to all the Three And I think it is cited by Cyprian in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae before the Arian Controversie was on foot And therefore if it were done designedly and not by chance it seems rather to be razed out by the Arians than thrust in by the Orthodox And the Language of this in the Epistle suits so well with that of the same Author in his Gospel that it is a strong presumption that they are both from the same Pen. The Word in 1 Iohn 5. 7. agrees so well with the Word in Iohn 1. and is peculiar to St. Iohn and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Iohn 5. 7. with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iohn 10. 30. these three are One with I and the Father are One that I do not at all doubt its being genuine And that Evasion of his these three are one that is one in testimony will have no pretence in the other place where there is no discourse of Testimony at all but I and the Father are One unum sumus must be One Thing One in Being One in Essence For so Adjectives in the Neuter Gender put without a Substantive do usually signifie both in Greek and Latin and there must be some manifest reason to the contrary that should induce us to put another sence upon them The other place Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is not so slight an evidence as he would make it For whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred in the Name and taken to denote the joint Authority of Father Son and Holy Ghost admitting the person baptized into the Christian Church Or into the Name which this Answerer seems to like better and taken to denote the Dedication of the person baptized to the joint Service or Worship of Father Son and Holy Ghost Baptism it self being also a part of Divine Worship They are all conjoined either as in joint Authority or as joint Objects of the same Religious Worship and for ought appears in the same Degree And Socinus himself doth allow the Son to be Worshipped with Religious Worship as Adoration and Invocation as Lawful at least if not Necessary Now when this Answerer tells us of the First Commandment Thou shalt have no other God but me the God of Israel He might as well have remembred that of Christ Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And therefore since Socinus and other of his followers do allow Christ to be Worshipped they must allow him to be God even the God of Israel And I am mistaken if he be not expresly called the Lord God of Israel Luke 1. 16. Many of the children of Israel shall he John the Baptist turn to
and so they do in the Apostles Creed and are so also in the Articles of our Church Where it is only said because in the Creed it stands so That we are to believe That he descended into Hell without affixing any particular sence to it The words doubtless have respect to that of Acts 2. 27. where Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell or Hades nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption is applied to Christ cited out of Psal. 16. 10. where the same had before been spoken of David And his not being left in Hades seems to suppose his having been for some time in Hades whatever by Hades is there meant And Verse 31. his being not so left is expresly expounded of his Resurrection And so again in Acts 13. 35. Now as we have no reason to think that David's being in Hell or Sheol though not to be left there can signifie his being in Hell among the Devils and damned Spirits but rather in the Grave or the Condition of the Dead so neither that Christ's being in Hell or Hades which is the Greek word answering to the Hebrew Sheol should signifie any other than His being in the Grave or condition of the Dead from whence by his Resurrection he was delivered And to this purpose seems that whole Discourse of Peter Acts 2. 24 32. and of Paul Acts 13. 30 37. But without determining it to any particular sence the Creed leaves the word Hell indefinitely here to be understood in the same sence what ever it be in which it is to be understood Acts 2. 27 31. and Psal. 16. 10. And so far we are safe It follows Hâ—â—scended into Heaven He sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead At whose coming all men shall rise again with their Bodies and shall give account for their own Works And they that have done Good shall go into Life everlasting and they that have done Evil into everlasting Fire Of all which there is no doubt but that it ought to be believed Ending with This is the Catholick Faith That is this is true and sound Doctrine and such as every true Christian ought to believe And as he had begun all with a general Preface so now he closeth all with a general Conclusion Which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved That is the Doctrine here delivered is true and so I think it is in all the parts of it and is part of the Catholick Faith The whole of which Faith is the whole Word of God That is part of that Faith which all true Christians do and ought to Believe Which Catholick Faith the whole of which is the whole Word of God except a man so qualified as I before expressed do believe faithfully that is except he truly believe it as to the Substantials of it though possibly he may be ignorant of many particulars therein he cannot without such Repentance as God shall accept of be saved Which so limitted as it ought to be I take to be sound Doctrine and agreeable to that of Iohn 3. 16. He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God And Ver. 36. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him That is according to the words of this Creed he that believeth not aright of God and Christ cannot be saved Which words of Christ we may safely interpret both with an aspect on the Doctrine of the Trinity because of those words the only Begotten Son of God and to that of the Incarnation of Christ and the Consequents thereof because of those words in the beginning of the Discourse Ver. 16 17 God so loved the World that he Gave his only Begotten Son c. and God sent his Son into the world that the world through him might be saved Which are the two main Points insisted on in the Athanasian Creed And he who doth not Believe on the Name of this only Begotton Son of God and thus sent into the world the Text tells us shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Which fully agrees with what is here said Except a man believe the Catholick Faith of which the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation are there intimated and are here expressed to be considerable Branches he cannot be saved And what Limitations or Mitigations are to be understood in the one place are reasonably to be allowed as understood in the other And consequently those Damnatory Clauses as they are called in the Athanasian Creed rightly understood are not so formidable as some would pretend as if because of them the whole Creed ought to be laid aside For in brief it is but thus The Preface and the Epilogue tell us That whoso would be saved it is necessary or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ought to hold the Catholick Faith Which Faith except he keep whole and undefiled or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safe and inviolate he shall perish everlastingly or which except he believe faithfully he cannot be saved Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not shall be damned He then inserts a large Declaration of the Catholick Faith especially as to two main Points of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation And if all he there declares be true as I think it is we have then no reason to quarrel with it upon that account But he doth not say That a man cannot be saved who doth not Know or Understand every particular thereof Of the First he says but this He that would be saved ought thus to think or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him thus think of the Trinity namely That the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity ought to be Worshipped Of the Second what he says is this Furthermore it is necessary to Eternal Salvation That he believe aright the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God whom God hath sent into the world that the world through him might be saved John 3. 17 18 36. Beside these there are no Damnatory Clauses in the whole All the rest are but Declaratory And if what he declares be true we have no reason to find fault with such Declaration Now as to those two Points that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation which are the only Points in question there is a double Inquiry as I have elsewhere shewed Whether the things be Possible and whether they be True The Possibility may be argued from Principles of Reason The Truth of them from Revelation only And it is not
doth thence repute it impossible for an Immaterial Being to move a Body But we who believe the Soul to be a a Spirit know it to be possible Much more is it possible for God though a Being infinitely Act. 17 25 27 28. more pure who giveth to all Life and Breath and All things and in whom we Live and Move and have our Being and who is not far from every one of us It would be hard for us to give an intelligible account either how God moves all things or how our Soul moves the Body yet we are sure it is so That a Body may move a Body seems not so strange to apprehend for we see one Engine move another But by what Mechanism shall a Spirit give Motion to a Body when at rest or Stop it when in Motion or Direct its Motions this way or that way It would be thought strange that a Thought of ours should Move a stone And it is as hard to conceive did we not see it daily How a Thought should put our Body in Motion and another Thought stop it again Yet this we see done every day though we know not How And it is almost the same thing in other Animals And more yet when an Angel assumes a Body There are none of these things we know How and yet we know they are done I shall press this a little farther Our Soul we all believe doth after Death continue to exist in a separate condition from the Body And I think we have reason to believe also that it will continue to Act as an Intellectual Agent not to remain in a stupid sensless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Else I see not why Paul should desire to depart or to be dissolved and to be with Christ which is far better rather than to abide in Flesh. For while he abides in the Flesh he hath some enjoyment of Christ as well as an opportunity of doing some Service which is more desirable if when he is departed he have none at all And how can he then say That to Dye is gain Whether the Soul thus separated shall be said to have a Subsistence as well as an Existence Or whether it may be properly said then to be an intire Person as the Soul and Body are before Death and after the Resurrection I will not Dispute because that were to contend about Words and such Words so signify as we please to define them and bear such a Sence as we please to put upon them But it is as the Angels are an Intellectual Spiritual Agent and we use to say Actiones sunt Suppositorum and Suppositum Rationale is either a Person or so near a Person that it would be so if men please to call it so And the Spiritual Being which doth now separately Exist shall at the Resurrection resume a Body into the same Personality with it self and shall with it become one Person as before Death it had been Now if a Spiritual Immaterial Intellectual Being separately existent by it self and separately acting as an Intellectual Agent may at the Resurrection assume or reassume a Material Corporeal Being Heterogeneous to it self into the same Personality with it self or so as to become one Person with it while yet it self remains Spiritual as before What should hinder for it is but one step further but that a Divine Person may assume Humanity into the same personality with it self without ceasing to be a Divine Person as before it was If it be said That Person and Personality in the Sacred Trinity are not just the same as what we so call in other cases It is granted and by these words which are but Metaphorical we mean no more but somewhat analogous thereunto and which because of such analogy we so call as knowing no better words to use instead thereof According as we use the words Father Son generate beget and the like in a metaphorical sence when applied to God For no words borrowed from Created Beings can signifie just the same when applied to God as when they were applied to Men but somewhat analogous thereunto And if the Soul though we know not How may and do at the Resurrection assume a Body so as to become the same Person with it self though neither the Body be thereby made a Soul nor the Soul a Body but remain as before that a Body and this a Soul though now united into one Person Why may not a Divine Person assume Humanity so to be what is analogous to what we call a Person the Humanity remaining Humanity and the Divinity remaining Divinity though both united in One Christ though we do not particularly know How We should be at a great loss if to answer an Atheist or one who doth not believe the Scriptures we were put to it to tell him How God made the World Of what Matter With what Tools or Engines or How a Pure Spirit could produce Matter where none was He would tell us perhaps Ex nihilo nihil in nihilum nil posse reverti Where nothing is nothing can be made and what once is though it may be changed can never become Nothing And will never believe the World was made but rather was from all Eternity except we can tell him How it was made Now if in this case we may satisfie our selves though perhaps it will not satisfie him by saying God made it but we know not How The same must satisfie us here That Christ was Incarnate God and Man we are certain for so the Scripture doth assure us as well as That God made the World But How God made the World or How the Son of God assumed Humanity we cannot tell Nor indeed is it fit for us to enquire farther than God is pleased to make known to us All further than this are but the subtile Cob-webs of our Brain Fine but not Strong Witty Conjectures How it may be rather than a clear Resolution How it is Another Objection I have met with to which the Objecters must be contented with the same Answer We know it Is but we know not How It would be endless for us and too great a Curiosity to think our selves able fully to explicate all the Hidden things of God The Objection is this Since the Three Persons cannot be Divided How is it possible that One of them can Assume Humanity and not the other And why the Second Person and not the First or Third As to the Question Why I say It is so because so it pleased God And he giveth not account of his Matters He is not accountable to us why he so willeth As to the Question How is it Possible I see no difficulty in that at all The Persons are Distinguished though not Divided As in the Divine Attributes God's Justice and Mercy are Distinguishable though in God they cannot be Divided And accordingly some things are said to be Effects of his Justice others of his Mercy So the Power and Will of God
himself or at least hoped we would not see it And therefore I desire him to consider that it is not said Thee only to be the true God but Thee the only true God And so in the Greek it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Restrictive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is not annexed to Thee but to God To know Thee to be the only true God that is to be that God beside which God there is no other true God And We say the like also That the Father is that God beside which there is no other true God and say the Son is also not another God but the same only true God And if those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be thus expounded To know Thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ to be the same only true God repeating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would not like that interpretation but both the Words and the Sence will very well bear it without such Force as they are fain to put upon many other places Or if without such repetition we take this to be the scope of the place To set forth the two great Points of the Christian Religion or Way to Eternal Life That there is but one true God though in that Godhead there be three Persons as elsewhere appears in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathen and the Doctrine of Redemption by Iesus Christ whom God hath sent of which the Heathen were not aware the sence is very plain And nothing in it so clear as he would have us think against the Trinity but all very consistent with it And the same Answer serves to his other place 1 Cor. 8. 6. But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him or for him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For here also One God may be referred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to the Father if here taken as a distinct person and to the Lord Iesus Christ Or without that it is manifest that One God is here put in opposition not to the plurality of Persons as we call them in One Deity but to the many Gods amongst the Heathen and our one Saviour against their many Saviours As is manifest if we take the whole context together We know that an Idol is nothing in the World and that there is no other God but one For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Ver. 4 5 6. Where it is evident that the scope of the place is not to shew either how the Persons as we call them or how the Attributes of that One God are distinguished amongst themselves But to set our One God who is the Father or Maker of all things in opposition to the Many Gods of the Idolatrous World and our One Saviour or Redeemer against their Many Saviours Indeed if we should set up our Jesus Christ to be another God the Text would be against us but not when we own him for the same God So that here is nothing clear in either place as he pretends against Christ's being the same God with the Father But in that other place of Iohn 1. which he labours to elude the evidence for it doth so stare him in the face that if he were not as he speaks Wilfully blind or did Wink very hard he must needs see it In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made In him was life and the life was the light of men Ver. 1 2 3 4. He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not He came unto his own and his own received him not But to as many as received him he gave power or right or privilege to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his Name Ver. 10 11 12. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth Ver. 14. Why he should not think this very clear is very strange if he were not strangely prepossessed Unless he think nothing clear but such as no man can cavil against But there can hardly be any thing said so clearly but that some or other if they list to be contentious may cavil at it or put a forced sence upon it For thus the whole Doctrine of Christ when himself spake it and he spake as clearly as he thought fit to speak was cavilled at And himself tells us the reason of it Matth. 13. 14 15. and Ioh. 12. 37 38 39 40. and after him St. Paul Acts 28. 26. and Rom. 11. 8. Not for want of clear Light but because they shut their eyes In Iohn 12. it is thus But though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him That the saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our report and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed Therefore they could not believe because Esaias said again He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart and be converted and I should heal them These things said Esaias when he saw his glory and spake of him And thus in Matth 13. Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive For this peoples heart is waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes they have closed lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and should be converted and I should heal them So that 't is no argument of a place or doctrine's not being clear because prejudiced persons are able to pick cavils at it or put a forced sence upon it But let us see what these cavils are This I confess saith he were to the purpose if by the term Word could be meant he should rather have said be meant nothing else but a pre-existing person and by the term God nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and if taking those terms in those sences did not make St. John write Nonsence Now in reply to this I first take exception to that phrase if it could be meant of nothing else For if his meaning be this If no Caviller can start up another sence right