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
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
is but one God which is all this Text can pretend to and all that our Socinian can prove But we say likewise that Jehovah or God is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost That the Father is Jehovah or God the Socinian grants us and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah or God we will prove 1. That the Son is Jehovah or God will appear from hence In Exod. 33 1 2 3. the Lord the word is Jehovah said I will send my Angel but I will not go up into the midst of thee Now as the Letter supposes that Jehovah is God so in this very place it can signifie no other than God properly Because ◠Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel as such and therefore from every Angel I will send my Angel but I will not go and 2. He declares his propriety in this Angel for it is my Angel An Angel that is mine that is my Creature and my Servant Which gloss I found upon this bottom that we never find in all the Scripture that one Angel speaks thus of another for though there be different orders of Angels yet they are all Servants of God not the Servants one of another Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in and that Power over this Angel which God has to in and over his Creatures Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah appeared to Abraham v. 2. expresses it by three Men but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah or Lord the same is so called again v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two Men but this Jehovah This only was Dignified with these Titles to this only did Abraham bow himself and direct his Discourse Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distinguished from these Men as he was before from that Angel and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World which neither is true nor was ever affirmed of any created Spirit it must needs be that this Jehovah is God But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father because 1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape as to Joshua to Moses so to Abraham whence himself and the two with him are called Men v. 2 but the Father never appeared in humane shape and the Teaching that he did was antiently as well as justly condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie and 2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2 because they were sent as the Word imports but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity cannot be sent from any The Result then is here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men but the Father never did appear in this likeness therefore this could not be Jehovah or God the Father but must be Jehovah or God the Son whom the Father sent in Humane shape as an intimation of his future Incarnation This is evident from Joshua for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword and asks Who he was for The Man answered v. 14 As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man this Captain is himself Jehovah the Lord for after he had answered Joshua and commanded him to put off his shooe because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15 then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord i. e. this Man this Captain said to Joshua Therefore the former Jehovah or Lord is the Father whose Host this was and the latter Jehovah or Lord is the Son who was sent from the Father as Captain of it This was the Sense of all Antiquity for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar c. 6. and adv Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were followed by Cyprian Origen and the rest Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord Jehovah rained down Fire from the Lord Jehovah in Heaven The Series of this History shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch 18 whence the latter must be the Father who was in Heaven This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers but also of the first Council of Sirmium And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Jehovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World Gen. 18. 25. We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius who de Nomine Jehovah objects several things against us with a design to perswade that Jehovah is not a Name proper to God but is sometimes given to Angels properly taken and consequently that this Jehovah was not tht Son but only an Angel of God Object 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2. Ans They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me 1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God as well as these three Men be Angels And then 2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels but this he stiled Jehovah whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all created Beings and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Creator God blessed for ever Object 2. He who is called Lord Jehovah in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God but common to Created Spirits Ans Angel doth note his Office as being sent from the Father and Jehovah notes his Nature as being of the same Substance with the Father for v. 6. this Jehovah saith I am the God of Abraham and v. 14. he stiles himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting which is not competible to any Creature Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31 32. Have ' ye not read not what God spake to you by his Angel but that which is spoke to you by God saying I am the God of Abraham Where our Saviour himself who is the best Interpreter of Scripture teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit but even God himself Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Christ And Tertul. adv Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum Moysi God that is the Son of God was seen by Moses the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv Judae 1. 2. c. Object 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God but yet is sometimes given to Angels as they personate God i. e. bear his Name and
Imprimatur Geo. Royse RRmo in Christo Patri ac Dom. Dom Johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest Novemb. 21. 1692. AN ANSWER TO THE Brief History OF THE Unitarians Called also SOCINIANS Prov. 18. 17. He that is first in his own Cause seems just but his Neighbour comes and searches him By William Basset Rector of St. Smithin London London Printed and Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1693. TO THE Most Reverend Father in God JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop OF Canterbury Primate of England and Metropolitan and One of Their Majesties Most Honourable Privy-Council IT is the Design of these Papers to baffle and expose those Little Pleas and Objections which the Late Author of the Socinian Letters hath urged against the Divinity of the Son My Lord This Cause doth merit as well as the Author want your Grace's Patronage For which Reason I humbly presume to prefix so Great a Name not doubting but they will meet with what Favour they may either deserve or want That that God who hath raised would preserve guide and strengthen you in those Undertakings which so great a Place doth call and so Pious a Mind more Large and Rich than that Place it self doth dispose you to for the well-governing the Church and the Uniting us in the True Faith and in all the Designs and Interests of Religion is the earnest Prayer of Your Grace's Most Humble Servant William Basset TO THE READER WHen I first met with these Socinian Letters and found that words and fallacy were their whole composition I could not but think them so unlike their Patrons or their Patrons so unlike the Character they affect which is to be men of Wit and Reason that I Judged them not Worthy an answer But since it appears that these like some other the worst things among us do not want their admirers I thought this performance my duty In it I have answered not only the first of these letters but divers parts of the rest as well as some things in more manly writers as Eriedinus Crellius c. By calling in the other letters to asist this and other Socinian authors to supply the weakness of them all I put the Objections in their full strength to the end their overthrow may be the more conspicuos to the world and the more sensible to themselves If they venture upon argument and do any thing that affects the cause I am ready to support it But if they only load me with words and cavils I must neglect them If these labours are succesful in recovering any whom this Heresy hath infected and in preserving those who yet are whole and hereby in giving any check to the growing errors and prophaness of the age I shall place the time spent upon this argument among my happy minutes That it may be productive of such blessed effects was the hope and design and shall be the prayers of Yours W. B. AN ANSWER To the FIRST of the Four LETTERS INTITULED A Brief History SECT 1. These Letters are Intituled A Brief History yet instead of History you find little if any but an abuse of divers Authors in the end of the First A Title as foreign from the Letters as the Letters from the Truth that is neither to the point THat term Vnitarian is put as a distinction between them and us take it as it signifies him who believes one only God exclusive of all others and then it makes a distinction without a difference for we are as intirely in that Faith as the Socinian can be but as they make it signify one who believes the Father only to be God exclusive of the Son and the Holy Ghost I must declare it a term suitable to these Letters i. e. full of Error and Blasphemy That word Socinian we leave to the Followers of Socinus who their beloved Sandius saith differed from all the World which proclaims those under this denomination Men of Novelty and Error The Title Page quotes Act. 17. 11. They searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so Answ St. Basil saith of Eunomius tom 1. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou seekest that thou may'st find not Faith but Infidelity not to discover a Truth but to establish an Error This I fear we shall find too true of our Socinians who wrest the Rule of Truth â—o their own prejudicate Opinions Sure I am did men sincerely follow this example we should find but few of this perswasion since their Heresy is founded not upon Scripture but upon those false Glosses and Sophistical Evasions which make the Scriptures of none effect The Preamble to the Letter pretends that his Friend demands an account of the Socinians Their Doctrine concerning God in which only they differ from other Christians the Remonstrants professedly agreeing with them in other points of Faith and Doctrine Answer Their Doctrine concerning God is That the Father only is God P. 4. But that they differ from other Christians in other points beside this is notorious to the world They own the Arians to be Christians and Vnitarians because they agree with themselves in this Doctrine P. 33. But the Arians ascribe to the Son the Creation of the World while the Socinians deny his Existence before the Incarnation Therefore either the Arians are no Christians or the Socinians differ from other Christians in other Doctrines besides this But he would prove that in other points the Socinians agree with other Christians because in other points they agree with the Remonstrants Which implyes 1. That there is no difference between themselves and the Remonstrants but this which is well known to be false And 2. That themselves and Remonstrants are all the Christians in the World Because he makes it that their agreement with these doth prove their agreement with other Christians but this is false too Because these Remonstrants were condemned by the Synod at Dort about the five Propositions You have then a double falshood in the compass of this one Parenthesis the one in inlarging the number of his Friends the other in lessening the number of his Errors The design of which must be to perswade the Reader That there is but one step between the Orthodox Faith and this Heresy to the end he may the more easily decoy 'em into it According to this beginning you must expect but little if any truth and honesty in this Letter which we shall now consider SECT II. He saith P. 4. That Christ was a Man the Son Prophet Messenger Minister Servant and Creature of God not himself God they think is proved by these as they call them Arguments Answer I Am glad to find any modesty in a Socinian for they call them Arguments and they think they prove But with better assurances we declare they are no Arguments nor do they prove the point in Controversy For though they prove that Christ is Man yet they do not prove he is no more than Man
not true of one Person in the Trinity in reference to another For though God cannot come in the Name and by the Authority of a Creature yet the Son may come in the Name and by the Authority of the Father because though the Son is equal to the Father as God yet the Father is greater than the Son as Father For which reason Episcopius whom this Letter bespatters for an Arian Institut Theol. l. 4. c. 32. saith That the Son refers all things to the Father as the Fountain of the Deity of and from whom the Son is By this he rejects a Co-ordination but asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity and therefore at the same time both ruins these Objections and also establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity He proceeds God declares himself to be the prime object of Faith and Worship but the Son doth not so for John 12. 44. He that believes on me believes not on me but on him that sent me Answ Christ doth in this very Text propose himself as the object of Faith and Worship for he saith He that believes on me which asserts that men did believe on him and implys that they ought to do so what follows is but a qualification of the thing suitable to his subordination to his Father for such an one believes not on me that is solely or ultimately but on him that sent me i. e. on him as well as me by which he doth not exclude but include himself with the Father as the object of Faith and Worship This sense must be allowed else you run into these two absurdities viz. 1. You make the first clause assert what the second denyes and the second deny what the first asserts viz. That men do believe on him and yet do not believe on him thev do not believe and yet they believe still 2. These Scriptures which make Faith in Christ a condition of Salvation such as John 3. 36. He that believes on the Son hath Everlasting Life must be razed out of our Bibles But perhaps he may trifle upon that word prime object which hath nothing in it For if the Father be the prime object as he is the first Person in the Trinity yet the Father Son and Holy Ghost are the One and only object in regard of Nature But as the Texts he here quotes cannot serve his Hypothesis so there is One among them that totally destroys it viz. John 8. 42. I proceeded forth and came from God that is I am not from the Earth but from Heaven this is the Apostles sense Ephes 4. 9. That he ascended what is it but that he descended first Whence he did not first ascend to receive his Doctrine and Authority from God as Socinus dreams but he first descended from God with whom he was in the beginning John 1. 1. and with whom he was glorified before the World John 17. 5. Our sense falls in with variety of Scriptures which on every side confirm and support it but theirs labours with endless difficulties in wresting and perverting them that is an Argument of truth but this os falshood Argum. 5. pa. 9. God was always most wise but Christ increased in Wisdom Luke 2. 52. Answ The Text saith he increased in Wisdom and Stature which word Stature suits not a Divine Nature but an Human Body which shews that the Text speaks of him not simply as if in his whole Capacity without any exception he increased in Wisdom but only as Man and consequently this Text proves he is Man but doth not prove he is not God which is the design of this Argument This is a demonstration of a studied corruption of the truth for like the Devil he quotes but one part of the Text to the end he may pervert the whole He proceeds God was never ignorant of any thing but he makes it that Christ was ignorant of two 1. Of the place where Lazarus was buried John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him Answ This no more proves that he knew not the place than Gods asking Cain Gen. 4. 9. Where is Abel thy Brother doth prove that God knew not what was become of him How can we presume he was ignorant of this who of himself knew both his death and the time of it too That he would not in every thing give demonstrations of his Divinity is no argument against it 2. He pleads that Christ knew not the day of Judgment for Mark 13. 32. Of that day knows no Man in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none knows no not the Angels neither the Son but the Father St. Matthew ch 24. 36. adds but the Father only Answ He knew it not as Man but this doth not prove he is not God and did not know it as such For John 21. 17. He knew all things and therefore must know this or this must be nothing In 1 King 8. 39. God only knows the Hearts of Men but Joh. 2. 25. Christ knew what is in Man But to know the Hearts of Men and to know what is in Man are the same in Sense therefore Christ knows what God only knows and consequently Christ must be God and for that cause Omniscient Revel 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart This Let. 4. p. 154. doth acknowledge that Christ spoke of himself But this as we know is proper to God who alone can search the Heart Therefore our Savior's Application of it to himself is a Manifest Assertion of his own Divinity and consequently of his Omniscience which is inseparable from the Divine Nature Whence it must be that he knew it not as Man only but yet at the same time must know it as God But here the Socinian pleads that he knew many things not of himself but by Communication from the Father as the Prophets did 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil thou wilt do to the Children of Israel Therefore some extraordinary Knowledges in Christ do speak his knowledg no more Omniscient and Inherent than that of the Prophets So to this purpose p. 155. Answ These are very unlike Cases For 1. This Prophet knew this Man so far as concerned his future Dealing towards this People But this doth not prove that he knew this Man any farther or any other Man at all Whereas Joh. 2. 24. Christ knew all Men and v. 25. He knew what was in Man and therefore all that is in Man Which never was affirmed of any of the Prophets From which alone it appears that his Knowledge was much more extensive than any of the Prophets 2. He knew all things Joh. 21. 17. which imports an infinite Knowledge But an infinite Knowledge can never be Communicated to a finite Understanding Because there is an infinite Disproportion between the faculty and the object Therefore the Knowledge which Christ had speaks him infinite and that is God 3. This Hypothesis viz. that such a Knowledge can be Communicated to a Creature doth confound the Essential
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
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
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
Authority Ans Here was not only the Name and Authority of God but also that Honor received which is due to God only for Moses by special Command did worship him but you have not one such Instance of an Angel that any way appeared to be a created Spirit that bore the Name and Authority of God and received the Honor due to God The Angel to the Blessed Virgin spoke otherwise and that to S. John forbad him to Worship him and that for a reason common to all created Angels Revel 19. 10. See thou do it not for I am thy Fellow-Servant As we find no such thing so neither can any such thing ever be for God hath said My Glory will I not give to another but this gives a Creature his Name his Authority and his Honor and these are his Glory Therefore the matter of this Objection is not only not found in the Scripture but is even contrary to it Object 4. The Law was given by the disposition of Angels Act. 7. 53. and was spoken by Angels Heb. 2. 3. whence he presumes that Jehovah who gave the Law was not the Son of God but a created Angel Ans This doth not follow for as it was given by Angels so it was Gal. 3. 19. in the hand of a Mediator that is of Christ as Theophylact and others take it But some say this Mediator was Moses be it so it is all one For if Moses was Mediator it was only as a Type of Christ and there must be an exact Agreement between the Type and the Anti-type therefore if the Law was given by Moses a typical Mediator it must be given by Christ the true and proper Mediator Whence the Result must be that Moses gave it immediately to the People but Christ gave it mediately by Moses and by those Angels which are ministring Spirits Therefore when S. John saith c. 1. 17. the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth i. e. the Gospel came by Jesus Christ he respects the immediate Delivery of both the Law was given immediately by Moses and the Gospel immediately by Christ which excludes Christ from only an immediate but not from a mediate Delivery of the Law But the Difficulty is from Heb. 2. 2 3. If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast and every Transgression and Disobedience received a just recompence of Reward how shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord Upon which Crellius saith the Gospel which is the great Salvation is preferred before the Law because the Law was given by Angels but the Gopel by the Lord and consequently Jehovah who gave the Law was not the Lord but an Angel Ans This Text which saith the Law was spoken by Angels doth no more exclude the Son than Joh. 1. 17. which saith the Law was given by Moses doth exclude those Angels for indeed it was given by all three Therefore the Opposition lies not between Jehovah and the Son who are the same and gave both Law and Gospel too but 1. Between his different manner of giving each for as before he gave the Law mediately by Angels but he gave the Gospel immediately by himself as the Eternal Word now made Flesh Upon which account Sin against the Gospel is a greater Affront to his Person and Authority than Sin against the Law And 2. Between the Nature of each considered in themselves this is a great Salvation in comparison of that And because Sin doth always arise proportionate to the means it is committed against therefore upon this Account also Sin against the Gospel is greater than Sin against the Law Whence this toping Argument of Crellius which he saith doth penitus evertere totally overthrow us doth neither exclude Jehovah the Son from giving the Law nor yet debase him to a created Spirit and consequently doth not at all affect us In fine we grant that Jehovah is sometimes called an Angel as he is sent from the Father but we deny that an Angel which is any way declared to be a created Spirit is ever called Jehovah Let the Socinian prove this and then we will dismiss this Argument else he faith nothing to the purpose 2. The Blessed Spirit is also called Jehovah for Exod. 17. 7. they tempted the Lord the Word is Jehovah This is repeated Psal 95. whence the Apostle Heb. 3. 7 8 9. thus the Holy Ghost saith When your Fathers tempted me Therefore according to the Apostles Application of these Seriptures the Holy Ghost is this Jehovah The Result is Jehovah is indeed but one God but yet is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost who are in the Godhead and therefore are this one God which was the thing to be proved Whence his next Scripture which is Isa 45. 5. I am the Lord the Word is Jehovah there is no God before me is easily answered For here Jehovah excludes a Plurality of Gods but not a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead He adds in his great Wisdom and Judgment Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Where because the Lord thy God is singular and that Word only excludes all others he thinks he hath found a proof that the Father only is God Ans This proves indeed that there is but one God which we all grant but it doth not prove there is but one Person in the Godhead or that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God which he undertakes But because Suppositions grant nothing we will suppose that this Text proves that the Father only is God but then it must be granted upon this Supposition that it doth also prove that the Father only is to be worshipped for him only shalt thou serve But the Socinians deny that the Son is God and yet worship him as well as the Father Whence it evidently follows that either their Religion must be an Heresie or themselves Idolaters for if the Son be God they are Hereticks in denying it if he is not they are Idolaters in worshipping him And certainly these Men are put to an hard shift for Scripture Proofs when all the Texts they cite do either not affect us or wound themselves He now proceeds to his singular Pronouns thus No Instance can be given in any Language of three Persons who ever spoke of themselves or were spoken to by singular Pronouns as I Thou c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom Grammar and Sense Ans To this that of the Learned Dean of St. Pauls Dr. Sherlock is the most apposite viz. There is no other Example in Nature of three Persons who are essentially one Whence this is an Impropriety in reference to the Creatures which is none in reference to God For he may speak of himself or be spoken to singularly because he is but one God and plurally because he is three Persons without any ungrammatical Solecism And sometimes he doth speak plurally as Gen.
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
say the Socinians began to persecute the Apostolic Doctrine of One God or which is the same that God is One in the Year 194 but with little success till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians grew into general credit for Justin Martyr Origen and other principal Fathers teaching as the Arians afterwards did that the Father is before the Son and the Holy Ghost in Time Dignity and Power yet that the Word or Son was ereated sometime before the World and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son Ans The Letter tells us That the Socinians say this and indeed it may pass for a Socinian Story for it hath not one Word of Truth in it For 1. The Doctrine of One God or that God is One that is One person as they explain it never was the Apostolic Doctrine as Eusâ—bius now quoted by himself doth declare both from the Scriptures and from the most ancient Fathers as well as from the Hymns composed in honour of Christ from the beginning of the Cospel 2. The Doctrine of One God or that God is One that is not One person exclusive of other persons but One God exclusive of other Gods was the Doctrine of the Apostles and Apostolic Men appears from the same place in Eusebius and from all the same Topicks already mentioned 3. That Victor did persecute and root out the Heresie be contends for doth not appear from any Monuments of those times nor is in any reason to be supposed because that Heresie had not then obtained in that Church and what he did was only according to the common Rules and Practice of the Church to quash this Heresie in its beginning 4. The Letter makes it that that pretended Persecutition did little succeed till it was assisted by the Doctrine of Justin Martyr and Origen which supposes that their Doctrine began under that Persecution which is impossible for this Persecution the Letter saith began A. D. 194. but Justin suffered about 30 years before that time and Origen did not appear till the middle of the Age after And 5. Neither these nor any other Fathers from the Apostles to Origen did ever teach any such Doctrine which might be easily proved by an induction of Particulars so far as their Works are come down to our hands Justin Martyr saith indeed Apol. p. 60. that beside the Father we worship the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second place and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third Now here is a Priority of Order or Prace but where is that of Time and Power Not in this Father I am sure but in the Socinian Comment only We charge him with Falshood let him clear himself by a particular Reference What Justin here saith ever was and still is the Doctrine of the Church So Novat de Trin. c. 31. Pater qua pater the Father as Father is before the Son and yet he declares that the Son is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father which speaks as we said a Priority of Order or Place but not of Time because the Father and Son are co-eternal This must necessarily be the Sense of our Justin for in the same Apology p. 64. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We worship God only Wence any Man in his Wits must conclude that they held that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Else how could they worship all Three and yet worship none but God And if they are God they cannot be after the Father in Time or Power but must be co-eternal and co-equal with him Had Justin taught that the Son and Holy Ghost are after the Father in time and yet had worshipp'd them he would hereby have totally ruin'd the very Reason and Design of this as well as of other Apologies which were purposely written to justifie the Christians who suffered any thing rather than worship the Gentile Gods for this very Reason that they were not from Eternity and consequently were not Gods but Creatures Our Socinian it seems thinks it enough to Name an Author tho he can find nothing in him to his purpose having neither Authority nor Argument for what he saith Iren l. 3. c 26. Indeavours to prove that the Son is God by Nature and after some time spent on this Argument thus diligenter igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus per ea quae dicta sunt generationen ejus quae ex Virgine substatiam quoniam deus The blessed Spirit diligently signifies by what things are spoken his Generation which is of the Virgin and his substance as he is God By his Generation he intends his humane Nature and by his Substance as God the Divine This he saith is expressed Isa 7. 14. by that word Immanuel God with us of God in our Nature He proceeds his humanity appeaâ—s from his eating Butter and Hony and his Divinity from his choosing the good and refusing the Evil v. 15. This last he saith is added least by his eating Butter and Hony mude solummodo eum hominem intelligeremus we should think he is merely Man And again the Word Immanuel intimates that we cannot see God in his own Nature but as he is manifested in our's It is therefore impossible that Irenaeus should hold that the Son is God as to Title or Office only as the Arians afterwards did when he so plainly teaches that he understood him to be God in the Trinitarian sense and that is in Substance or Nature This shows what sense we are to take him in l. 1. c. 2. where he lays down this as one Article in the Christian Faith that Christ is Lord and God which Faith he faith the Church throughout the World received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the Apostles and Apostolic Men And c. 3. this Faith the Church keeps as if she had but one Soul and but one Heart where observe 1. That God must here signifie God by Nature or Substance because he so explained himself in the place before quoted 2. It is impossible that the Doctrine against the Divinity of the Son could be the Doctrine of the Church from the Apostles to Victor when the Deity of the Son was the Doctrine of the whole Church from the Apostles to Irenaeus who was cotemporary with Victor as appears from the Fragments of his Epistle to this Victor himself in Euseb H. l. 5. c. 24. Clemens of Alexandria who flourished under Victor and Zepherine both is as clear in this matter â—as Pen can write for he not only saith adm ad Gent. that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both God and Man and Paed. l. 2. he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I can render no better than in the Words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Fiesh but he also ascribes those things to the Son which all Men must grant us can be true of none but God For Strom. l. 7. the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
neither invent any New Terms nor impose any New Doctrine but did only declare and confirm that which was the Doctrine of the hurch from the Apostles themselves This gives Credit to not only what we have quoted from Athunasius already but also to that Passage in his Epistle ad Episc in Afric that the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria did from an hundred and thirty years since condemn those who denied that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father But the Arian Doctrine which teaches that the Son was indeed before the World but not from Eternity and that there was a Time in which the Son was not is no where found in the First Ages of the Church but was condemned as a New Monster in Religion in the Fourth So Athanas cont Art Or a. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath heard such things as these And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is not from the Fathers but is of Yesterday And Hilar. Pict Episc ad Constant August l. it is novella luâ—s a New Pest a Pest that hath no more of Antiquity than of Trnth to sweeten it And indeed it was not any of the ancient Fathers as this Letter falsly pretends but Arius a Presbyter of Alexandria in the 4 th Age of the Church that invented that Heresie from whom it took the Name of Arianism As he was she first who in this way sought to undermine and subvert the Divinity of the Son so he had somewhat a like Exit with Judas who betrayed him For as this Traytor burst asunder and his Bowels gushed out so this Heretic presently upon his Perjury whereby he would seem to abjure but still retain the Poyson of his Heresie voided his bowels in a common Jakes This was thought a Warning-Piece to the Arians then and ought to be considered by the Socinians now since they have improved this Heresie as the Pharisees did their Proselytes by making it sevenfold more the Child of Hell than it was it being in some degrees more gross daring and anti-scriptural and carried on by no less Falshood Treachery and Wickedness than the other excepting the Formality of an Oath and that Blood and Tortures which these Men have not the power of The Letter proceeds p. 29. But did Superstition stop here â— No. For there shortly arose another Doctrine that the Son and Holy Ghost are the saâ—e God with the Father not only as the Nicene Fathers explained the Matter by Vnity of Wills and specifick Identity or sameness of Substance but by numerical or true Identity and sameness of Substance and Nature Ans 1. This Council did intend a numerical Unity or sameness of Substance that there might be no room left for any Cavils about three Gods 2. The Church was so far from any new Doctrine that that Age as well as the next did celebrate this Creed as the standing Rule of Faith to all the Churches Epiphan adv Haer. l 2. to c. Haer. 72. calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ecclesiastical Rule of Faith Greg. Nys to 2. cart Eunom l. 1. in our Creed there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word consubstantial which must be the Creed of Nice and yet this is Ours Basil to 3 Epistle 6. recites this and calls it the Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in use with you Ambros de fid l. 1. c. 8 9. quotes part of this Creed about the Consubstantiality and then saith this is the Doctrine of the Church which anathematizes them that teach otherwise And Evag. H. l 3. c. 17. this was used in Baptism then as the Creed called the Apostles is now with us and was confirmed by the next General Council at Constantinople They all kept up to this Rule and intended the same thing though they did not all agree in the manner of explaining and proving it What room then there could be here left for any new Doctrine soon after this Council at Nice I am yet to learn Sect. 7. Hence he proceds to some Eminent Authors who the Letter saith are either Arian or Socinian 1. Erasmus is thought an Arian p. 31. to coulour which pretence he quoates him upon Philip. 2. 6. and Ephes 5. 5. Ans The former Text he thinks doth respect not his Nature but the manner of his appearance and behaviour But yet he grants us that Christ is God though he thinks this Text doth not prove it And on Ephes 5. 5. the Kingdom of God and of Christ he declares that these words do not deny the Divinity of the Son But had this Letter pursued Truth and not the support of an Error it would likewise have told the Reader that upon John 1. 1. The Word was God he asserts that there is Divinam Essentiam tribus personis Communem a Divine Essence common to three Persons Which is all we contend for and which alone speaks Erasmus himself as true a Trinitarian as the Author of the Athanasian Creed His Paraphrase upon this clause in the beginning was the Word saith the Eternal Word was with the Eternal Father yet by the Word he understands not the Command Power or Wisdom of God but a Person as appears from the last quotation before this and consequently he here asserts both the Personality and Eternity of the Word which is the very Doctrine we teach John 8. 5 8. before Abraham was I am he renders Priâ—squam nasceretur before Abraham was born to the end he might distinguish as he saith himself the manner of Abrahams Existence from Christ's Abraham was in time but semper est Christus Christ is always which directly contradicts both the Socinian who denies Christs Existence before his Incarnation and also the Arian who denies his Existence from Eternity Upon these words he quotes St. Austin who glosses thus Abraham was made but Christ is that denotes a Creature this a being Eternally existing It is plain then that Erasmus taught a Trinity And certainly he would not think that the ignorant and dull side of the question as the Letter speaks which he teaches for Orthodox Divinity All the difference between him and our selves is this that we agree in the same Doctrine but differ only in some of those Mediums that should prove it For which reason he ought to be read with caution and judgment The Letter saith that this Author in his Scholia on the third tome of St. Jerom's Epistles denies that the Arians are Hereticks Ans Had he told us upon what Epistle these Scholia are we might have examined the place without much loss of time But I presume he thinks himself safe under so loose a Reference hoping none will turn over a Volume to disprove him In his Epistle to Bilibaldus thus I saith Erasmas could be of the Arian perswasion if the Church approved it Ans The Author thus cum Arianis Pelagianis sentire possim si probasset eccesia quod illi docuerunt Nec mihi non sufficiunt verba
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