the Church but in his Epistle to Balcerovicius he allows the offering any force to the Sacred Scriptures rather than to their own Sentiments in which our present Socinians are his strict Disciples And de Jesu Chris Salvat parag 3. c. 6. to 2. he vents himself thus if I find such things non semel sed saepè not once but often in the Scriptures non id circo tamen it a reâ— prorâ—us se habere crederem I will not for all that belive it And if this be an accountable and a reasonable Faith which is founded not on the Scriptures but on the Wills of Men then all Heresies must be accountable and reasonable too But on the contrary this must be a most unaccountable and a most unreasonable nay a blasphemous and most dangerous Faith which makes the Writings of Socinus as Maâ—â—met did his Alcoran the Peoples Bible and their Rule of Faith But that of the Trinitariâ—â—s he saith is absurd and contrary both to Reason and it self And therefore is not only false but impossible His Reason is that we teach there are Three Almighty and most Wise Persons and yet but one God Answ The Scriptures cannot teach any thing absurd or impossible but the Scriptures doteach there are three who are but one God therefore this Doctrine of ours is not absurd and impossible Now that there are three who are but one God is evident as from other Places so likewise from 1 John 5. 7 8 There are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and those three are one And there be three that bear Witness in Earth the Spirit the Water and the Bloud and these three agree in one Which Texts I will so clear from all their Cavils that they shall sufficiently vindicate our Doctrine from being absurd and impossible Euiedinus and the rest would expunge the last Clause in the 7th Verse these three are one Because 1. Some Fathers who wrote professedly on the Trinity have iâ— not Whence he makes them to be added by some Enemy of the Arians Ans 1 St. Cyprian in the middle of the Age before Arius hath this Text intire de Vnit Eccâ—es and St. Jerom soon after Arius censures the Omission of this Clause Now that of Eniedinus is impossible for these Words could not be added by some Enemy of the Arians in the time of St. Cyprian who flourished almost an Age before Arius himself was But the careless or designed Omission of 'em is necessarily true because the 4 th Age wanted them after St Cyprian in the 3 d Age had ' em Nor do we find many that quarrell'd with St. Jerome for censuring this Omission which some would certainly have done had he not had a ground for this Censure which is an Argument that St. Cyprian himself had this Clause and that it was not afterwards foysted in by some other hand 2 They plead that V. 7. is not in the Syriac nor Arabick whence some reject the whole Ans We grant it but V. 8. is in both which is linked to V. 7. by a Conjunction Copulative and beside which the Sense Coherence and Dependance of these with and upon one another speak this imperfect without that Whence Beza whom Letter 4 p. 152 quotes on his side saith both must be expunged or reteined together and then concludes for the reteining both And indeed this Case is so clear that since the Socinians receive V. 8 they must receive V. 7. too or renounce their own reason We proceed to confirm the whole Verse to be authentick 1. These words I and my Father are one are allowed on all hands to be St. John's therefore rhose Words these Three are One from the Likeness both of Stile and Matter seem to be his too For such a Likeness between Text and Text is as good an Argument according to the proportion of Matter to prove that each have the same Author as it is between that Gospel and his Epistle But all Learned Men allow of this Argument therefore the Socinian must allow of that or differ from the World of the Learned as they do already from the World of Christians 2. Our Learned Bishop of Salisbury Dr. Burnet in his Letter from Zurie observes that among Ten Copies he had seen abroad Nine had either the 7 th V. or St. Jerome's Epistle or Preface which condems the Omission while One only wanted both Therefore among Ten Copies one only was purely Arian or Socinian because the Omissions in them that wanted are condemned not only by that Epistle or preface but by them also who added that Epistle or Preface to those Copies 3. Suppositions grant nothing therefore suppose we that this Text it self is not authentick yet the Matter of it is taught by all those Scriptures which assert the Divinity of the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and the Existence of but one God for they taken together do assert that these Three are One that is One God or One in Nature therefore was the Socinian a Man of that Reason he pretends he could not think the expunging this Text out of the Sacred Canon of so much moment when divers others taken together speak the same thing He is then imployed about a Work he can never effect or if effected yet can do him but little if any service For which reasons they betake themselves to other Methods For they farther plead If this Text be Authentick yet it cannot intend one in Nature but One in Testimony because each verse speaks of each three as Witnesses Ans True each intend Testimony as Beza Calvin Erasmus and others observe But this doth not prove that v 7. intends no more nor do these Authors Exclude an Unity of Nature But the variation of the Phrase implies a restriction of the matter For v. 7. saith the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are One which is equally extendible to Nature and Testimony But v. 8. saith the Spirit the Water and the Blood agree in One Which is applicable not to Nature but to Testimony especially where Testimony is mentioned or evidently intended therefore we understand the former of One in Nature and Testimony both else we do not take the Phrase in its full latitude nor make it comport with those other Texts which declare the Divine Nature of Father Son and Holy Ghost And yet that these three are but One True and Almighty God because that Nature is numerically one in which they all agree But we understand the latter of Testimony only because the phrase designs no more nor do any other Scriptures declare that the Spirit the Water and the Blood do agree in Nature as the other do But they insist thus The Expounding v. 7. of Nature doth lose the design of these Texts which speak of Testimony Ans The Expounding it of Nature only exclusive of Testimony would have gave some colour of Reason to his Objection But we Expound it both of
Father then improves it to an Unity in Power and Honour and then leaves men to conclude from thence an Unity of Nature This is the most rational way of teaching for positive affirmations tell us things are so but Natural and necessary consequences such as these are prove they must be so Therefore though the Father is greater than the Son as the Father is of himself and is God only while the Son is of the Father and is both God and Man yet the Son is equal to nay One with the Father in Operation and if in Operation then in Power and if in Power then in Nature and therefore must be God He proceeds p. 5. to manage this Argument from Joh. 20. 17. I ascend to my God and your God whence he fancies the Son is not God because another is his God Answ As Christ is Man and we his Brethren so our God is his God This proves that he is Man but cannot prove he is not himself God which is the design of this Letter Nay as the Son is God of God i. e. God the Son of and from God the Father so the Father may be his God as well as his Father without weakning the Doctrine of his Divinity So far is this Text from concluding his Point that it makes nothing against us He adds Joh. 12. 49. The Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment The Argument is the Son is not God because the Father commands and sends him Answ This hath been answered already For in what respects the Father is greater than the Son in the same respects the Father may command and send the Son But as the Father's being greater than the Son doth not destroy the Divinity of the Son because as before it doth not destroy his Nature so neither can his commanding and sending him because this Power flows as a right or consequence from his Superiority And if the Father's Superiority it self cannot destroy the Son's Divinity that Power which is implyed or wrapt up in the very Nature of that Superiority can never do it Arg. 2. P. 5 6. If Christ were God he could not be the Creature of God But that he is the Creature of God he would sain prove from two Scriptures the former is Heb. 3. 1 2. The High-Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ who was faithful to him that appointed him In the Greek and in the Margin it is faithful to him that made him Answ The meaning is that appointed or made him High-Priest respects not his Being but the Designation of him to that Office In this sence we use the Phrase of making a Bishop Yet this it seems is a Socinian Creation His other Text is Colos 1. 15. which calls him the First-born of every Creature whence he would have him to be but a Creature Answ He is the First-born of every Creature not in kind as one of them but in regard of an Existence prior to them Whence V. 17. He was before all things To this agrees that of St. John Ch. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word i. e. when all things first began then this Word this first-born was or did exist And both this Apostle and the Evangelist with one consent declare him not a Creature himself but the Maker of all Creatures for Colos 1. 16. By him were all things created And Joh. 1. 3. By him were all things made This drives the Socinian to three most palpable falshoods viz. 1. These words By him were all things created Colos 1. 16. are spoke say they not of Christ but of God Let. 4. P. 131. Answ They grant us P. 130. that V. 15. which runs thus the Image of the Invisible God and the First-Born of every Creature is spoke of Christ And consequently V. 16. must be spoke of him too because that word him by him were all things created cannot possibly have any other Antecedent than the Image of the Invisible God and the First-born of every Creature whence immediately follows this 16 V. For by him i. e. by this First-born were all things created They would have indeed the Invisible God to be the Antecedent that by him viz. the Father were all things created But Sence Coherence Grammatical Construction and other parallel Texts can never allow this Because 1. The subject of that 15th Verse is Christ who is called the Image and the First-born but those words the Invisible God are but an adjunct designed only to show us whose Image he is But now the Relative must respect the Subiect not that which is but a dependent upon it 2. These words the first-born of every creature do follow those words the invisible God for the Text runs thus The Image of the invisible God the first-born of every creature Therefore to these viz. the first born the Relative him must immediately refer that by him viz. Christ who is this Image this first-born were all things created Sometimes indeed a Relative may refer to not the next but a remoter Antecedent But this is only in two cases As either for the sake of sence or for the avoiding that interpretation which may contradict some other text but neither of these can be pretended in the case before us For the sence is as compleat and natural as well as the construction more easie if the Relative refer to the first-born as if it refer to the invisible God and the referring it to this first-born doth not contradict any text but concurs with all them that ascribe creation to the Son Therefore the Socinian can have no other reason for his construction but only the support of an Heresy 2. They say That all things were made not by but for him Answ This is totally over thrown by St. John ch 1. 3. By him were all things made and without him was not any thing made that was made Where observe that the Evangelist doth industriously secure thetitle of Creator to the Son 1. By an Universal Affirmative which includes all things made in the number of his Creatures for by him were all things made And 2. By an Universal Negative which denys there ever was any creature which was not created by him for without him was not any thing made that was made No Text saith so much in reference to the Father therefore they may at least as fairly deny the Father to be Creator as the Son and doubtless the design of the Holy Writer is to obviate and expose all Cavils against this Doctrine 3. They fly to a Metaphorical Creation that he did not make but renew all things after they were made Answ This is impossible for Colos 1. 16. By him were all things created that are in Heaven whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers By which the Socinian Let. 4. P. 133. understands Angelick Orders but the Holy Angels were not renewed for they kept their Stations and therefore did not want it And the fallen Angels were denyed it The same Letter
is but one God which is all this Text can pretend to and all that our Socinian can prove But we say likewise that Jehovah or God is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost That the Father is Jehovah or God the Socinian grants us and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah or God we will prove 1. That the Son is Jehovah or God will appear from hence In Exod. 33 1 2 3. the Lord the word is Jehovah said I will send my Angel but I will not go up into the midst of thee Now as the Letter supposes that Jehovah is God so in this very place it can signifie no other than God properly Because ◠Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel as such and therefore from every Angel I will send my Angel but I will not go and 2. He declares his propriety in this Angel for it is my Angel An Angel that is mine that is my Creature and my Servant Which gloss I found upon this bottom that we never find in all the Scripture that one Angel speaks thus of another for though there be different orders of Angels yet they are all Servants of God not the Servants one of another Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in and that Power over this Angel which God has to in and over his Creatures Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah appeared to Abraham v. 2. expresses it by three Men but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah or Lord the same is so called again v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two Men but this Jehovah This only was Dignified with these Titles to this only did Abraham bow himself and direct his Discourse Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distinguished from these Men as he was before from that Angel and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World which neither is true nor was ever affirmed of any created Spirit it must needs be that this Jehovah is God But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father because 1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape as to Joshua to Moses so to Abraham whence himself and the two with him are called Men v. 2 but the Father never appeared in humane shape and the Teaching that he did was antiently as well as justly condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie and 2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2 because they were sent as the Word imports but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity cannot be sent from any The Result then is here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men but the Father never did appear in this likeness therefore this could not be Jehovah or God the Father but must be Jehovah or God the Son whom the Father sent in Humane shape as an intimation of his future Incarnation This is evident from Joshua for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword and asks Who he was for The Man answered v. 14 As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man this Captain is himself Jehovah the Lord for after he had answered Joshua and commanded him to put off his shooe because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15 then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord i. e. this Man this Captain said to Joshua Therefore the former Jehovah or Lord is the Father whose Host this was and the latter Jehovah or Lord is the Son who was sent from the Father as Captain of it This was the Sense of all Antiquity for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar c. 6. and adv Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were followed by Cyprian Origen and the rest Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord Jehovah rained down Fire from the Lord Jehovah in Heaven The Series of this History shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch 18 whence the latter must be the Father who was in Heaven This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers but also of the first Council of Sirmium And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Jehovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World Gen. 18. 25. We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius who de Nomine Jehovah objects several things against us with a design to perswade that Jehovah is not a Name proper to God but is sometimes given to Angels properly taken and consequently that this Jehovah was not tht Son but only an Angel of God Object 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2. Ans They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me 1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God as well as these three Men be Angels And then 2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels but this he stiled Jehovah whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all created Beings and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Creator God blessed for ever Object 2. He who is called Lord Jehovah in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God but common to Created Spirits Ans Angel doth note his Office as being sent from the Father and Jehovah notes his Nature as being of the same Substance with the Father for v. 6. this Jehovah saith I am the God of Abraham and v. 14. he stiles himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting which is not competible to any Creature Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31 32. Have ' ye not read not what God spake to you by his Angel but that which is spoke to you by God saying I am the God of Abraham Where our Saviour himself who is the best Interpreter of Scripture teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit but even God himself Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Christ And Tertul. adv Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum Moysi God that is the Son of God was seen by Moses the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv Judae 1. 2. c. Object 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God but yet is sometimes given to Angels as they personate God i. e. bear his Name and
1. 26. Let us make Man whence we conclude a Plurality in the Godhead But this cannot be a Plurality of Essences or Natures for then there would be a Plurality of Gods which is contrary to Scripture for this declares there is but one but a Plurality of Subsistences which we call Persons united in the same Nature This Plurality other Scriptures particularly Psal 33. 6. do determine to three viz. the Lord the Word and the Spirit and 1 John 1. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and this we call a Trinity as the Church ever did from the Apostles time But to this he saith God doth here speak of himself after the manner of Princes p. 21. and therefore is but one Person though he saith Us Ans 1. He could not speak this after the manner of Princes for then there was no Prince nor any Man in the World nor can he prove any such Custom in the Mosaic Age. Therefore this is an expounding the first Writings in the World after the Custom of later Ages which we cannot allow 2. In time Princes spoke of but not to themselves plurally which yet God doth do if this Gloss be true Therefore this Exposition which he pretends is after the manner of Princes is indeed without all Example 3. God himself expounds this Text our way Psal 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth that is by the Lord viz. the Father by the Word or Son and by the Spirit Now St. John c. 1. 1 3. teaches that by the Word viz. that Word which was God that Word which v. 14. was made Flesh were all things made Which directs us to understand that Word in this Psalm not of the Command but of the Eternal or Substantial Word or Son of God to whom together with that Spirit who Gen. 1. 1. moved upon the Waters preparing that indigested Matter for its several forms the Father said Let us make Man This was the Sense of all Antiquity Just Mart. Dial. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. he spoke to the Son and the Holy Ghost per quos in quibus omnia fecit by and in whom he made all things Tertul. de Resur carn c. 6. and adv Prax. v. 7. Orig. cont Cels 1. 6. and the Constitutions l. 5. c. 6. which pretend to give us nothing but what is Apostolical He proceeds to 2 Cor. 10. 2. Some who think of us which he saith S. Paul spoke of himself only Ans It is not probable that S. Paul spoke of himself after the manner of Princes when it is evident he lessened himself in almost every thing but Sin and Sufferings 2. When a Prince speaks plurally we know he must speak of himself because he is but one but the Apostles were many and under the same Censures therefore when S. Paul speaks plurally Us we have no necessity of understanding it of himself only buâ— have reason to believe he spoke of himself and them together 3. Suppose that S. Paul spoke plurally of himself as Princes have done for many Ages yet what Argument is there in either of these to prove that the Father is to be understood thus in Gen. 1 especially when the Scriptures so frequently ascribe the Creation to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father There is therefore nothing manly or cogent in this Quotation By this time I think his singular Pronouns have done him as little service as his Scriptures Consid 5. and 22. Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed which they say p. 23. was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion but that the Divinity of each is omitted there he would sain perswade the World This very Argument had almost perverted two of my Acquaintance the one a very ingenious Merchant in this City I shall therefore according to their desire give the fuller Answer to it and shall prove 1. That this Creed under the Apostles name was never composed by the Apostles and 2. Though it doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet it sufficiently teaches both 1. This Creed was never composed by the Apostles Some with more Presumption than Judgment think Irenaeus and Tertullian against us But if you consult those famous Places Iren. l. 1. c. 2 19. Tertul. de Virg. Veland c. 1. de Praes Haer. c. 2. and adv Prax. c. 2. you will find these Fathers differ so much from one another and each from himself both as to the Order and Points of Faith they deliver that they evidently seem to intend not any setled Form but the Substance of Faith contain'd in the Scriptures whence themselves might draw the Articles they deliver Irenaeus saith indeed that his Rule of Truth i. e. the Articles there writ came from the Apostles which some have thought sufficient to prove it of Apostolical Composure But 1. It s coming from the Apostles is no Argument for them for that might be from their Writings in the N. Test as well as from this Creed had they composed it 2. His calling it the Rule of Truth is against them for it was not customary so neither is it so proper to call a Creed the Rule of Faith as the Scriptures from whence all Creeds are taken and by which they must be proved And 3. There is not so much agreement between the Articles in Iren. and this Creed called the Apostles as between those Articles and some of those Creeds which are well known to be the different Creeds of different Churches Therefore there is nothing in this Father that can prove the Socinian Assertion but something that may incline to the contrary As for Tertullian the Case is more clear for he saith de Praes Haer. c. 13. that his Rule of Faith meaning the Articles there mentioned were taught by Christ but Christ composed no Symbol and adv Prax. c. 2. his Rule taught the Mission of the Holy Ghost but this Creed teaches no such thing Therefore from both he must intend the Scriptures not a Creed or if any yet however not this Arius in Epiphanius adv Haer. l. 2. to 2. Haer. 69. would fain have justified his Heresie against the Divinity of the Son from the Creed of Alexandria which differs to much from this under the Apostles name that none can pretend they are the same But it must be granted he would much rather have appealed to this had it then been or believed to be theirs and also thought not to teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost because a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves would have been of much more force and Authority than one composed by any particular Church whatever Therefore his Appeal to that but not to this is to me a Demonstration that this Creed was then not known or else not believed either