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
the Government of the World And on the other hand this subjection proves that the Son shall resign this Kingdom but it doth not prove he shall not reign with the Father for ever Because this subjection is not a subjection of the creature to God but a subordination of one Person to another in the Sacred Trinity Argum. 3. P. 6 7. The true God is not the Minister or Priest of any other But Christ is the minister and Mediator of God and Men Heb. 8. 6. He hath obtained a more excellent Ministry ch 2. 17. He is a faithful High-Priest Answ These Texts respect not his Nature but his Offices and therefore do not deny his Divinity For the same Apostle applies to him those Scriptures which can be spoke of none but God as Psal 45. 6 7. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Which Heb. 5. 8. declares that God spoke of his Son And Psal 102. 25. Thou hast laid the foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thy hands This also V. 10. applies to the Son These Texts are sufficiently vindicated by the learned Dean of St. Paul's Dr. Sherlook who shows that this word God Psal 45. 6. is not a Nominative and is not spoke of the Father as the Socinians and particularly this Letter from Eniedinus would have it who render it God is thy Throne i. e. The Father is a Throne to the Son But it is an Attick Vocative and consequently can be spoke of no other than the Son whom it stiles God and to whom it ascribes an Everlasting Dominion As the other Psalm doth the creation of the World Those very Socinians who have read this answer do yet still insist upon their own sence without taking any notice of that answer which is an evident Argument they do not pursue the discovery of Truth but only serve their own Hypothesis Euseb Praep. Evang. l. 4. c. 15. argues the same thing from the Hebrews and Aquila's Version And sure I am that from hence the Apostolick Ages did always assert the Divinity of the Son Thus Just M. Dial. Tertul. adv Prax. c. 7. Orig. cont Cels l. 1. Cypr. adv Judae c. And certainly since each Testament viz. the Old in its Doctrine and the New in the express application of it to the Son do joyntly proclaim this Minister this Priest to be God as well as man the Socinian must be extremely unjust in pleading the one in contradiction to the other He insists The true God cannot Mediate or Intercede but Christ Intercedes 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and Mediator the Man Christ Jesus They object elsewhere that Christ the Mediator is here Distinguished from God there is one God and one Mediator whence they presume this Mediator cannot be God Answ The Mediator is distinguished from God not simply because as we shall prove himself is God But only secundum quid as Mediator for as such he not only is both God and Man but also by his Mediatorship stands between both in order to the reconciling both together and consequently must be distinct from both But that this Mediator is God as well as Man will appear 1. From the Sense of Antiquity and the Judgment of the Church in all Ages which ever held that the Mediator must be utriusque particeps Partaker of both Natures that there may be some equality between the Mediator and the Persons between whom he mediates to the end he may the more powerfully reconcile both together Upon which bottom Irenaeus who was Disciple to Polycarp as Polycarp was to St. John the Evangelist l. 3. c. 20. thus adunivit hominem Deo whence Theodoret Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath United Man to God And 2. From the Nature of his Mediatory Kingdom which requires Omnipotence whereby he may be able to support and govern it and Omniscience whereby he may know all the wants and circumstances of it Therefore since the Nature of this Kingdom of Christ doth require infinite perfections which are incompetible to a Creature it doth evidently declare the Deity of this Mediator who is accordingly not only stiled God but hath likewise the incommunicable Name viz. Jehovah and Perfections of God ascribed to him in the Scriptures 3. The design of this Text is not to declare that the Father only is God exclusive of the Son and the Holy Ghost but to teach us that there is but one God and one Mediator exclusive of the many Gods and many Mediators acknowledged by the Gentiles But still notwithstanding any thing in this Text this Mediator may be with the Holy Ghost One God with the Father They have therefore brought a Text to disprove our Doctrine which neither as to Letter or design makes any thing against us But this Letter pleads that God cannot mediate but Christ doth therefore Christ cannot be God Answ We grant that God cannot intercede with the Creature because this would imply that he is neither Almighty nor All-sufficient but the Son may intercede with the Father without bringing his Divinity into question Therefore to put the Socinian into a right method of dispute which he yet seems totally a stranger to there being nothing proper and concluding in all his Arguments let him prove that in this Text these words One God are spoke exclusive of the Son and that the Son's Intercession with the Father is inconsistent with his Divinity This is to his purpose and most be done or else he must give up this Text and indeed his Cause together His Argument is fallacious for it applies that to God in reference to the Creature which we apply to one Person in the God-head in reference to another and lyes thus God cannot pray to the Creature therefore the Son cannot pray to the Father a Socinian Argument indeed which all men else would be ashamed of But it is said the man Christ Jesus true but this is not simply man but man united to the eternal word or Son of God So the man Jesus Christ suffered for us but there was such an Union between the two Natures that what was suffered by the One was imputed to the other whence Act. 20. 28. We are purchased by the Blood of God that is by the Blood of Christ united to the second Person in the glorious Trinity This Text Tertullian ad Vxor l. 2. c. 3. quotes without any Anti-Trinitarian gloss upon it and indeed these blasphemous Interpretations now in use with these men were utterly unknown to the Apostolick Ages Argum. 4 p. 7 8. God doth all things in his own Name and by his own Authority he ever doth his own Will and seeks his own Glory but Christ saith John 17.28 I am not come of my self John 5. 43. I am come in my Father's Name John 5. 30. I seek not my own Will and ch 8. 50. I seek not my own Glory Answ This is true of God in reference to the Creature but it is
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the Word i. e. the Son did glorifie his Father and was glorified by him By which this Father doth speak 1. His Existence before all Creatures For every thing did glorifie it's maker so soon as it did exist but the Son did glorifie his Father before all Creatures and consequently did exist before them And 2. His Divinity For had Irenaeus numbred the Son with the Creatures as the first of them in the Arian sence or as the last of them in the Socinian he must have worded it with some respect to them as thus before all other Creatures or the first of all Creatures the Son did glorifie c. but this form distinguishes him from all Creatures not as one of them but as being already distinct from as well as before them all The Son then was before the World i.e. before the Creation and consequently before all creatures which was the thing to be proved whence it follows that there is no necessity of taking those Texts which ascribe Creation to him in an improper sense and if no necessity they must be taken in a proper one because all Scriptures must be taken properly unless that sense doth contradict some other Scripture which is not in the case before us because no Text saith the Son did not or that the Father only did create the World 2. Since the Son was before the world he must be from Eternity because the Scriptures no where suggest a creation between Eternity and Time But on the contrary Moses declares that the creation of the World was the beginning viz. of the creature and consequently there could be no creature before it Whence in the Scripture-Phrase to be in the beginning that is before the world and to be from Eternity are the same thing For wisdom doth thus express her Eternal Existence Prov. 8. 22 23. He possessed me in the beginning of his ways before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was and v. 24 25. when there were no depths I was brought forth when there were no Fountains abounding with water before the mountains were setled before the Hills was I brought forth Thus to be in the beginning and to be before the world are Phrases which the Spirit uses to express the Eternal existence of wisdom but the Son was in the beginning Joh. 1. 1. he was before all things Colos 1. 17. and before the world Joh. 17. 5. therefore the same Phrases must as well express the Eternal existence of the Son too If the Son then was any where called a creature it must be restrained to his man-hood as his descent from Abraham is Rom. 9. 5. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the flesh which restriction must imply that there is something excepted as to which he is no creature and as to which he did not descend from Abraham which can be no other than the Divine Nature whence the next words say he is over all God blessed for ever Irenaeus l. 3 c. 18. reads it thus Exquibus Christus secundum carnem qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula Of whom Christ was according to the Flesh who is God over all blessed for ever and Tert. adv Prax. c. 13. thus who is Deussuper omnia benedictus in aevum omne God over all blessed for ever which Reading is farther from the Socinian Conceit of its being a thanksgiving for Christ Thus who is over all God be blessed for ever than our Translation is From this Text which the Socinians have so miserably disguised not these Fathers only but the first Ages of Christianity too have always pleaded the Divinity of the Son He continues his Argument from 1. Cor. 3. 32. Christ is God's that is saith he God's Subject and this he fansies must be God's creature Answ Why not God's Son since the Scriptures so often call him so but if it must be God's Subject yet it can do him no Service For he is his Subject in regard of his Humane Nature and Offices Nay his Subordination to the Father as Son the Apostle as we shall show calls a Subjection which will appear to be so far from affecting his Divinity that it gives light and strength to this Doctrine He cites Mat. 12. 17 18. behold my Servant His Argument lyes thus p. 5. If Christ were God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without restriction affirmed of him that he is the servant of God Answ It is not affirmed of him absolutely and without restriction but in reference to his Humane Nature and Offices and till the Socinian doth prove that it is absolutely affirmed of him i. e. that Christ is in all respects a Servant and not in some only it hath not so much as the face of an Argument His next Scripture is Phil. 2. 8 9. he humbled himself and became obedient to death therefore God hath highly exalted him Answ His obedience to death doth indeed prove that he is man for else he could not dye this we all grant but neither this nor his Exaltation can ever prove he is not God which is the thing in controversie The truth of this will appear from our explication of his next Scripture which is 1 Cor. 15. 28. Then shall the son also be subject to him who put all things under him Which subjection he conceits destroys his Divinity Ans Then shall the Son be subject that is at the end of the world v. 24. which implies that till then he is in some respect not subject which is a demonstration of his Divinity For all creatures are in all points his Subjects therefore if there is any one respect in which the Son is not subject then the Son must be God Now his non-subjection is this that now he hath a Kingdom viz. The Church given by the Father in which he reigns himself as Mediator whence V. 25. He must reign This Kingdom the Church is separate from the Dominion of the Father which is the World Therefore so far as he reigns in this Kingdom so far he reigns separate from the Father and that is not subject to him Hence he saith Matt. 28. 18. All Power is given me Phil 2. 9. God hath highly exalted him and again Psal 2. 9. I have set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion But at the end of the World He shall deliver up this Kingdom to the Father V. 24. And then he shall reign no otherwise than as subordinate to the Father as Son which the Text expresses by subject to the Father Whence it must be granted that when he saith the Father commands and sends me c. These were spoken and ought to be understood antecedent to this exaltation To close this Argument On the one hand this exaltation proves no more than this That the Son hath now a Kingdom which he had not before but it doth not prove that he did not reign before with the Father in
but also to prove an inconsistency between this Scripture and this Doctrine This he doth not attempt not will ever be able to perform But it seems it is enough for a Socinian to start an Error and then leave it to the World in hope some may take it as the Man did the Snake into their Houses He proceeds God needs no aid of any other but Christ saith he that sent me is with me Answ The thing in Controversie is whether the Son be God as well as Man The Socinian brings this Text against us but if we at present only suppose that he is both which we must do till it be disproved he can never tell me why the Fathers presence with the Human Nature of Christ should necessarily imply a denial of his Divine Nature and consequently this Text is no due Medium whence to conclude his point He adds God cannot Pray for himself and People but Christ Prays for himself and Disciples Luk. 22. 42 Heb. 5. 7. c. Answ We Teach that Christ is both God and Man Now he Prayed for himself only as Man Luk. 22. 42. that this Cup viz. his Passion now at hand might pass from him He Prayed for others as Priest Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh he offered up Prayers Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God that is to say his Praying must hinder the Human Nature from being united to the Divine for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason Nay as Man he dyed yet notwithstanding this was United to the Divinity And if his Death could not hinder this Union much less can his Praying But to shew the weakness of this Argument we will add though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God for so there is nothing above him yet he may Pray considered personally as the Son of God viz. the Father for as Son he is subordinate to the Father and consequently as Son may Pray the Father This is an Argument then no more to his purpose than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Travels or Noah's Planting a Vinyard He urges farther Christ Dyed and the Father raised him from the Dead Ephes 1. 19 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God He that dyed and was raised must be Man but his Argument implies that he who raised him must be God which is enough to our purpose For he raised himself John 2. 19. destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which v. 21. saith he spake of the Temple of his Body Therefore according to his own Hypothesis the Son must be God as well as Man But the Socinian pretends Let. 3. p. 89. That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father and accordingly his being raised is always attributed to the Father not to himself Answ This is false for that Text doth attribute it to himself I will raise it up Therefore either the Son must be the Father or else his Resurrection is not always attributed to the Father 2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father then he must be raised by the Father for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised and consequently he could not say I will raise it 3. This notion makes the Raiser and the raised to be the same which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker and the thing made to be the same Therefore when he saith I will raise it up he speaks not as Man for as such he was to be raised but as God who alone is the raiser of the dead And 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father for then those Texts of which some ascribe it to the Father others to the Son must be contradictory But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both because now both must be God or else they could not raise the dead His next Scripture which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me is already answered in Arg. 2. For this Power here given him respects only the Government of the Church to which he was now exalted which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion but this doth not prove that he had not antecedent to this a Power with the Father in the Government of the World This proves he had now a new Government but doth not prove that therefore he was not God because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World but yet was God Such additionals prove an alteration in the things added but not in those Divine Persons to whom they are added All the difference is this Power was given the Son True but this as before speaks the Son subordinate to the Father but doth not destroy his Nature by which he is God Argum. 7. p. 11. Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and is described to be the Son of God and the Image of God Answ He is personally distinct and therefore is not God the Father but he is not essentially distinct and therefore must be God the Son If the Socinian then would gain his point he must prove not only a distinction which we grant but such a distinction which we deny But he hath said that Christ is the Son of God and the Image of God whence he concludes p. 12. thus it is as impossible that the Son or Image of the one true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image be the very thing whose Image it is Answ Profoundly argued and like a a Socinian For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God when Father Son and Holy Ghost are together the one true God Therefore take the One true God and the invisible God personally for the Father only and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be that One true God because the Son cannot be the Father and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God because as he saith the Image cannot be that very thing whose Image it is But take the One true God and the invisible God essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost and then the Son with the Father and Holy Spirit is that One true God and the Image of the invisible God with the Father and Holy Ghost is that invisible God because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God because as an Image represents that very thing whose Image it is so the Son represents the Father as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both Whence
hath revealed so much as is fit for us to know and ignorance is neither a Sin nor a Reproach where he hath not instructed us But we must declare it not absurd only but blasphemous too to deny what God hath told us only because he hath not told us more or not baffled our Cavils by a demonstration as if they dare not believe him any farther than they can see A right Nicodemus temper which stumbles at Divine Truths only with an How can these things be Sect. 6. From their Reasonable Faith he proceeds to complement its professors for Learned and Reasonable Men Which he saith is their Character among their worst Adversaries Ans We do not envy what Learning and Reason they are thought to have But we charge them with the abuse of both Their Guilt this way will easily appear to any that can but understand an Author their Arguments being fallacious and their Quotations false But as for this Epistler poor Man though we cannot admire his Talents yet we must declare he misimploys that little he hath This will abundantly appear as from what he hath done so likewise from his History of the Sorinians which we now proceed to For p. 26 thus those whom we call Socinians were by the Fathers and first Ages of Christianity called Nazarens by which name St. Paul is accused before Felix Acts 29. 5. Ans A Christian signifies a Disciple of Christ and Nazaren in this place a Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth And did then denote nor a Party but the whole Body of Christians So Epiphanius adv Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Christians were then called Nazarens and that by way of contempt from the Jews as they afterwards were Galilaeans by the Apostate They are indeed branded for a Sect in the place quoted but not as a party broke off from the body of Christians but as the Church of Christ now separated from the Jews I beseech you then what peculiar honour and advantage can the Socinians claim to themselves from hence was the thing they plead true when as Christians they have this honour but in common with others and as Sorinians can pretend to but one of the smallest shares of it The same Father c. 7. tells us of a Sect of Nazarens even before the Incarnation tho indeed Petavius rejects the Account nor can I see any sufficient grounds for it but however I mention it to pleasure our Socinians who are seeking a Pedigree Therefore take it thus some of these he saith professed Christ but denied his Divinity in other things they were Jews still for they observed Circumcision the Sabbath and other Ceremonies and therefore stood distinct both from Jews and Christians Whence Jerom Epist ad Aug. gives this Character of 'em viz. they are called Minaeans or Nazarens sed dum Volunt Judaei esse Christiani nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani While they would pass both for Jews and Christians they are neither And if these Men will claim from hence you have in them this Character of a Socinian That he is one who is neither Jew nor Christian Hence I suppose this Epistler is none of the Reasonable or Learned among them since he hath mentioned this either to no purpose or to his own disadvantage He there saith they were also called Ebionites Ans These were of two sorts Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 27. the one held that Christ was born of Joseth and Mary the other of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin But both observed Jewish Rites and rejected St. Paul's Epistles calling him an Apostate They received no Gospel but Sr. Matthew and that mutilated too Epiphan adv Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 30. which Petavius observes was depraved by them and was the same with the Gospel to the Hebrews which was used by none but Hereticks Orig. cont Cels l. 5. saith they teach the Law and reject the Epistles of St. Paul And Optat Mileu l. 4. they held it was not the Son but the Father that suffered They were these Men who troubled the Apostles and drew their Disciples back to Mosaic Rites under Menander Cerinthus and others whose Heresy was substantially the same for divers Ages Whence St. Paul brands them for False Brethren Gal. 2. 4. elsewhere for corrupters of the Word and such as he in wait to deceive This was the Reason they rejected his Epistles because he so constantly censures them And Ebion himself was branded by all Antiquity for one of the Gnostic Hereticks Tertul de Praes Haer. c. 33. Yet our Socinian Author makes himself and Party the same with these No matter what poyson men suck in so they deny the Divinity of Christ This one Bleasphemy sanctifies all By this Rule they are the same with Simon Magus the Father of Hereticks and with the Devil the Father of Lies for they both denied the Divinity of the Son the one in making himself a Saviour the other in tempting him excepting this that the Devil afterwards confessed this Truth which the Socinian still denies An hopeful Brood indeed that Glories in such Fathers He proceeds the Socinians were also called Artemonites Theodotians Symmachians Paulinists Samosatenians Photinians and Monarchians Ans Grant this and it must be granted too that as these Men were always condemned for Hereticks so the Socinians were always condemned in them And strange it is they should always be in the right and yet be always condemned for it They were called Artemonites Photinians c. to signifie they were the Followers not of Christ but of Artemon Photinus c. And did the Socinians seriously reflect upon their Blasphemies and their palpable Corruptions both of the Letter and Sense of the Sacred Scriptures as well as of all Antiquity it nearly concerns them to consider how far this is applicable to themselves that is in plain English whether the Name Socinian doth not better suit them than that of Christian The Monarchians boasted that they held the World was governed by a Monarchy that is by One God in opposition to the Orthodox who they say introduced Three Gods by the Doctrine of a Trinity Whence I grant that these and our Socinians are Men of the same Pride and Falshood In answer to whom the Orthodox always declared as we do that they held no other than a Monarchy and that the Doctrine of a Trinity is no way contradictory to this For when some in Tertullian adv Prax. c. 3. cried Monarchian tenemus We profess but One God he proves that the Orthodox or If he will the Trinitarians did hold but One God too for Proof of which he argues c. 4. that he deduces the Son from the Substance of the Father and the Holy Ghost from both which doth no way destroy but as he there pleads confirms a Monarchy for being all Three but of One Substance or Nature they can be all Three but One God Upon the same bottom the most strenuous asserters of a Trinity