designedly misreport it and besides his Epistles are supposed to be forged by most learned Men because they make mention of Rites and Persons that were not in Being in Innocent's time Lastly Whereas the Unitarians at Alba said that this Text has been added to St. Matthew since the first Nicene Council tho Cardinal Bellarmine has only denied this he might most easily have proved the contrary For Tertullian who flourish'd above 120 Years before the Nicene Council often quotes this Text. In his Book concerning Baptism Chap. 13. he saith The Law of baptizing is imposed and the Form prescribed Go saith he teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And again in his Book against Praxeas Chap. 26. After his Resurrection he commanded that they should baptize to the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to one of them only It is true none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do ever alledg this Form of Baptism to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Spirit but the reason of that was because tho they allowed that the Son might be called God on account of his perfect Conjunction by Love Unity of Will and Subjection with the Father who only is true God yet they thought otherwise of the Holy Ghost some of them understanding him to be only the Energy or Power of God others that he was a Creature of the Son and only the chief of the ministring Spirits or Angels But to return to our Opposer He saith We are baptized alike and equally to the Father Son and Spirit therefore the two latter are equal in all respects to the former or are God no less than he they are mentioned together in this Text without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another which were of dangerous Consequence and apt to lead Men into Error if only one of these is true God But 1. 'T is not true that here is no Note of Distinction or Superiority for the words at length are these All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit I would know of our Opposer what greater Distinction could be made than our Saviour here makes between God and himself doth he not here expresly profess and own that his Power is given to him that he hath received it from the Liberality of another and not from himself Can any one be said to give Power to himself And the Apostle hath told us how we are to understand it that all Power is given to the Lord Christ in these words to the Ephesians God gave to him to be Head over all things to the Church Ephes 1.22 As who should say He is over all things and hath all Power with respect to the Church 't is He and He only that must prescribe her standing Laws and Rites and appoint by what Persons and what Means the Church shall be first gathered and then preserved 2. But supposing now there had been no Note of Superiority here made or Distinction of Dignity and Power I see not what could be truly inferred from thence to the advantage of our Author's Cause For when God is joined in the same form of Speech with any others sure that needs not to be expressed which all Men know and acknowledg even God's Superiority above all others 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Elect Angels Rev. 22.17 The Spirit and the Bride say Come Will our Author say upon these Texts and upon that other parallel Text 1 Sam. 12.18 All the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Will he say that Samuel and David the Angels and the Bride i. e. the Church are equal with God or with the Spirit because they are mentioned together without any Note of Distinction or of Dignity and Superiority in one more than in the other The Acts of Religion mentioned in those Texts are no less solemn or important than Baptism is fearing the Lord worshipping the Lord adjuring by the Lord are the very highest Acts of Devotion and Religion yet even in them God is joined with Creatures without any Mark of Distinction or Superiority because as I said when God is joined with any others there is no need of such Note or Mark. Therefore the more learned of our Opposers especially the Ancients of the first 400 Years do not insist on this Text of St. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit by these words In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit they understand only to the Profession and to the Obedience of the Father Son and Spirit According to these Criticks the Sense of the objected Text is only this Baptize the Nations into the Profession and Obedience of the Father or God and of Jesus Christ whom the Father hath commanded us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us and of the other Teacher even the Spirit or Inspiration of God by which he advises and comforts the Faithful in all extraordinary Exigences Our Author may please to consult Mr. Pool's Collections on this Text where he will see divers such Interpretations as this all of them by the Criticks of his own Party and all of them consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is held by the Socinians Therefore all those Interpreters and Criticks must be understood as giving up to us this Text. CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel OUR Author's next Effort is from that well-known Context even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel The Clauses by him urged are these In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him namely by the WORD and without Him was not any thing made that was made He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Others have added to these And the WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us Also that Testimony of the Baptist He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses by Misrepresenting it and by concealing the remarkable and probable Proofs which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond which he saith is a full Explication and the Sense of the Catholic Church Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church so called and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John but that 's the very thing in question whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel
it in such sense as the Jews and other Eastern Nations used it for a Person of Eminent Dignity or worth The Woman said of Samuel then rising out of the Earth I see Elohim God Thomas says of our Saviour newly also risen Eloi Eloi my God my God they both use the same word and one no more than the other intended to call the Person of whom he spake the true God but only a venerable or dignified Person To be short the Hebrew words El and Elohim the Syriac and Chaldaic Elohi Eloi and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which we render by the English God are words of just such a Latitude in Holy Scripture and among the Jews and other Oriental Nations as the word LORD is with us for we use that word indifferently sometimes of God sometimes of Persons in Dignity and leave our meaning to be judged by the true and known Quality of the Person to whom we speak We do not think or fear we shall be understood as making a Man to be God because we call him by a Name by which also we call God This is the very case before us Thomas says to our Saviour Eloi a Name used of God and of Persons in Dignity and he expected not to be mistaken because the Person to whom he spoke was known to be a Man and not God 'T is likely the before-mentioned is the true Interpretation of the objected Texts and 't is certainly so if Thomas meant those words to our Saviour But divers Learned Persons even among our Opposers have been of Opinion that My Lord and my God or O my Lord O my God! are only words of Admiration and Thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God they are an Exclamation expressing the Apostle's Wonder and Amazement to find that his Master was indeed risen Of this Opinion was Nestorius Archbishop of Constantinople and that most Learned Person Theodorus of Mopsuest 'T is true the Evangelist saith Thomas answered and said unto him unto Christ My Lord and my God! or O my Lord O my God! but this hinders not but that the Exclamation was addressed to God as its Object tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour and to what he had said at ver 27. See the Brief History of the Vnitarians on John 20.28 CHAP. VII On the Texts out of the Epistles HE thinks much weight may be laid on Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Like to which Text is Rom. 1.3 Jesus Christ our Lord who was made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh He saith hereupon that these words According to the Flesh and as concerning the Flesh intimate plainly that according to something else the Lord Christ had another Original and was not wholly of the Jews This something else is the supposed Divine Nature of our Saviour according to which say they he is derived from God as according to the Flesh he is from the Jews Our present Author notes farther that the Lord Christ in the former of the before-quoted Texts is not only expresly called God but God over all blessed for evermore so all the Original Greek Copies read And as for Translations if there are any which favour the Socinians they are not however much to be regarded I answer 1. As to the words As concerning the Flesh and According to the Flesh they never signify as Trinitarians would here interpret according to the Human Nature as if Christ had also a Divine Nature We shall easily find the meaning of those Phrases by some other Texts of Scripture in which there is no Ambiguity Rom. 9.3 My Kinsmen according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham our Father as pertaining to the Flesh Col. 3.22 Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh Will our Opposers say here that Abraham or Paul's Kinsmen or Masters must be supposed to have a Divine Nature because of these words According to the Flesh and As concerning the Flesh 'T is easy to see that these Expressions are only as much as to say According to the Body and that they signify to us that Abraham is the Father of the Jews according to their Bodies as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits and the Jews were Paul's Kinsmen according to the Body but not of Kin to him in respect of Likeness in Faith or Manners also that Masters are Masters over our Bodies not of our Spirits and Minds Therefore in the other Texts also where Christ is said to be the Seed of Abraham of Israel and of David according to the Flesh the real and whole meaning is this That according to his Body or outward Man he descended of the House of David and of the Stock of Israel and Abraham as had been promised concerning him in the Prophets but his Spirit or Soul was from God Here again we interpret Scripture by it self let our Opposers shew a Reason why they decline an Interpretation which the Scripture it self affords to us and how it comes to be Heresy to understand the meaning of one Text by the help of such other Texts as are confest to be clear and evident 2. He saith the former of these Texts expresly calls the Lord Christ God and God over all blessed for ever and that all Greek Copies agree in this reading But he might have taken notice out of Grotius that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac had not the word God they only say of our Saviour here the Blessed over all The same illustrious Interpreter observes that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of St. Cyprian St. Hilary and St. Chrysostom had only the Blessed over all or above all without the word God These are Observations which destroy our Author's Argument from this Text but because he knew not what to say to them he took no notice of them But it is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such Questions as these When it appears by so great Authorities that the Antient Reading was other ways than we read in our present Copies or that the reading was then various and uncertain how can such Texts or such Expressions be admitted as Proofs in so great a Question as this before us Is it advisable or safe to argue against the Unity of God or to build Articles of Faith on suspected Texts the Reading ought to be indubitable else the Inference drawn from it will also be uncertain An Article of Faith must have a sure Foundation else 't is not Faith but a precarious Conjecture 3. But allowing now that the Word God is rightly read in this Text two of the most eminent Critics and principal Masters in the Greek Tongue have observed that St. Paul's words should have been pointed and read after this manner Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ is come The God over all be blessed for ever Amen So Curcellaeus
the objected Text In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of St. Matthew from the common Form and Practice of the Church in administring Baptism as 't is certain that these words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever have been added to the Lord's-Prayer in the same Gospel of St. Matthew from the Greek Liturgies or Forms of Common-Prayer These Criticks observe that Cardinal Bellarmine is very angry with the Unitarians who maintained the Dispute at Alba because they said those words were added to the Bible but only since the Nicene Council had corrupted the Faith all Antiquity saith the Cardinal is witness against them that those words were always read in the Gospel of St. Matthew But the Learned Cardinal does not produce one Testimony in Confirmation of what he says tho he uses to be very free in his Quotations of Fathers and ancient Ecclesiastical Historians In short we have nothing but Cardinal Bellarmine's word for it that the Ancients did read the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Whereas some pretend to find these words cited by St. Ignatius as spoken by our Saviour in the Epistle of the said Ignatius to the Philippians that Epistle is all of it a meer Forgery by Confession of all the Criticks who have publish'd the Works of Ignatius or have written Notes upon them They observe that Epistle is never quoted by any of the Ancients nor was heard of in the World before Ado Viennensis who flourish'd about the Year 859. Eusebius the famous Ecclesiastical Historian quotes the objected Text nine times in several parts of his Works but never with the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he reads thus Teach all Nations in my Name instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you The constant Practice of the ancient Unitarians was to baptize only in the Name of the Lord Christ and therefore it was ordered by the Councils of Nice and Laodicea that the Paulinists i. e. the Unitarians who came over to the Church should be re-baptized Whether they or the Catholick Church so called are in the right concerning the Form of Baptism is best determined from the Practice of the Apostles for we cannot well suppose that if the Form prescribed by our Saviour himself was In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles would depart from that Form or that 't was lawful for them so to do But where-ever there is mention in Scripture-History of the Administration of Baptism either by the Apostles or by their Order the Form of such Baptism was only In the Name of the Lord Christ or Vnto the Lord Christ Acts 2.38 Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus The same thing is said at Acts 8.16 Acts 10.48 Acts 19.5 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Cor. 1.13 Add to this that besides the School-men and other Moderns St. Basil St. Hilary and St. Ambrose do expresly own that the Apostles administred Baptism only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Finally the other Evangelists mention the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour after his Resurrection but they say not that he appointed it to be administred In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which 't is not likely they would have omitted if our Saviour had injoined that Form of performing the Rite of Baptism Nay it should seem by what St. Luke says that the Form of Baptism appointed by our Saviour was only in his Christ's Name not in the Name of more Persons Luke 24.46 47. Jesus said unto them that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name unto all Nations Here Remission of Sins seems to be no other thing but Baptism administred in Christ's Name as a sign of the Remission of Sins and therefore it is that elsewhere instead of Repentance and Remission of Sins the holy Writers say Repentance and Baptism so St. Peter speaks Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus To this effect speak the forementioned Criticks and from hence they infer that we cannot make use of this Text to warrant the Church's Form of Baptism In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit much less to prove that the two latter are God or Gods equal with the Father I desire and resolve Sir to argue this great Question concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or whether there is more than one Divine Person with all possible sincerity Therefore I will ingenuously own to you that tho the before-mentioned Exceptions to this Text are not without their weight yet I have observed divers things which make me to think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture was spoken by our Saviour and written by St. Matthew First 'T is found in all the Copies of the Bible both Printed and Manuscript and in all the ancient Translations which cannot be said of any other Text which is rejected by us or by our Opposers all the doubtful and suspected Texts are wanting in divers Copies of the Original Greek and of the Ancient Translations I conceive we ought not to argue against the Truth of any Text from only Negative Proofs or from some possible Interpretations of other Texts tho those Texts are perhaps many It ought to be shown that either Church-Historians or Fathers have said that such Text was not read or was otherways read in the Copies of their Times Secondly To the Allegations out of the Acts of the Apostles and some Epistles of St. Paul it may be answered That those Texts mention only the Name of the Lord Jesus and not the other two Names the Father and the Holy Ghost because by the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto the Lord Jesus they mean to the Profession of the Lord Jesus and of the Doctrine by him taught without at all intending to express by those words the Form of Baptism which every one knew to be In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I like this Interpretation because when St. Paul asked some Disciples at Ephesus whethey they had yet received the Holy Ghost and they had answered that they had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost He replies Vnto what then were ye baptized Acts 19.3 This Reply of the Apostle seems to suppose that if they were baptized with Christian Baptism and not only with the Baptism of John they must needs have heard of the Holy Ghost because the Form was in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thirdly The ancient Unitarians baptized only in the Name of the Lord Christ I think 't is grounded only on the Report of Pope Innocent I. who might not understand their Discipline or
in the Father or God by their Obedlinet and Love and God is in them by his mutual Love to them This is the Interpretation which the Scripture gives of it self we ought not to heed the Dreams or Fancies of Mystical Divines who think nothing is Religion but what no body understands and what contradicts Reason and good Sense Last of all our Saviour also said I am the Son of God Every one confesses that he was so because he was generated by the Divine Power on a Virgin without the Concurrence of any other Father but God yet even this as great a matter as it is is not so great a Glory to him as that he was the Son of God in such sense as all the Faithful are called God's Children Sons and Daughters of God begotten of God namely because of their Similitude and Likeness to God in Holiness or Purity to which they have been begotten by him by his Word and other Means sutable and adapted to their Rational Natures Mat. 5.45 That ye may be the Children of your Father which is in Heaven 1 John 5.18 Whosoever is born of God sinneth not he that is begotten of God keepeth himself Whereas therefore the Lord Christ is sometimes called the only begotten of the Father it is to be understood as when Isaac is called the only Son and the only begotten Son of Abraham at Gen. 22.2 12. Heb. 11.17 Abraham had other Sons begotten by himself yet Isaac is called his only begotten in regard of his Father's particular and especial Love to him even such as Parents ususually have for an only Child And in this sense the Greek word used concerning our Saviour which we render only begotten is frequently used in Greek Authors and not only of such Person or Persons as are strictly and in proper speaking only begotten In these Interpretations of the objected Clauses I and the Father are one I am the Son of God the Father is in me and I in him we have the concurring Judgment of the principal Criticks and Interpreters among the Trinitarians some of them do blame the Fathers for urging such Scripture-Expressions as these against the Arians and Photinians and they call the Interpretations of the Fathers and of some Modern Writers of Controversies Violent Glosses Our present Opposer was aware of this and therefore is forced to say at P. 354. We are not bound to regard what some Men of great Names say or boldly assert It is true but the Authority of such Men whose Names are deservedly great in Critical Learning and especially in the sacred Criticism doth at least evince thus much that the Texts which They give up to their Opposers ought to be placed in a Class by themselves they ought to be reckoned among the Proofs that are brought for show and Ostentation of Number or to fill up the spare Pages of a Book or in a popular Sermon not in such a Book wherein the Author professes to deal only with the Learned and to urge no other Text but what is indeed an Argument on his behalf The short is our Opposers litigate with us concerning the sense of these Expressions I and the Father are one God is my Father I am in the Father and the Father in me We show hereupon from express Scriptures that all these things are true of all the Faithful and are said of them no less than of our Saviour We show farther that they are interpreted in Holy Scripture to be an Oneness of Design and Love an In-Being by Obedience and Love on the part of the Lord Christ and Believers and of Protection and Love on the part of God and that the Lord Christ may be so the Son of God and his only Begotten as that still he is but a Man and not God We show that all this is confest tho not by the wrangling Pulpit and trifling Systematicks and Catechists yet by the chief Interpreters and Criticks and first Reformers even among our Opposers themselves On the contrary those that interpret the before-mentioned Expressions of our Saviour as if in them he meant to say that he is God such do advance an Interpretation that destroys the Unity of God contradicts manifest Reason and has no Vouchers but the Jews I say none but the Jews for Trinitarians can produce no Text of Scripture nor any Profane Author that can possibly be understood to mean by such Expressions what they mean namely a numerical Oneness of Nature an In-being by Mixture of Persons and a Natural Generation out of the very Essence of God Upon these Texts therefore we have as much advantage against them as possibly we can have even Reason the Current of Scripture the Authority of their own Criticks and of all Profane Writers The next Trouble he gives us out of the New Testament is from John 20.28 Thomas answered and said unto him unto Jesus My Lord and my God Socinus himself Wolzogenius and Slichtingius learned Unitarians do not only grant but they contend that it was indeed the Intention of Thomas to call our Saviour his Lord and his God but 't is in no other sense than the Author of the 45th Psalm calls Solomon God Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever To which he adds speaking to the Queen concerning her Husband Solomon Hearken O Daughter forget thy own People and thy Father's House So shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty for he is thy Lord God and worship thou him So 't is in the Version of the Psalms in the Book of Common-Prayer which Translation I judg our Author will not disclaim And so also St. Jerome translates Ipse est Dominus Deus taus adorabunt eum but the Translators imployed by King James have left out the word God from those words to the Queen He is the Lord thy God But seeing Solomon had before been called God Thy Throne O God is for ever 't is undeniable that in this Psalm he is called both Lord and God and his Queen is bid to worship him that is to honour him for such was the Language of the Eastern Nations to their Kings and Persons in Eminent Dignity The Prophets Moses and Samuel are called Elobim or God Exod. 7.1 1 Sam. 28.11 13 14. In that last Context King Saul ordered the Woman to call up Samuel and Samuel appearing she called to Saul and told him that now she saw Elohim God ascending up Saul thereupon asks her What form is he of the Woman replies He is an old Man It appears by this that besides their Kings and Magistrates the Jews gave also the Name Elohim to the Prophets But that was the very word used by the Apostle Thomas to our Saviour the Greeks translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the English by the word God Therefore when 't is used of a Man we are not to suppose that the Speaker intends to call such Man God or that he owns him for a Person who is true God but he uses