Christ. Where by Knowledge I do not understand a meer Notional or Speculative Knowledge For such I presume the Devils may have in as large a proportion as any of us and yet never attain Eternal Life But an Active Practical Knowledge Such a Knowledge as is attended with Faith and with Practice suitable thereunto As in that of Isa. 53.11 By his Knowledge that is by the Knowledge of Him shall my righteous Servant justifie many That is by Faith in him attended with a suitable Practice to it The Object of this Knowledge is declared to be twofold 1. The Knowledge of God and 2. The Knowledge of Christ. To know Thee the onely True God that 's one part And whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ that 's the other And each of these contains several Particulars The former of them contains at least these Three 1. That there is a God 2. That there is but One True God 3. That the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is this Onely True God He is that God besides which God there is no other True God And though Jesus Christ be God also yet not another God but the same True God For He and the Father are One Joh. 10.30 In the latter of them the Knowledge of Christ are Three things also 1. His Divinity 2. His Humanity And 3. His Mediatory Office Which are here briefly insinuated and are elsewhere more fully expressed 1. His Divinity in that he is the Son of the Father who is the Onely True God Not by Creation as Adam and the Angels are called the Sons of God nor by Adoption as are the Righteous who truly believe in Christ But by Generation as the Onely Begotten of the Father Joh. 1.14 and therefore of the same Nature with the Father 2. His Humanity implyed in these words Whom Thou hast sent That is So sent as to be made of a Woman so sent as to be made Flesh. Gal. 4.4 Joh. 1.14 3. His Mediatory Office implyed in the Title Christ added to the Name Jesus And whom Thou hast sent Jesus Christ. He was so sent as to be the Christ the Messias So sent as that the World through him might be Saved So as that whosoever Believes in him should not Perish but have Everlasting Life Joh. 3.16 17. Of all which Points I did then Discourse more largely and therefore do now but name them But I did then further observe from the Order of the Words to obviate a Cavil of the Socinians that the Word Onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here Restrictive not of the Subject Thee but of the Predicate the True God Of which I intend with God's Assistance and your Patience to speak further at this time Objection I. The first and great Objection of the Socinians from this place against the Divinity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity is this If the Father be the onely true God then the Son or Holy-Ghost is not God or not the True God but the Father onely To which I shall give Three things in Answer 1. This Argument is a plain Fallacy which they put upon us by a willful perverting the Order of the Words For it is not said Thee Onely to be the True God as if not the Son also or the Holy-Ghost were the True God but the Father onely But to Know Thee not Thee onely or Onely Thee to be the Onely true God Nor is it so in our Englis◠Translation onely but in the Original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth determine the Restrictive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be applied to the Subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to the Predicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just as in our English the Article The coming between Thee and Onely doth confine the word Onely not to Thee that went before but to True God which follows To know Thee not onely Thee the onely true God That is to know Thee to be that God beside which God there is no other true God Which we readily Acknowledge and Profess And then the Socinians Argument will appear just in this Form The God of Abraham is the Onely true God And therefore not the God of Isaac nor the God of Jacob. Yes say I the God of Isaac is the same God with the God of Abraham And therefore the True God as he is And the God of Jacob likewise And this one Answer doth fully satisfy the Objection and there needs no more Yet I shall add Two other things though they might here be spared because they may be of use elsewhere 2. I say further If it had been said as it is not Thee Onely yet even this would not exclude any who is the same with Him And therefore not the Son nor the Holy-Ghost since they are One and the same God with Him I and the Father are One Joh. 10.30 These Three are One 1 Joh. 5.7 To which purpose consider we what we have Jer. 16.14 15. and again Jer. 23.7 8. Behold the days come saith the Lord that it shall no more be said The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt But The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel from the land of the North or out of the North Country Now we are told by God himself Exod. 20.2 3. I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt Thou shalt have no other God but ME. Shall we therefore argue thus The God who brought Israel out of Egypt is the onely true God and we must have no other God but HIM Therefore not him who brought Israel out of the North-Country Yes say I Him also For the God who brought them out of the North-Country is the same God with him who brought them out of Egypt not another God though designed by another Character and therefore in having Him we have not another God So here To Know thee onely if it had been so said as it is not it had implied no more but thus Not any who is not the same God with Thee To Know Thee Onely and not any other who is not the same God with Thee to be the true God Which therefore would not exclude the Son nor Holy Ghost who are the same God with the Father But of this Answer there is no need in this place because it is not said Thee Onely or onely Thee 3. I say further If it had been said as it is not Thee Onely as the Socinians would have it to be understood I would then say This were an Essential Predication rather than a Personal That is That the Predicate True God is affirmed of him in regard of his Essence rather than of his Personality As belonging to the Essence which is common to the Three Persons not as
and united by the Heavenly Sacraments can be separated in the Church Where he argues for the Unity of the Church not to be divided by Schism by two Arguments from this place One from the firm Unity of God noted in ver 7. The Father Son and Holy Ghost are One from whom this Church proceeds de divina firmitate venientem The other from their being United by the same Sacraments sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem which relates to ver 8. The Spirit the Water and the Bloud agree in One. Which double Argument from the two Verses shew that then they were both read And as to the former of them which is that in question He cites it again in his Epistola ad Jubaianum where disputing against Baptâ—sm by Hereticks he thus argues Si baptizari quis apud Haereticos potuit utique remissam peccatorum consequi potuit Si peccatorum remissam consecutus est sanctificaâ—us est templum Dei factus est Quaero Cujus Dei Si Creatoris non potuit qui in eum non credidit Si Christi nec hujus potuit fieri templum qui negat Deum Christum Si Spiritus Sancti cum tres Unum sint quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest qui aut Patris aut Fiâ—ii inimicus est That is If by Hereticks one could be baptized then he might obtain remission of sins If he obtain remission of sins then is he sanctified and become the Temple of God I ask then of What God Of the Creator that he cannot be who did not in Him believe Of Christ Neither can he be His Temple who denies Christ to be God Of the Holy Ghost No. Foâ— seeing these Three are One How can the Holy Ghost be at Peace with him who is at Enmity with either the Father or the Son 'T is manifest therefore that These Three are One was thus read in Cyprian's time as being by him twice cited before the Arian Controversie was on foot And before him it is cited by Tertullian in his Book adversus Praxeam cap. 25. Connexus Patris in Filio Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero qui Tres Unum sunt non Unus quomodo dictum est Ego Pater Unum sumus ad Substantiae Unitatem non ad Numeri Singularitatem Where he doth not only cite the place but doth likewise Parallel and Compare These Three are One in this place with I and the Father are One in the other place as being of a like import That is The Connexion of the Father with the Son and of the Son with the Paraclete or Holy Ghost makes these coherent one with the other Which Three are ONE Unum not Unus One Thing not One Person like as it is said I and the Father are One one Thing as to the Unity of Substance though not as to Singularity of Number They are One Being One Substance though otherwise they may be Three 'T is therefore no New Interpolation but was anciently so read by Cyprian and Tertullian the two most ancient of the Latin Fathers long before the Arian Controversie was on foot And hath been urged by others afterward against the Arians Nor is there any prejudice that I know of against its being so read as now we read it save that some of the Fathers it is said have omitted to Urge it against the Arians when there hath been occasion of so doing But this beside that it is onely a Negative Argument and I know not how well grounded might very well happen if it chanced to be wanting in that particular Copy which such Father used For we are not to suppose they had then such plenty of Bibles as are now in our hands but some one Manuscript Copy was to serve many And because that in St. John's Gospel I and the Father are One did fit their purpose as well or rather better than this in his Epistle These Three are One. For the Controversie then on foot was not so much that of the Trinity as that of the Divinity of Christ. To return therefore to the place which is before us From what hath been said it is manifest enough that St. John in calling the Father the Onely True God did not intend to exclude the Son from being the same True God whom himself doth elsewhere call the True God also 1 Joh. 5.20 No more I say than what is said by name of God the Redeemer Isa. 44.6 8. is to be thought exclusive of God the Creator or God the Father Thus saith the Lord the REDEEMER the Lord of Hosts I am the first and I am the last and beside ME there is no God Which is applied to Christ in particular Rev. 22 1â— 16. But is not exclusive of the Father because God the Creator or God the Father is the same God with God the Redeemer and therefore not another God beside him And therefore both of them or rather the same God under both Considerations indifferently called especially in the Old Testament God indefinitely the Lord of Hosts the Holy One of Israel Nor is that which is said of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 15 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ who Onely hath Immortality intended to exclude the Father as if the Father were not also Immortal or were not what is there said of Christ the blessed and onely Potentate the King of kings and the Lord of lords But only that our Lord Jesus Christ is that God which God is the blessed and onely Potentate the King of kings and Lord of lords and who only hath Immortality And as was before noted by S. Austin The Father is not excluded from being Lord notwithstanding that of 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is but One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ or that of Eph. 4.5 6. One Lord one Faith One Baptism one God and Father of all For the Father and the Son are the same God the same Lord. The same of whom it is said Isa. 45.5 I am the Lord and there is none else there is no God beside me And again ver 6. I am the Lord and there is none else Where note that the Word Father in that phrase God and Father of All is different from the sense of it in the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that relating to the common Nature this to the Person And as in these places what is saâ—d of the Son that he onely hath Immortality that he is the onely Potentate that he is the One Lord that beside him the Redeemer there is no God are not to be understood exclusive of the Father so what is here said of the Father that he is the Onely True God is not to be understood exclusive of the Son who is not another but the same True God I thought here to have inserted as in a proper place a Discourse of some other Points relating to the Trinity which I find it necessary here to omit or to defer
you from the Father even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father He shall testifie of Me. Where it is manifest that in what sense the Father and Son are to be reputed Persons the Comforter or Holy Ghost is in the same sense so to be reputed So that I think I have clearly Vindicated not only the Notion That these Three Somewhats may be One God But the Name also That these Somewhats may fitly be called Persons Objection VI. I shall name but one Objection more which when I have satisfied I shall conclude for this time That 6 th Objection and 't is but a weak one is this The Trinitarians do not all agree but differ among themselves in expressing their Notions in this Matter Very well And do not the Antitrinitarians differ much more Doth not the Arian and the Socinian differ as much from one another as either of them do from us and declare that they so do And do not the Arians among themselves and the Socinians amongst themselves differ more than do the Trinitarians Certainly they do It must be confessed that different Men as well in the same as in different Ages have very differently expressed themselves according to their different Sentiments of Personality and of the particular Distinctions of the three Persons among themselves But so it is in all the most obvious things in the world As in Time Place Space Motion and the like We are all apt to think that we all know well enough what we mean by those Words till we be asked But if we be put to it to express our selves concerning any of them What it is whether a Thing or Nothing or not a Thing or somewhat of a Thing and what that somewhat is it would be long enough before we should all agree to express our selves just in the same manner and so clearly as that no man who hath a mind to cavil could find occasion so to do I might say the like of Heat and Cold of Light Sight and Colour of Smells and Tâ—sts and the different Sorts of them Can we never be sâ—id to agree in this That the Fire doth Burn and Consume the Wooâ— till we be all agreed what is the Figure of those Fiery Atoms and what their Motion and from what Impulse which enter the Pores of â—he Wood and separate its parts and convert some of them to Smoak some to Flame and â—â—me to Ashes and which to which and in what manner all this is done What a folly then is it to require that in the things of God we should all so agree as to express our thoughts just in the same manner as is not possible to do in the most obvious things we meet with And in such a case as wherein to express our Notions we have no Words but Figurative it is not to be thought strange that one man should make use of one Metaphor and another of another according as their several Fansies serve But thus far I think the Orthodox are all agreed That between these Three which the Scripture calls The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost or the Father the Word and the Spirit there is a Dâ—stinction greater than that of what we call the Divine Attributes but not so as to be Three Gods And this Distinction they have thought fit to denote by the Word Hypostasis or Person They are also all agreed that one of these Persons namely the Son or the Word was Incarnate or Made Flesh and did take to himself our Humane Nature But as to the particular Modes or Manner How either how these two Natures are United or how these three Persons are Distinguished each from other we may be content to be Ignorant farther than God hath been pleased to Reveal to us We know that our Immortal Soul is joined with an Humane Body so as to make One Man without ceasing that to be a Spirit and this to be a Body But 't is hard for us to say How And accordingly we say that the Man Christ Jesus without ceasing to be Man and God manifested in the Flesh without ceasing to be God are One Christ But what kind of Union this is which we call Hypostatical we do not throughly understand We know also that the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten the Holy Ghost to Proceed But neither do we fully understand the import of these Words nor is it needful that we should But so far as was said before we do all agree and we may safely rest there Now to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost three Persons but One God be Honour and Glory and Praise now and for ever The End of the Second Sermon A Third SERMON Concerning the TRINITY JOH xvij 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent I Have in a former Discourse from this Verse entered upon the Doctrine of the Trinity not so much as being contained in it as occasioned by it I have shewed that the word Onely is here restrictive not of the Subject Thee but of the Predicate True God Affirming the Father to be the Onely True God though not the Father Onely Nor is it exclusive of the Son who is also the same True God and is so expresly called by this same Writer 1 Joh. 5.20 where speaking of Jesus Christ he says This is the True God and Eternal Life as if it were spoken with a direct aspect to the words before us Now that Christ is often called God neither the Arians nor the Socinians do deny And it is so frequent and so evident as not to be denyed Not only in the place last cited but in many others Thy throne O God endureth for ever Heb. 1.8 The Word was with God and the Word was God Joh. 1.1 My Lord and my God Joh. 20.28 The Being over all God blessed for ever Amen Or the Supreme Being the ever blessed God Rom. 9.5 And elsewhere Objection VII But to this they Object That though he be sometime called God yet by God is not there meant the Supreme God But either a mere Titular God as the Socinians will have it as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8.5 one who is called God but indeed is not but a mere Man however highly dignified Or as the Arians will have it that he is God indeed but not the Supreme God not the same God with the Father but an Inferiour God Deus factus a made-God a Creature-God who was indeed before the World but not from Eternity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Time a Moment a Quando when he was not when he had not a Being In Answer to both which I shall endeavour to shew by the most signal Characters whereby the Supreme God the Onely true God is set forth to us in Scripture and by which he is therein Distinguished from
but One. And this indeed depends upon the former For he that doth according to a true notion of God know That there is a God must needs know also that there is but One. For the true notion of God including Infinite Absolute Perfect c. must needs also include Unity for it is inconsistent that there should be many such So that in a manner Polytheism includes Atheism He that believes many Gods doth in effect not believe any that is not any such Being as of which it is impossible there should be more than One. We are Thirdly to know that This God is that onely True God I say This God whom we have variously designed in Scripture by several Characters The God that made Heaven and Earth The living God The God of Israel The God whose name is Jehovah And as here and elsewhere frequently in the New Testament the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By which and other the like Characters he is distinguished from all false Gods from all pretended Deities This God we are to know to be the onely True God But when I say That the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is this onely True God I add That this appertains not so much to his Personality as to his Essence For though the three Persons in the Sacred Trinity be distinguished each from other by their Personalities the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father c. yet they all communicate in the common Essence whereby the Son as well as the Father and the Holy Ghost as either is this Onely True God The Person of the Father is indeed True God but not according to his Personality but according to his Essence And the Person of the Son is God also and the True God yet not another but the same True God And the Holy Ghost likewise According to that of Joh. 10.30 I and my Father are One That is One mod though not One Person And 1 Joh. 5.7 There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. Three and yet One. Three Persons yet but One God They are all this One this Onely True God beside whom there is no God I know there are some who would be glad to take advantage of this place to the Derogation of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost As if it were here affirmed That the Father onely were True God and therefore not the Son nor the Holy Ghost But the Cavil is obvious and the Answer easie It is not said that the Father Onely is True God but that the Father is the onely True God he is that God beside whom there is no other True God which may well enough be said though the Son also as indeed he is be that same True God and the Holy Ghost likewise Indeed should we say That the Son were also True God and another God the Father could not then be said to be the Onely True God since that there would be another True God beside this And the like of the Holy Ghost But to say that the Son is the Same True God is well consistent with it For though another Person than the Father be True God yet because not Another God this One God remains still the Onely True God And the original words are to this purpose very clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not after it doth determine it to be a restriction of the Praedicate not of the Subject 'T is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not Thee onely to be the True God but as we truly render it Thee to be the onely True God That is To know Thee to be that God beside which God there is no other True God though another beside Thee be likewise this onely True God viz. the same God with Thee though not the same Person It excludes only a Plurality of Gods not a Plurality of Persons in the same God-head 'T is true indeed That this Divinity is not in this place so directly Affirmed either of the Son or the Holy Ghost But neither is it Denyed And therefore it is to receive its decision from other places where it is affirmed clearly And thus much concerning the first branch of this Knowledge the Knowledge of God To know Thee the only True God There is another piece of Knowledge necessary to the attainment of Eternal Life the Knowledge of Christ. For so it follows And Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent 'T is true that had we continued in that Estate wherein Man was at first Created there had been no necessity of this second branch of Knowledge For had there been no Sin there had been no need of a Saviour and consequently not of this knowledge of Jesus Christ. A knowledge of God the onely True God with an Obedience conformable thereunto had then been enough to make us Happy But Man by his Fall having contracted an Estate of Misery there is now no Restitution to our lost Happiness but by a Redemption and there is no Redemption but by Jesus Christ. For as there is but One God so but One Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5 Neither is there any other name given to men whereby we must be saved but that of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom they Crucified and God raised from the dead Act. 4.10 12. There is no Salvation in any other It is necessary therefore to the attainment of Eternal Life that we know Him in this Capacity What we are to know concerning him though we cannot expect in so few words to have clearly set down without a Comment from other places to give light to them Yet at least three things seem in these words to be pointed at His Divinity His Incarnation and His Mediatory Office 1. His Divinity in that he is the Son of God For he calls him Father whom he says we must know to be the onely True God Indeed were he onely the Son of God in such a sense as Adam is so called Luke 3.38 or the Angels thought to be Job 1.6 that is by Creation for as Saints are so called Rom. 8. and elsewhere that is by Adoption it would not iner a Divinity But to be as Christ is the Son of God by Eternal Generation argues a Communication in the same Nature As the Apostle infers Heb. 1.5 For to which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee This onely begotten of the Father must needs be also of the same nature with the Father and therefore God as he is And this Argument however now perhaps there are who endeavour to elude it the Jews his Enemies thought to be conclusive For when they observed him to call God his Father or pretend himself to be the Son of God especially the Christ the Son of
peculiar to the Person of the Father Like as if it were said David the King of Israel or David the Father of Solomon is a Reasonable Creature or endued with Reason this being endued with Reason doth not belong to him as King of Israel nor as Father of Solomon but as he is a Man though denominated by these Relations and is equivalent to this The Man who is Father of Solomon and King of Israel is endued with Reason So if it be said that David King of Israel and He onely was Father of Solomon it is not intended that he was so as King of Israel much less in that capacity Onely but rather as the Man who begot him though designed by that Character So here God the Creator is the Onely True God and God the Redeemer likewise Thus saith the Lord thy Redeémer the Holy One of Israel the Lord of Hosts I am the First and I am the Last and beside ME there is no God Isa. 41.14 Isa. 44.6 applyed to Christ Rev. 1.8 17. Rev. 22.13 16. Shall we therefore argue That God the Redeémer is the Onely True God and beside Him there is no God therefore not God the Creator No we must not so argue For it is not as Redeemer or as Creator that he is the Onely True God but as God It may be praedicatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he was the Onely True God from all Eternity but it was in Time that he made the World and was the Redeemer of Mankind And this both the Arian and the Socinian must needs acknowledge as to the place before us For when Christ saith To know Thee Father the Onely True God it cannot according to their Principles be said of him as Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but as God For if Christ be onely a Titular God or a Creature-God as they would have it there was a time or moment when he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore when God was not his Father But he was the Onely True God from all Eternity and therefore must be here so called not as Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but as God Not according to his Personality but according to his Essence which we say is common to the Three Persons Who are the same God though under different Denominations But these two latter Answers though they be True and Solid are not necessary to this place because it is not said Thee Onely Yet I here name them because they may be of use to answer some like Objection raised from some other place The full import of the words is this That the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that God beside which God there is no other True God Or There is no other True God beside that God which is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And this we do fully agree with when we say That the Son and the Holy-Ghost are not another God but the same True God with the Father Objection II. It may perhaps be next Objected That though this place do not Deny the Son and Holy Ghost to be the True God meaning thereby the same God with the Father Yet neither doth it Prove them so to be I answer 'T is true This place alone without the concurrence of others doth not Prove the Trinity And it is much if it should where there are but Two mentioned Nor is it brought by us to that purpose We only Answer the Objections brought against it by others from this place And leave the Proof of it to be fetched from other places in concurrence with this I have observed elsewhere Lett. 3. that if we should read it thus To know Thee to be the Onely True God and him also whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ as implying him also to be the same True God Or thus To know Thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ the Only True God The words will well bear it without any force put upon them Nor is this only a new Notion of my own For I since find that S. Austin had said the same long ago in his Epist. 174. speaking to Pascentius an Arian concerning this place De Patre tantummodo vos vultis intelligi quod ait Ut cognoscant Te unum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum Ubi nos subaudimus etiam Jesum Christum verum Deum Ut haec sit sententia Te quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant unum verum Deum Ne illa consequatur absurditas ut si propterea non est verus Deus Jesus Christus quia dictum est Patri Te unum verum Deum propterea non sit Dominus Pater quia dictum est de Christo Unus Dominus Where he takes the meaning to be this To know Thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ the Onely True God which he backs with this Argument Because if we should here on this account exclude the Son from being the True God we might for the same reason exclude the Father from being the Lord because it is said 1 Cor. 8.6 One Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even this though it might prove it as to the Son it would not hence conclude it as to the Holy-Ghost But the concurrence of other places will prove it more clearly as to both I shall shew it of each As to the Son we have it clearly affirmed by the same S. John who best understood the import of his own words that he is also the True God so that it was not intended here to exclude him 1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is True even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the True God And therefore not onely the Father And he had before told us from Christ's own words Joh. 10.30 I and my Father are One. Nor is it here meant of one in Testimony as the Socinians would have it understood elsewhere there being in the Context here no mention of Testimony at all But it must be meant of One God And this is manifest from the Inference which the Jews made from it For they did thereupon take up stones to stone him as for what they call Blasphemy Because thou say they being a Man makest thy self God ver 31 32 33. For which Inference there had been no Pretence if by One they had not understood One God And the High Priest in like manner Matth. 26.63 64 65. I adjure thee saith he by the Living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God To which when Christ had answered Thou hast said dicis quod res est He rent his clothes saying He hath spoken Blasphemy What further need have we of witnesses For to say that he was the Christ the Son of God or as it is in Mark 14.61 The Christ the Son of the Blessed was understood by them to be the same as to call himself Go◠Which had been Blasphemy had it not been True And what
it to some other occasion that I be not prevented by the time in what I have to say further That there is a God the Creator a God the Redeemer and a God the Sanctifier and that these are the same God I think cannot reasonably be Denied I shall shew it of each As to God the Creator we are told Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth And to the same purpose in many other places And I think there is none doubts but that this Creator is the True God the Supreme God And in Jer. 10.11 God doth by this Character distinguish himself from all other pretended Gods The Gods that have not made the Heavens and the Earth they shall perish from the Earth and from under these Heavens As to God the Redeemer I know that my Redeemer liveth saith Job Ch. 19.25 By which Redeemer doubtless he meant the Living God a God who did then Live a God who was then in Being and not as the Socinians would have us think who was not to Be till Two Thousand years after And Isa. 44.6 Thus saith the Lord the Redeemer the Lord of Hosts I am the first and I am the last and beside Me there is no God Which Redeemeâ— must needs be the same God with God the Creator the Lord of Hosts As to God the Sanctifier Purge me with hyssop saith David and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter than snow Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me Psal. 51.7 10. Which certainly are works of Sanctification and the God to whom David prayed is doubtless the Living God a God then in Being And when God promiseth â—o Israel I will give them a hearâ— to kâ—ow me and they shall return unto me with their whole heart Jer. 24.7 I will give them one heart and one way that they may fear me for ever I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Jer. 32.39 40. I will give them one heart and put a new spirit within them I will take away the heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh Ezek. 11.19 and 36.26 I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts Jer. 31.33 The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul that thou mayst live Deut. 30.6 All these are sanctifying works and that God who doth them is God the Sanctifier And it is the same God who doth thus Sanctifie that is the Creator and the Redeemer Now this God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier I take to be the same with what we otherwise call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And our Church doth so expound it in her Catechism First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath Made me and all the World Secondly In God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all Mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who Sanctifieth me and all the Elect people of God And it is no more absurd or inconsistent to say that God the Father God the Son and God the Holy-Ghost are the same God than to say that God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are the same God As they stand related to us they are called God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier As to the different Oeconomy amongst themselves one is called the Father who is said to Beget another the Son who is said to be Begotten a third the Holy-Ghost who is said to Proceed or Come forth But are all the same God Objection IV. But then here I meet with another Objection on which the Socinians lay great weight If God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier or God the Father God the Son and God the Holy-Ghost be the same God they cannot then be Three Persons And if they be Three Persons they must be Three Gods For like as Three Persons amongst Men doth signifie Three Men so Three Persons who are God must be Three Gods Contrary to the First Commandment which allows us to have but One God To which I answer First This is only to cavil at a Word when they have nothing of moment against the Thing So that if inâ—â—ead of saying â—hese Three Persons are One God we say These Three are One God or give them another Name instead of Persons or say these Three Somewhats without giving them a Name this Objection is at an end 2. I say further 'T is very true that in our English Tongue by another Person we sometimes understand another Man because that other Person is very often another Man also But it is not always so nor is that the proper Signification of the Word but an Abusive sense put upon it And the reason of using the word Person in this abusive or improper sense is for want of an English word to answer the Latin word Homo or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might indifferently relate to both Sexes For the word Man doth properly relate to the Male and Woman to the Female And if the word Man be sometimes so used as to imply the Woman also it is by a Synecdoche putting the Name of One Sex to signifie Both. And 't is for want of such a Word which might indifferently relate to both Sexes that we sometime make use of Person in a borrowed sense rather than to use a Circumlocution of Man and Woman by naming both Sexes And if we should use such Circumlocution of Man and Woman yet even this would not reach the whole Species For we do not use to call them Man and Woman till they be of a considerable Age before which time they are called Children and therefore to comprehend the whole Species we say Man Woman and Child We do indeed sometimes to that purpose make use of the word Mankind adding the word kind to that of Man to Ampliate the Signification of it But this relates only to Genus Humanum in a Collective sense not to Homines taken Distributively For we do not say a Mankind two Mankinds c as we say Homo Homines We are fain therefore for want of a proper English word to make use of Person in a borrowed sense to answer the Latin Homo But the Ancient Fathers who first applied the word Persona to the Sacred Trinity did not speak English And therefore we cannot from the present use of the word Person in our Language conclude in what sense they used the word Persona 3. Again the Schoolmen in later Ages have yet put another sense on the word Persona peculiar to themselves extending it indifferently to Men and Angels for want of a proper word of that Extent so as to signifie with them what they call Suppositum Rationale or what we call a Reasonable
Creature And in imitation of them some others have since so used it But this is a New sense of later Ages since the time of those Fathers nor do the Schoolmen in this sense without a Metaphor apply it to the Sacred Trinity We cannot therefore conclude from hence What was the Fathers sense of it 4. To find out therefore the true sense of tâ—e word Person as applied to the Trinity we are not so much to consider what now-a-days the word doth sometime signifie with us in English nor what sense the Schoolmen have put upon it since the time of those Fathers As what was the true sense of the word Persona at or before their times in approved Latin Authours Which is quite another thing from either of these senses For what in English we sometimes mean by Three Persons taken indifferently for Men Women and Children the Latins would not have called tres Personas but tres Homines Though if considered in such Relations as Father Mother and Child they might so be called tres Personae Nor do I find that in approved Latin Authours the word Persona was wont to be attributed by them as by the Schoolmen it hath since been to Angels nor to their Genii or Heathen Gods But 5. It did signifie the State Quality or Condition of a Man as he stands Related to other Men. And so I find the Latin word Persona Englished in our Dictionaries Suppose as a King a Subject a Father a Son a Neighbour a Publick or Private Person a Person of Honour and the like And so as the Condition varied the Person varied also though the same Man remained As if an ordinary Person be first made a Knight and then a Lord the Person or Condition is varied but he is still the same Man that he was before And he that is this Year a Lord Mayor may be next Year but an Alderman or not so much Hence are those Latin Phrases frequent in approved Authours Personam imponere to put a Man into an Office or confer a Dignity upon him Induere personam to take upon him the Office Sustinere personam to Bear an Office or Execute an Office Deponere personam to Resign the Office or lay it down so Agere personam to Act a Person and many the like So that there is nothing of Contradiction nothing of Inconsistence nothing Absurd or Strange in it for the same Man to sustain divers Persons either successively or at the same Time or divers Persons to meet in the same Man according to the true and proper Notion of the word Person A Man may at the same time sustain the Person of a King and of a Father if invested with Regal and Paternal Authority and these Authorities may be Subordinate one to another and he may accordingly Act sometime as a King and sometime as a Father Thus Tully who well understood the Propriety of Latin words Sustineo Unus tres Personas meam Adversarii Judicis I being One and the same Man sustain Three Persons That of my Own that of my Adversary and that of the Judge And David was at the same time Son of Jesse Father of Solomon and King of Israel And this takes away the very Foundation of their Objection Which proceeds upon this Mistake as if Three Persons in a proper sense must needs imply Three Men. 6. Now if Three Persons in the proper sense of the word Person may be One Man what hinders but that Three Divine Persons in a sense Metaphorical may be One God What hinders but that the same God considered as the Maker and Sovereign of all the World may be God the Creator or God the Father and the same God considered as to his special Care of Mankind as the Ruthour of our Redemption be God the Redeemer or God the Son and the same God as working effectually on the Hearts of his Elect be God the Sanctifier or God the Holy-Ghost And what hinders but that the same God distinguished according to these three Considerations may fitly be said to be Three Persons Or if the word Person do not please Three Somewhats that are but One God And this seems to me a Full and Clear Solution of that Objection which they would have to be thought Insuperable Objection V. It may perhaps be Objected further Why must we needs make use of the word Person and call them Three Persons if Three Somewhats will serve as well I answer First We have no such need of the word Person but that we can spare it Hypostasis will serve our turn as well And if they think the Latin word Persona be not a good Translation of the Greek Hypostasis Let them retain the Greek word We mean the same by both And then perhaps they will find themselves at a loss to fasten some of their Objections upon the word Hypostasis which they would fasten upon Persona 2. But Secondly If the Thing be thus far agreed That these Three Somewhats thus considered may be One God I see not why they should contend with us about the Name Person For this is only to quarrel about a Word or Name when the Notion is agreed 3. If it were admitted which I see no reason for that the word Person doth not fitly express that Notion which it is intended to design the most that can be inferred from it is but That we have not given it so fit a Name And to cavil at that when the Notion intended by it is understood were just as if one should argue There never was such a Man as whom they called Pope Pius because the Man who was so called was not a Pious Man 4. But I see not why the word Person should not be thought a very fit word for this purpose For Two of these Three are represented to us in Scripture under the Names of Father and Son and this Son as Begotten of the Father and therefore these Names are not to be quarrelled with But all this in a Metaphorical sense For no Man can suppose that this Father doth so Beget this Son as these words do properly signifie amongst Men Now the Relations of Father and Son in a proper sense are such as are properly denoted by the word Persona in its proper Acceptation And consequently the Father and Son in a Metaphorical sense may by a Continuation of the same Metaphor be fitly called Persons in that Metaphorical sense And in what sense they be Father and Son in a like sense they be Persons according to the Propriety of the Latin word Persona For such Relatives the Latins called Personas And if the Father and Son may fitly be so called no doubt but the Holy Ghost may be so called also as One Proceeding or Coming forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from them As in Joh. 14.26 The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name he will teach you all things And Joh. 15.26 The Comforter whom I will send
mind to be captious may cavil at these places as the Sadduces of old did at those passages in the Old Testament tending to prove a Resurrection And not those only but even some of our own who would have us think that the Fathers before Christ had only Promises of Temporal blessings not of Heavenly and Eternal Though St. Paul tells us when of the hope and resurrection of the dead he was called in question that he did so worship the God of his Fathers believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets and had hope towards God which they also allowed that there should be a Resurrection of the dead both of the Just and Vnjust and that it was a promise made of God to their Fathers to which their twelve Tribes instantly serving God day and night hoped to come which were no other things than what Moses and the Prophets had said should come to pass and which to King Agrippa who if not a Jew was at least well acquainted with their Doctrines should not seem strange Act. 23.6 Act. 24.14 15. Act. 26.2 3 6 7 8 22. And Heb. 11.13 that all these died in faith not having received the promises that is they died in the belief of better things than what they had yet received But saw them afar off and were perswaded of them and embraced them and confessed they were but strangers and Pilgrims upon Earth And our Saviour proves it out of the Old Testament Mat. 22.32 by such an Argument as if one of us should have urged it would perhaps have been ridiculed I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living And the Apostle pursues the same Argument Heb. 11.9 10 14 15 16. They sojourned in the Land of promise as in a strange Land dwelling in Tabernacles movable from place to place for they looked for a City which hath foundations a fixed City not flitting as were those Tabernacles whose builder and maker of God Declaring plainly that they did seek a Country Not such as that from whence they came but a better Country that is a Heavenly wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City where he directly argues that God's Promise to be their God was a Promise of Heaven And no doubt but the Prophets and Men of God had taught them all along to put a Spiritual Sense upon those seemingly Temporal Promises though the Sadduces would not believe it but cavilled at it in so much that not only the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law but even the Women embraced it even before Christ's Resurrection I know saith Martha of her dead Brother Lazarus that he shall Rise again in the Resurrection at the last day Joh. 11.24 And of such Spiritual Senses we have copious Instances in the Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere frequently And as they did without any reluctances readily embrace the Doctrine of the Resurrection when more clearly declared by the Apostles as a thing not wholly new to them so neither do we find in them any Reluctance to that of the Trinity for which in likelihood they had in like manner been before prepared but readily closed with the Form of Baptism in the Name not Names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 And that Solemn Benediction 2 Cor. 13.14 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen Where we have all the Three Persons reckoned together as they are also in that celebrated place 1 Joh. 5.7 The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost these Three are One. And as they had been before by Christ himself Joh. 14.26 The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My Name He shall teach you all things And Joh. 15.26 The Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which Proceedeth from the Father He shall testify of Me. And to name no more places Mat. 3.16 17. Jesus when he was baptized went straitway out of the Water And lo the heavâ—ns were opened unto him and he John the Baptist saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove and lighting upon Him And lo a voice from heaven saying This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased 4. There is yet another Consideration which doth confirm this opinion that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown to the Jewish Church before Christ From the footsteps thereof yet extant in Heathen Writers 'T is well known to those conversant in such Studies that much of the Heathen Learning their Philosophy Theology and Mythology was borrowed from the Jews though much Disguised and sometimes Ridiculed by them Which things though they be Fabulous as disguised in a Romantick dress yet they are good Evidence that there was a Truth in History which gave occasion to those Fables None doubts but Ovid's Fable of the Chaos of which all things were made took its rise from Moses's History of the Creation And Deucalion's Flood from that of Noah and the Titan's fighting against the Gods from the Builders of Babel's Tower And that of Two-faced Janus from Noah's looking backward forward to the World before and since the Flood And many the like of which we may see in Natalis Comes in Bochartus and others And of which we have a large Collection in Theophilus Gale's Court of the Gentiles And in Dr. Duport's Gnomologia Homerica wherein is a Collection of Homer's Sayings which look like Allusions to like Passages in Sacred Scripture and seem to be borrowed most of them from those Books of it which were written before Homer's time who yet is one of the most Ancient and most Famed of Heathen Writers Plato hath borrowed so much of his Philosophy History and Theology from the Jewish learning as that he hath obtained the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses disguised in a Greek dress And may seem because the name of Jews was odious to cite them rather by the names of certain Barbarians Syrians Phoenicians Egyptians c. From that Title of God in Exodus I AM 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the Equivalent names of Jah and Jehovah he borrows his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Being or that which Is the very Being the true Being which are the Titles he gives to the Supreme God For his Immortality of the Soul he reckons the best Argument to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Divine Revelation which he had by Tradition from certain Ancients who lived as he speaks nearer to the Gods as if he had borrowed even this Phrase from Deut. 4.7 What nation is so great who hath God so Nigh unto them And much more as hath been noted by others And I am so far from thinking as the Socinians would have us
God they did not understand him to speak in such a sense as when themselves were commonly wont so to speak as Joh. 8.41 We are not born of fornication we have one Father even God but in such a sense as they judged Blasphemous and had been so indeed had it not been true who therefore sought the more to kill him Joh. 5.18 because he said That God was his Father making himself Equal with God And the High Priest Matth. 26.65 rent his Cloths saying He speaketh Blasphemy when our Saviour affirmed before him That he was the Christ the Son of God 'T was manifest therefore that he so spake and they so understood him of such a Son-ship as argued a Divinity a being equal with God 2. His Humanity or Incarnation is pointed at in these words whom thou hast sent For by the Fathers sending him or his coming into the World is clearly meant his being Incarnate or made Man As Gal. 4.4 God sent his Son made of a Woman And Joh. 1.14 The Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us 3. His Mediatory Office is implyed as well in the Title Christ added to his Name Jesus as in that of his being sent by God Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Messiah whom thou hast sent For as his Name Jesus doth design the Person so the Title Christ that is Messiah that in Greek answering to this in Hebrew and both signifying the Anointed doth import the Office to which he was designed and for which he was sent For God did not send him to no purpose but sent him for this end for this Work To be the Mediator between God and Man To reconcile us to the Father To make an Atonement or Propitiation for us To take away the sins of the World To obtain Eternal Redemption To procure an Everlasting Inheritance a purchased Possession To make Intercession for us To save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him Or as Joh. 3.16 17. where all the three Particulars are likewise intimated God therefore sent his onely begotten Son into the World that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have Everlasting Life And now having gone through the whole Text we might if time would suffer look back upon it to take a new Survey thereof and collect from thence some of those particular deductions which might concern our practice For certainly the Knowledge which Christ here declares necessary to Eternal Life and the means conducing thereunto is not a bare Notional knowledge or a pure speculative Belief such as the Devils may have as well as we but an operative Knowledge a practical Faith a Faith fruitful in good Works without which those speculative notions will never bring us to Heaven And therefore without ingaging in the nice Disputes of Justification by Faith alone or Works concurring thereunto this is on all hands agreed without dispute That Faith without good Works will never justify us Whatever their influence be in Justification their Presence at least is necessary Without Doing we cannot in God's account be reputed either to Believe or Know. Those that obey him not are reckoned in God's account amongst those that Know not God at least amongst those who profess they know God but do in their works deny him Who shall be so far by such a Knowledge from obtaining Eternal Life that Christ shall come in flaming fire to take vengeance on them and to punish them with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his Power In particular If we know God to be the onely True God Then must we Love him Fear him Worship him and Obey him Nor doth the knowledge of Christ as Mediator abate any thing of this Duty For though he came to take away the Curse of the Law by being made a Curse for us yet not our Obligation thereunto He came not to destroy the Law or make it less obligatory to duty but to fulfill it I may add That those who will not acknowledge themselves under the Obligation of it have reason to fear they be yet under the Curse of it Again If we know Christ whom he hath sent It will be our duty then to Believe in him For 't is to those onely that Christ doth give eternal life And so to Believe in him as to Obey him For to those who obey not the Gospel of his Son it is that Christ shall render vengeance in flaming fire Furthermore If in this Christ we hope to have Eternal Life how should this excite our Rejoicing and Thankfulness for so great Salvation Not by Rioting and Drunkenness by Revelling and Debauchery which is the Abuse not the Celebration of this Solemnity in memory of Christ's Incarnation But by a pious Remembrance and Commemoration of that Redemption obtained for us such as may be to the Honour not the Reproach of him that came to Redeem us from our vain Conversation That denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live Godly Righteously and Soberly in this present World Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar People zealous of good Works To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be Glory for evermore The End of the First Sermon A Second SERMON Concerning the TRINITY TO THE UNIVERSITY of Oxford April 26. 1691. JOH xvij 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent IT is now a great many years since in this Place if not to this Auditory I did discourse of these Words I shall repeat very little of that Discourse But think fit to add somewhat to what was then said Our Saviour in the three Chapters next foregoing the 14 th 15 th and 16 th Chapters of S. John's Gospel had made a large Discourse to his Disciples after his Institution of the Lord's Supper the night before he was to Die which in this 17 th Chapter he closeth with a Prayer to his Father in their behalf Wherein having made mention of Eternal Life ver 2. which he was to give to as many as the Father had given him that is to as many as should â—ffectually Believe in him he subjoins this Eâ—â—phonema And This is Life Eternal That they might know Thee the only True God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. In which words we have Two things proposed to us The Christian's Happiness And The Mâ—ans wâ—ereby it is to be attained I. The Câ—ristian's Happiness is called Life as to its Excâ—â—â—ency and Eternal as to its Duration Wâ—ich is Begun here in the Kingdom of Graâ—â— and is to be Perfected and for ever Conâ—inued in that of Glory II. The Means to attain it is the Knowledge of God and
is said of Christ Joh. 10.30 I and the Father are One is said of all Three by the same St. John â— Joh. 5.7 The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost thâ—se Three are One. Objection III. It is Objected that these words last cited are said to have been wanting in some Translations or some ancient Copies Answ. Be it so And so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Translations And considerable parts of some other Chapters But we are not therefore to cast them away as not Genuine The II d. and III d. Epistles of St. John and that of Jude are said to have been wanting in the Syriack and Arabick Translations And the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery Joh. 8. wanting in the Gothick Gospels And part of the last Chapter of St. Mark 's Gospel is said to be wanting in some Books And the Doxology in the close of the Lord's Prayer And the like in divers others But we must not thence conclude them not to be Genuine and put them out of our Bibles because they have chanced to be omitted in some Books And it is so far from being strange that such Omissions should sometimes happen that it is very strange if there were not a great Providence of God to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire that there should be no more such mistakes than what are found For before the convenience of Printing was found out when Copies were to be singly transcribed one from another and even those but in a few hands 'T was very possible and hardly avoidable even for a diligent Transcriber sometime to skip a line Especially which is the case here when some of the same words do again recur after a line or two Men are very subject both in Writing and Printing as those well know who are versed in either to leap from one word to the same recurring soon after Nor is such Omission when it happens readily discerned if as here the sense be not manifestly disturbed by it Now when such variety of Copies happens that words be found in some which are wanting in others this must either happen by a Casual mis-take without any design of Fraud or by a willful Falsification as to serve a particular turn which I take to be the case of the Papists Indices Expurgatorii And as to the words in question If the difference of Copies happened at first by a Casual mistake as I am apt to think 't is very easy for a Transcriber unawares to leave out a Line which was in his Copy especially where such omission doth not manifestly disturb the sense but not to put in a line which was not there And in such case the Fuller Copy is likelyest to be True and the Omission to be a Fault Which happening as it seems it did some hundreds of years ago in some one Copy it might easily pass unobserved into many others transcribed thence and so to others derived from those Transcripts But an Insertion of what was not in their Copy must needs be willful and not casual On the other side If this variety of Copies were at first from a willful Falsification It is much more likely to be a willful Omission of the Arians in some of their Copies which might be done silently and unobserved than by a willful Insertion of the Orthodox For the Insertion of such a clause if wholly New and which had never before been Heard of would have been presently detected by the Arians as soon as ever it should be urged against them Nor was any advantage to be made of it by the Orthodox since the Divinity of Christ which was the Point then in question might be as strongly urged from that in St. John's Gospel I and the Father are One as from this in his Epistle These Three are One. And therefore it is not likely that the Orthodox should willfully make any such Falsification from whence they could promise themselves no advantage Nor do I find it was ever charged upon them by the ancient Arians in those days though Athanasius and others urged it against them And in very ancient Copies in which it had been left out it is found supplied in the Margin as having been faultily omitted And it is the more likely to be Genuine because in this clause The Father the Word and the Holy-Ghost the second Person is called sunpliciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which is St. John's Language both here and in his Gospel Joh. 1. And is I think peculiar to him and not so used by any other of the Holy Writers of the New Testament I do not deny but that this second Person may be called the Word of God in Heb. 11.3 By Faith we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God And 2 Pet. 3.5 7. By the Word of God were the Heavens of old and the Earth c. and by the same Word they are kept in store As he is by the same St. John Rev. 19.13 His name is called the Word of God But to call him the Word absolutely without other addition I think is peculiar to St. John And therefore much more likely in this place to have proceeded from the same Pen and not to have been inserted by an Interpolater some hundreds of years after And that clause These Three are One in the Epistle agreeing so well with I and the Father are one in the Gospel is a further confirmation of their being both from the same Pen. Add to this That the Antithesis which we find in the 7 th and 8 th Verses is so very Natural that it is a great Presumption to be Genuine There are Three that bear record in Heaven The Father the Word and the Holy-Ghost and these Three are One And there are Three that bear witness in Earth The Spirit and the Water and the Blood and these Three agree in One. Which as it stands is very Natural but the latter clause would seem lame without the former and the words in Earth wholly redundant in the latter if not by Antithesis to answer to the words in Heaven in the former Verse And that it was anciently so read appears from St. Cyprian by whom it is twice cited in his Book De Unitate Ecclesiae and in his Epistle ad Jubaianum before the Arian Controversy was on foot In the former place arguing for the Church's Unity not to be broken by Schisms he speaks thus Dicit Dominus Ego Pater unum sumus Et iterum de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto scriptum est Et hi tres unum sunt Et quisquam credit hanc Unitatem de divina firmitate venientem sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem scindi in Ecclesia posse That is Our Lord saith I and the Father are One And again of the Father Son and Holy Ghost It is Written These Three are One. And who can believe that this Unity of the Church proceeding from this Firm Union in God
that St. John did but Platonize and borrowed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Plato's Trinity that I rather think that Plato borrowed his Trinity as he did many other things from the Jewish Doctrine though by him disguised And take it for a good Evidence that the Doctrine of the Trinity was then not unknown to them Aristotle in the last Chapter of his Book De Mundo which is de Dei Nominibus He tells us that God though he be but One hath many Names And amongst those many he reckons that of the Tres Parcae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as we call them the Three Destinies Atropas Clotho and Lachesis whom he doth accommodate to the three diversities of Time past present and future to be One of these Names Which though numbred as Three are but this One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And cites Plato to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it seems both Plato and Aristotle were of opinion that Three Somewhats may be One God And this in likelihood they derived from the Jewish Learning I might say the like of their three Judges in another World Minos Radamanthus and Aeacus which thing though it be Fabulous yet it implies thus much That they had then a Notion not only of the Soul's Immortality but also of a Trinity of Persons in another World who should take Account of mens Actions in this World And both these Notions they had no doubt from the Jewish Learning from whence their most sublime Notions were derived To these I might add that of their three-shap'd Chimaera which their Poets feign to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is to be seen in Homer one of their most Ancient Poets And that of Cerberus their three-headed Porter of the other World Which Poetical Fictions though invented perhaps to ridicule the Trinity do yet at last argue that they had then some notices of a Trinity of Three Somewhats which were yet but One. For if they had no notice of it they could not have ridiculed it Our Adversaries perhaps may please themselves with the Fansy that Chimaera and Cerberus are brought in to prove the Trinity But they mistake the point We are not now Proving the Trinity which is already settled on a firmer Foundation but inquiring whether this Doctrine were then known And as we think it a good argument to prove the Christian Religion to have been known in Lucian's time and known to him because Lucian doth Scoff at it which he could not have done if he had known nothing of it So is it a good Argument to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to have been then known when it was ridiculed And it proves also that there might be then prophane Wits to ridicule it as there are now to Blaspheme the Trinity as a three-headed Monster and that this 〈◊〉 Wit of theirs is not their own but stollen from wittier Heathens But whether it were or were not known to the Jewish Church before Christ of which there be great Presumptions that it was so known as well as that of the Resurrection it is enough to us that we are taught it now And if any will yet be so obstinate as not to believe either the Resurrection or the Trinity upon pretence that neither of them was known to the Jewish Church or at least not so clearly but that they may be able to cavil at places from the Old Testament alledged to prove either we must leave them to the Wisdom and Judgment of God till he shall think fit to instruct them better Now to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost Three Persons but One Eternal and Ever blessed God be Praise Honour and Glory Now and for Evermore Amen FINIS Advertisement BY reason of the Authors absence from the Press at so great a distance some mistakes have happened both in the Letters and Sermons and some things omitted which should have been inserted in their proper places but that they came so late to the Printers hands that it could not well be done without dâ—scomposing his Affairs Of both which it is thought fit thus to direct ERRATA LEt I. p. 12. l. 6. for Divisions read Dimensions p. 13. l 6. dele Three p 18. l. 7. for Meaning read Memory Let. II. p. â— l. 21. for that read shall Let. III. p. 30. l. 11. as a separate Existence p 32 l. 7. as to be p. 37. l. ult for Those read These p. 41. l. 18 known p. 57. l. 7. for sure read save Let. IV. p. 7. l. 20. for toil read talk p. 11. l. 2. as well as Let. V. p. 6. l. 22. dele of p. 7. l. 19. for any read my p. 11. l. 10. read 1 Joh. 5.20 p. 12. l. 18. for Israel read Jacob. p. 18. l. 13. doth not well p. 21. l. 14. said so much Let. VI. p. 4. l. 1. for Nor read Now. p. 9. l. 28. for then read tâ—ere p. 10. l. 28. for London read Leyden p. 11. l. 19. at least p. 13. l. 30. for This read Thus. p. 14. l. 33. for as read in l. 34. thee only the. p. 17. l. 6. for Railing read Ranting p. 18. l. 2. was not then l. 13. beside that in Let. VII p. 6. l 28. Possibility p. 7. l. 27. for fourtâ— read fault p. 10. l. pen. All-comprehensive p. 12. l. 20. Father p. 13. l. 5. afteâ— Notionâ— add further than they are revealed l. pen. Words p. 14. l. 13. Hands p. 17. l. 13. to Answer l. 23. for one read me Serm. p. 15. l. 14. exegerical p. 19 l. 7. God p. 22. l. 19. for for read or l. 21. for er read fer P. 61. l. 9. read Author P. 73. l. 3. read were framed ADDITIONS LET. I. p. 2. l. 1. after united add or intimately One. p. 12. l. 21. after Cube add there being no limits in nature greater than which a Cube cannot be Let. III. p. 16. l. 18. Add this Marginal Note The Saxon word Hel or Helle whence comes the English word Hell doth not properly or necessarily import the place of the Damned But may be indifferently taken for Hell hole or hollow place Which are all words of the same original Helan to hide or cover Hole cavitas Hol cavus hollow And when it is used in a restrained sense it is Metonymical or Synecdochical as when Hole or Pit is put for the Grave and the like p. 19. l. 2. Add So that I take the plain sense of the words to be this He was for some time in that Hell or Hades what ever by that word be meant wherein it is expresly said he was not left but was Raised from it p. 44. l. 16. Add Beside this Letter of thanks from his Partner in the Disputation there was another from Sandius himself not Printed but in Manuscript acknowledging a like conviction Of which Wittichius recites an Extract in his Causa Spiritus Sancti Victrix demonstrata à Christophoro