but also to prove an inconsistency between this Scripture and this Doctrine This he doth not attempt not will ever be able to perform But it seems it is enough for a Socinian to start an Error and then leave it to the World in hope some may take it as the Man did the Snake into their Houses He proceeds God needs no aid of any other but Christ saith he that sent me is with me Answ The thing in Controversie is whether the Son be God as well as Man The Socinian brings this Text against us but if we at present only suppose that he is both which we must do till it be disproved he can never tell me why the Fathers presence with the Human Nature of Christ should necessarily imply a denial of his Divine Nature and consequently this Text is no due Medium whence to conclude his point He adds God cannot Pray for himself and People but Christ Prays for himself and Disciples Luk. 22. 42 Heb. 5. 7. c. Answ We Teach that Christ is both God and Man Now he Prayed for himself only as Man Luk. 22. 42. that this Cup viz. his Passion now at hand might pass from him He Prayed for others as Priest Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh he offered up Prayers Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God that is to say his Praying must hinder the Human Nature from being united to the Divine for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason Nay as Man he dyed yet notwithstanding this was United to the Divinity And if his Death could not hinder this Union much less can his Praying But to shew the weakness of this Argument we will add though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God for so there is nothing above him yet he may Pray considered personally as the Son of God viz. the Father for as Son he is subordinate to the Father and consequently as Son may Pray the Father This is an Argument then no more to his purpose than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Travels or Noah's Planting a Vinyard He urges farther Christ Dyed and the Father raised him from the Dead Ephes 1. 19 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God He that dyed and was raised must be Man but his Argument implies that he who raised him must be God which is enough to our purpose For he raised himself John 2. 19. destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which v. 21. saith he spake of the Temple of his Body Therefore according to his own Hypothesis the Son must be God as well as Man But the Socinian pretends Let. 3. p. 89. That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father and accordingly his being raised is always attributed to the Father not to himself Answ This is false for that Text doth attribute it to himself I will raise it up Therefore either the Son must be the Father or else his Resurrection is not always attributed to the Father 2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father then he must be raised by the Father for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised and consequently he could not say I will raise it 3. This notion makes the Raiser and the raised to be the same which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker and the thing made to be the same Therefore when he saith I will raise it up he speaks not as Man for as such he was to be raised but as God who alone is the raiser of the dead And 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father for then those Texts of which some ascribe it to the Father others to the Son must be contradictory But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both because now both must be God or else they could not raise the dead His next Scripture which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me is already answered in Arg. 2. For this Power here given him respects only the Government of the Church to which he was now exalted which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion but this doth not prove that he had not antecedent to this a Power with the Father in the Government of the World This proves he had now a new Government but doth not prove that therefore he was not God because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World but yet was God Such additionals prove an alteration in the things added but not in those Divine Persons to whom they are added All the difference is this Power was given the Son True but this as before speaks the Son subordinate to the Father but doth not destroy his Nature by which he is God Argum. 7. p. 11. Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and is described to be the Son of God and the Image of God Answ He is personally distinct and therefore is not God the Father but he is not essentially distinct and therefore must be God the Son If the Socinian then would gain his point he must prove not only a distinction which we grant but such a distinction which we deny But he hath said that Christ is the Son of God and the Image of God whence he concludes p. 12. thus it is as impossible that the Son or Image of the one true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image be the very thing whose Image it is Answ Profoundly argued and like a a Socinian For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God when Father Son and Holy Ghost are together the one true God Therefore take the One true God and the invisible God personally for the Father only and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be that One true God because the Son cannot be the Father and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God because as he saith the Image cannot be that very thing whose Image it is But take the One true God and the invisible God essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost and then the Son with the Father and Holy Spirit is that One true God and the Image of the invisible God with the Father and Holy Ghost is that invisible God because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God because as an Image represents that very thing whose Image it is so the Son represents the Father as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both Whence
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
not true of one Person in the Trinity in reference to another For though God cannot come in the Name and by the Authority of a Creature yet the Son may come in the Name and by the Authority of the Father because though the Son is equal to the Father as God yet the Father is greater than the Son as Father For which reason Episcopius whom this Letter bespatters for an Arian Institut Theol. l. 4. c. 32. saith That the Son refers all things to the Father as the Fountain of the Deity of and from whom the Son is By this he rejects a Co-ordination but asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity and therefore at the same time both ruins these Objections and also establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity He proceeds God declares himself to be the prime object of Faith and Worship but the Son doth not so for John 12. 44. He that believes on me believes not on me but on him that sent me Answ Christ doth in this very Text propose himself as the object of Faith and Worship for he saith He that believes on me which asserts that men did believe on him and implys that they ought to do so what follows is but a qualification of the thing suitable to his subordination to his Father for such an one believes not on me that is solely or ultimately but on him that sent me i. e. on him as well as me by which he doth not exclude but include himself with the Father as the object of Faith and Worship This sense must be allowed else you run into these two absurdities viz. 1. You make the first clause assert what the second denyes and the second deny what the first asserts viz. That men do believe on him and yet do not believe on him thev do not believe and yet they believe still 2. These Scriptures which make Faith in Christ a condition of Salvation such as John 3. 36. He that believes on the Son hath Everlasting Life must be razed out of our Bibles But perhaps he may trifle upon that word prime object which hath nothing in it For if the Father be the prime object as he is the first Person in the Trinity yet the Father Son and Holy Ghost are the One and only object in regard of Nature But as the Texts he here quotes cannot serve his Hypothesis so there is One among them that totally destroys it viz. John 8. 42. I proceeded forth and came from God that is I am not from the Earth but from Heaven this is the Apostles sense Ephes 4. 9. That he ascended what is it but that he descended first Whence he did not first ascend to receive his Doctrine and Authority from God as Socinus dreams but he first descended from God with whom he was in the beginning John 1. 1. and with whom he was glorified before the World John 17. 5. Our sense falls in with variety of Scriptures which on every side confirm and support it but theirs labours with endless difficulties in wresting and perverting them that is an Argument of truth but this os falshood Argum. 5. pa. 9. God was always most wise but Christ increased in Wisdom Luke 2. 52. Answ The Text saith he increased in Wisdom and Stature which word Stature suits not a Divine Nature but an Human Body which shews that the Text speaks of him not simply as if in his whole Capacity without any exception he increased in Wisdom but only as Man and consequently this Text proves he is Man but doth not prove he is not God which is the design of this Argument This is a demonstration of a studied corruption of the truth for like the Devil he quotes but one part of the Text to the end he may pervert the whole He proceeds God was never ignorant of any thing but he makes it that Christ was ignorant of two 1. Of the place where Lazarus was buried John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him Answ This no more proves that he knew not the place than Gods asking Cain Gen. 4. 9. Where is Abel thy Brother doth prove that God knew not what was become of him How can we presume he was ignorant of this who of himself knew both his death and the time of it too That he would not in every thing give demonstrations of his Divinity is no argument against it 2. He pleads that Christ knew not the day of Judgment for Mark 13. 32. Of that day knows no Man in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none knows no not the Angels neither the Son but the Father St. Matthew ch 24. 36. adds but the Father only Answ He knew it not as Man but this doth not prove he is not God and did not know it as such For John 21. 17. He knew all things and therefore must know this or this must be nothing In 1 King 8. 39. God only knows the Hearts of Men but Joh. 2. 25. Christ knew what is in Man But to know the Hearts of Men and to know what is in Man are the same in Sense therefore Christ knows what God only knows and consequently Christ must be God and for that cause Omniscient Revel 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart This Let. 4. p. 154. doth acknowledge that Christ spoke of himself But this as we know is proper to God who alone can search the Heart Therefore our Savior's Application of it to himself is a Manifest Assertion of his own Divinity and consequently of his Omniscience which is inseparable from the Divine Nature Whence it must be that he knew it not as Man only but yet at the same time must know it as God But here the Socinian pleads that he knew many things not of himself but by Communication from the Father as the Prophets did 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil thou wilt do to the Children of Israel Therefore some extraordinary Knowledges in Christ do speak his knowledg no more Omniscient and Inherent than that of the Prophets So to this purpose p. 155. Answ These are very unlike Cases For 1. This Prophet knew this Man so far as concerned his future Dealing towards this People But this doth not prove that he knew this Man any farther or any other Man at all Whereas Joh. 2. 24. Christ knew all Men and v. 25. He knew what was in Man and therefore all that is in Man Which never was affirmed of any of the Prophets From which alone it appears that his Knowledge was much more extensive than any of the Prophets 2. He knew all things Joh. 21. 17. which imports an infinite Knowledge But an infinite Knowledge can never be Communicated to a finite Understanding Because there is an infinite Disproportion between the faculty and the object Therefore the Knowledge which Christ had speaks him infinite and that is God 3. This Hypothesis viz. that such a Knowledge can be Communicated to a Creature doth confound the Essential
he saith John 14. 8. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father because as Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. glosses the Father is seen in the Perfections of the Son and consequently the Son must be of the same Nature with the Father Our Doctrine then is not simply impossible and contradictory to common sense as the Letter pretends but theirs is palpably false and absurd for all these Arguments as he calls them run upon these two false suppositions viz. 1. That there is but one Nature in Christ for he proves that Christ is Man and thence concludes he cannot be God when the Scriptures abundantly declare that he is both 2. That there is but one Person in the God-head for he often proves that Christ is not God viz. the Father as many of his quotations must be understood and thence concludes he is not God though the Scriptures prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Thus he supposes what we deny that there is but one Nature in Christ and but one Person in the God-head but proves only what we grant viz. that Christ is Man and that the Son is not the Father But let him prove first that there is but one Nature in Christ and then that Christ is Man and again first that there is but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head and then that the Son is not the Father from each of which it will follow that the Son cannot be God nothing less can conclude his point but this method of his proves nothing against us but only betrays the Socinians want either of Honesty or Judgment However he concludes his Arguments as he calls them with a Socinian Confidence asserting p. 13. that there is in Scripture no real foundation for the Divinity of the Son For proof of which he now flyes above common Argument and can stoop to nothing below Demonstration § Demonst 1. par 8. p. 13. So many Scriptures expresly declare that only the Father is God For proof of this he quotes John 17. 1 3. Father this is Eternal Life that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Answ The Letter saith that Only the Father is God which denyes the Son and Holy Ghost is God but this Text saith the Father is the only true God this excludes the Gentile Gods but not the Son and the Holy Ghost who with the Father are the only true God He here removes the exclusive particle only from the praediciate the true God to the subject thee for pardon the repetition the Apostle saith thee the only true God but the Socinian saith only thee the true God which is such a corruption of the Text contrary to all antient and authentick reading that utterly perverts the very sense and design of it You have then a Demonstration indeed not that only the Father is God but that the Scriptures and Socinianism are at odds and that the one or the other must be Reformed The next words and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent do Distinguish the Son from the Father as to Office so doth 1 Cor. 8. 6. there is but one God and One Lord but they do not Distinguish him as to Nature The same is true of other Quotations under this Head and consequently none of 'em prove what he undertakes viz. that only the Father is God Demonst 2. parag 9. p. 14. If Christ were God as well as Man it had been altogether Superfluous to give the Holy Ghost to his said Human Nature as a Director and a Guide For what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell His Quotations are Luke 4. 1. Act. 1. 2 and Ch. 10. 38. Which prove only this that the Holy Ghost was given to the Human Nature of Christ Which the poor Man thinks a Demonstrative proof that Christ was not United to the Eternal Word or Son of God and Consequently was not God 1. This Demonstration as he calls it is founded not upon Scripture but upon a Socinian Presumption For no Scripture saith that if the Son was God he should not have had the Presence and Conduct of the Spirit of God And certainly it is a Monstrous way of Arguing that this or that is necessary for God to have done or not to have done and then to conclude he hath or hath not done it For this is no better than to limit the Almighty to give Rules to Infinite Wisdom and to make not the Scripture but our own blind Conceits the Rule of our Faith In this way the Romanists Demonstrate an Universal Head of the Church Some the Divine Right of this or that Form of Church-Government and after the same Methods others may as well Demonstrate away all Religion and introduce what they please of their own 2. His Foundation is utterly false For the Church is the Body of Christ which Ephes 4. 15 16. is said to be fitly joyned to him our Head to intimate that he doth actuate and guide it and yet notwithstanding standing this the Spirit is sent to lead her into all Truth Where let the Socinian tell me why both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit may not guide the Human Nature as well as Myslical Body of Christ 3. It follows that the same works of God are ascribed now to one Person then to another Thus we find it in this of Conduct in that of Creation c. but this doth not destroy but rather declare and confirm the Doctrine of a Trinity Because it proclaims those Powers and Operations which the Socinian would Limit to one Person to be common to all three whence it follows that all three must be God Demonst 3. parag 10. p. 15. We have an Instance of this in the Demonstration now before us For he would not have the Son to be God because he Ascribes his Miracles to the Holy Spirit Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God Now this doth not prove the Son is not God any more than the Ascribing Creation to the Son doth prove that the Father did not Create But it is a good step toward the proving that the Holy Ghost is God For Miracles cannot be wrought but by a Divine Power therefore if the Holy Ghost hath such a Power of Miracles that they are wrought by him if he be a Person which we shall easily prove he must be a Divine Person and that is God Demonst 4. parag 11. p. 15. Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament would not Describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman Answ They Describe him as such but not barely as such for they Describe him also as God Thus Isa 40. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord make strait in the Desert an High way for our God This is evidently spoke of the Messias and the Evangelists
of Essences that is it teaches that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not the Father but yet one God This sense St. Paul expressed to the Ephesians and therefore must intend it to these Corinthians Now the Text thus explained is not only a benediction to this Church but also a Prayer to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that this Grace may descend upon it We never pray to God but we pray to Father Son and Holy Ghost which was the judgment of Antiquity For Justin Martyr who florished in the middle of the Age next after the Apostles saith in his Apologie we Christians worship Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet against gentile Polytheism in the same Apology declares that they worshiped God only therefore they must necessarily understand it that all three Persons together are that one God whom they worshiped and to whom they prayed which is one part of Worship But you will say what is the reason then we are not commanded to pray expresly and particularly to the Holy Ghost as we are to God Answ 1. In divers Scriptures God is put essentially for Father Son and Holy Ghost therefore in those Scriptures all Commands and Examples of praying to God are to be understood inclusively of all three Persons who are essentially one and the same God 2. The Father is the first Person in the Trinity of and from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost are therefore as for this reason the Son refers things principally to the Father but not exclusive of himself so for the same reasons Prayers are directed principally to the Father but yet are to be understood inclusive of the Son and Holy Ghost but not exclusive of them 3. The Father is principal Agent in the Government of the World and the first mover in all Divine Operations saying to the Son and the Holy Ghost let us make Man whence the Son saith John 5. 17. my Father works hitherto and I works by which he speaks the Father principle Operator but himself a Co-operator with him Again the Son from the Father hath the Government of the Church whence it is called the Kingdom of Christ to which the Father Exalted him and from the Father and the Son the Holy Ghost is in the Ministration of it Upon which Accounts Prayers are directed primarily and expresly to the Father but yet are intended as extensive to the Son and Holy Ghost They are directed most particularly to him from his Priority of Order and Operation but yet they belong to all three in regard of the sameness of their Nature These things are suited to the Rules and Methods of the Divine Oeconomy and may seem difficulties but had our Considerer considered well he had never made them supports of an Heresie Consid 4. p. 19. If the Holy Spirit and our Lord Christ are God no less than the Father then God is a Trinity of Persons or three Persons but this is contrary to the whole Scripture which speaks of God as but one Person and speaks of him and to him by singular Pronouns such as I Thou We Him c. Answ We deny that any one Text of Scripture doth prove that God is but One Person He quotes Job 13. 7 8. Will ye speak wickedly for God Will ye accept his Person Whence he thinks there can be but one Person viz. the Father in the God-head To which we Answer thus 1. The letter of these Texts doth not say that God is but One Person Or that there is but one Person in the Godhead which is the thing to be proved 2. The Reason and Design of 'em cannot possibly import any such thing For these expressions are used to signifie only the doing unjustly for God as Men do for others when said to accept their Persons For Job hereby accuses his Friends of Injustice and Partiality in that they justified God's Visitations upon by Condemning him of Hypocrisie Therefore these Texts are not suited to the Nature of God nor designed to Determine whether there be only one or more Persons in the God head but to signifie unjust Censures and therefore must import not a Singularity or Plurality of Persons but only Partiality in their Judgment between God and himself Will ye speak wickedly for God and talk deceitfully for him Will ye accept his Person 3. Phrases that are taken from the common ufuages of Men or as common forms of Speech are not to be used in an Argument in which the Holy Pen-man did not intend them to the Contradiction of those Texts which professedly speak of that point this all Men of Reason and Judgment must grant me because in expounding Scripture we are to consider not only Words but Phrases together with the Scope and design of the place and if so it must be granted in this Case before us that these Texts in Jobe which concern not the Nature of God ought not to be brought to prove there is but one person in the God-head when so many Texts on set purpose declare the Divine Nature of three He quotes also Heb. 1. 1. 2 3 God hath spoken to us by his Son who being the express Image of his Person Answ 1. God here must signifie the Father because he speaks to us by his Son whence the Son is the Image of his Father's Person But however this doth not reach his Case for it proves indeed that God the Father is but one Person which we all grant But it doth not prove there is no other Person in the God-head which is the thing in controversie Nay 2. This Text is not only not for but is really against him For if the Son be the express Image of his Father he must duly Represent the Father as Images duly Represent those things whose Images they are And if he the Living Image of his Father duly Represents the Father he must have in himself all the Perfections of his Father and consequently must be infinite himself else he could not in his own Person or Nature Represent infinite Perfections and that he doth so is evident not only from his being Termed the Image of his Father but also from those words of his once quoted already Joh. 14. 8. he that hath seen me hath seen the Father So far is this Text from proving but one Person in the God-head that it consequentially introduces a second He cites Deut. 6. 4 5. the Lord our God is One the word is Jehovah whence the Letter saith Jehovah is one and that the Jews Morning and Evening Repeated this Verse to keep it in perpetual Memory that Jehovah or God is one only not two or three Answ The meaning is there is but One God which is spoke in opposition to Gentile Gods which the Jews were so much inclined to not that there is but One Person in the God-head which was never disputed among them We say then that Jehovah or God is but One viz. Nature or Substance that is there
Authority Ans Here was not only the Name and Authority of God but also that Honor received which is due to God only for Moses by special Command did worship him but you have not one such Instance of an Angel that any way appeared to be a created Spirit that bore the Name and Authority of God and received the Honor due to God The Angel to the Blessed Virgin spoke otherwise and that to S. John forbad him to Worship him and that for a reason common to all created Angels Revel 19. 10. See thou do it not for I am thy Fellow-Servant As we find no such thing so neither can any such thing ever be for God hath said My Glory will I not give to another but this gives a Creature his Name his Authority and his Honor and these are his Glory Therefore the matter of this Objection is not only not found in the Scripture but is even contrary to it Object 4. The Law was given by the disposition of Angels Act. 7. 53. and was spoken by Angels Heb. 2. 3. whence he presumes that Jehovah who gave the Law was not the Son of God but a created Angel Ans This doth not follow for as it was given by Angels so it was Gal. 3. 19. in the hand of a Mediator that is of Christ as Theophylact and others take it But some say this Mediator was Moses be it so it is all one For if Moses was Mediator it was only as a Type of Christ and there must be an exact Agreement between the Type and the Anti-type therefore if the Law was given by Moses a typical Mediator it must be given by Christ the true and proper Mediator Whence the Result must be that Moses gave it immediately to the People but Christ gave it mediately by Moses and by those Angels which are ministring Spirits Therefore when S. John saith c. 1. 17. the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth i. e. the Gospel came by Jesus Christ he respects the immediate Delivery of both the Law was given immediately by Moses and the Gospel immediately by Christ which excludes Christ from only an immediate but not from a mediate Delivery of the Law But the Difficulty is from Heb. 2. 2 3. If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast and every Transgression and Disobedience received a just recompence of Reward how shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord Upon which Crellius saith the Gospel which is the great Salvation is preferred before the Law because the Law was given by Angels but the Gopel by the Lord and consequently Jehovah who gave the Law was not the Lord but an Angel Ans This Text which saith the Law was spoken by Angels doth no more exclude the Son than Joh. 1. 17. which saith the Law was given by Moses doth exclude those Angels for indeed it was given by all three Therefore the Opposition lies not between Jehovah and the Son who are the same and gave both Law and Gospel too but 1. Between his different manner of giving each for as before he gave the Law mediately by Angels but he gave the Gospel immediately by himself as the Eternal Word now made Flesh Upon which account Sin against the Gospel is a greater Affront to his Person and Authority than Sin against the Law And 2. Between the Nature of each considered in themselves this is a great Salvation in comparison of that And because Sin doth always arise proportionate to the means it is committed against therefore upon this Account also Sin against the Gospel is greater than Sin against the Law Whence this toping Argument of Crellius which he saith doth penitus evertere totally overthrow us doth neither exclude Jehovah the Son from giving the Law nor yet debase him to a created Spirit and consequently doth not at all affect us In fine we grant that Jehovah is sometimes called an Angel as he is sent from the Father but we deny that an Angel which is any way declared to be a created Spirit is ever called Jehovah Let the Socinian prove this and then we will dismiss this Argument else he faith nothing to the purpose 2. The Blessed Spirit is also called Jehovah for Exod. 17. 7. they tempted the Lord the Word is Jehovah This is repeated Psal 95. whence the Apostle Heb. 3. 7 8 9. thus the Holy Ghost saith When your Fathers tempted me Therefore according to the Apostles Application of these Seriptures the Holy Ghost is this Jehovah The Result is Jehovah is indeed but one God but yet is three Persons viz. Father Son and Holy Ghost who are in the Godhead and therefore are this one God which was the thing to be proved Whence his next Scripture which is Isa 45. 5. I am the Lord the Word is Jehovah there is no God before me is easily answered For here Jehovah excludes a Plurality of Gods but not a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead He adds in his great Wisdom and Judgment Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Where because the Lord thy God is singular and that Word only excludes all others he thinks he hath found a proof that the Father only is God Ans This proves indeed that there is but one God which we all grant but it doth not prove there is but one Person in the Godhead or that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God which he undertakes But because Suppositions grant nothing we will suppose that this Text proves that the Father only is God but then it must be granted upon this Supposition that it doth also prove that the Father only is to be worshipped for him only shalt thou serve But the Socinians deny that the Son is God and yet worship him as well as the Father Whence it evidently follows that either their Religion must be an Heresie or themselves Idolaters for if the Son be God they are Hereticks in denying it if he is not they are Idolaters in worshipping him And certainly these Men are put to an hard shift for Scripture Proofs when all the Texts they cite do either not affect us or wound themselves He now proceeds to his singular Pronouns thus No Instance can be given in any Language of three Persons who ever spoke of themselves or were spoken to by singular Pronouns as I Thou c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom Grammar and Sense Ans To this that of the Learned Dean of St. Pauls Dr. Sherlock is the most apposite viz. There is no other Example in Nature of three Persons who are essentially one Whence this is an Impropriety in reference to the Creatures which is none in reference to God For he may speak of himself or be spoken to singularly because he is but one God and plurally because he is three Persons without any ungrammatical Solecism And sometimes he doth speak plurally as Gen.
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
to be theirs or to import any such Doctrine It could not come from the Apostles at least as we now have it which ought very much to take down Mens Presumptions of its Antiquity and must totally ruine that of Heylen aud Ashwel in his Fâ—des Apostolica who will have it to be unalterable and therefore to come from them in all Points as it now is For 1. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is brought from the Psalms into the Acts of the Apostles and in each place is rendered Hell and tho Irenaeus and Tertullian both speak of Christs going where the Souls of the dead are yet the strict Phrase He descended into Hell is not in any of the antient Creeds or Fathers nor yet in the Articles mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian from whom they pretend to take this Creed it self The first time we find it is in the Interpolatâ—r and Tral but this appeared not till the fourth Century nor could it be wrote till the Arian Heresie For ad Magnes Vas edit p. 147. he saith Christ is the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not spoken but substantial For though the Notion is agreeable both to Scripture and the most antient Fathers yet the distinction in these very Words was not known till Arian Evasions made it necessary for the securing the sense both of Scripture and Antiquity 2. The Word Catholick which this Creed uses was not in use among Ecclesiastical Writers in the first Ages For Ignat Epist ad Ephes expresses the thing by a Circumlocution as the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ends of the Earth And Iren. l. 1. â— 2. the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the World over We find the Word it self first in Clâ— Alex. Strâ—m â— 7. but it is not in any of the Eastern Creeds till that of Jerusalem S. Gyprian likewise hath the Word but it is in none of the Latin Creeds till the fourth Age. The Epistles of James Peter John and Jude must therefore be intituled Catholick not by the Pen-men but by some later hand The first time I observe them cited under this Title is by Cyrd of Jerusalem who Carech 6 wrote seventy years after Manes who broach'd his Heresie under Probus the Emperor about the year 277. How then to bring Haylen out of the Wood who places the Apostles with every one an Article of this Creed in his mouth as a Frontispiece to his Book upon this Subject ascribing the Descent into Hell to S. Thomas and the Catholick Church to S. James I know not Or whence S. Austin should have that Story of the Apostles bringing every one his Article to the composing it when the four Ages before him knew nothing of the matter or why any should quote that Tract under his name as his own which all learned Men unless some Romish Writers do now reject as spurious I can as little imagine To conclude this Argument Had the Apostles composed this Creed it would have been found first in the Hebrew or Greek Tongues in which they wrote it would have been part of the Sacred Scriptures or at least have been mentioned in the History of the Acts and have been known to all the Churches founded by the Apostles it being pretended to be wrote before their Dispersion from Jerusalem But on the contrary we find it not till the fourth Century and then known only to the Latin Church which did obtrude it on the World under the Name of the Apostles witness Preuotius Feu ardentius Baronius the Paris Doctors in their Censures of Erasmus and others who take up the Cudgels from their old Pope Leo in the fifth Age as he did from Ruffinus and Ruffinus from the spurious Clemens in his Epistle to S. James which was ever rejected by all considering Men because it appeared not in the Apostolick Ages and also mentions the death of St. Peter who out lived this James to whom it is directed From Rome the Reformed Churches received this Doctrine and that Rubrick of ours which calls it the Apostles Creed is taken out of the Roman Breviary which our Reformers not fore-seeing the advantages the Socinians make of it thought of no such moment as to call for an Alteration But when our Church composed the Articles of our Religion she expresses her self thus Article 8. that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed which doth not only not affirm that it is theirs but suggests that it is not Du Pin who is more judicious and impartial than his Predecessors grants that it is the Apostles as to the Doctrine it contains but denies it to be of their composure for he faith they â— ' avoient poynt comopsè de formule de foy comprise en un certain nombrè de mots have not composed a Formula of Faith comprised in a certain number of Words he adds Irenaeus and Tertullian did not intend la formule de foy mais la foy meme a Creed or form of Faith but the Faith it self This is the Judgment of Vossius Erasmus our Perkins and others however some Men who make a great noise about Antiquity are pleased to take up an Error from others instead of understanding the Authors they quote Had it not been for these Socinian Impudences discovered in this Letter and in the fifth to the Publisher as well as in other of their Writings both at home and abroad I had rested in that of Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 16. Ser. 18. Apostolicum nuncupo de Authore interim minimè solicitus I call it the Apostles but in the mean time trouble not my head about the Author But after all this What ground hath this Letter for his Confidence It saith pag. 23. this Creed is recited by S. Cyril S. Cyprian and Socrates in his Hist lib. 1. c. 26. Quotations that are true Socinian for they are false but if true are yet insufficient for their end For did these Authors recite this Creed yet how doth this prove the Apostolical Composure of it But Cyril of Jerusalem explains a Creed peculiar to that Church which differs nothing material from that of Nice and Constantinople except the Consubstantiality The English Reader may find it at the end of the Life of this Father written by Dr. Cave S. Cyprian hath it not unless he means a Piece bound up with him in the Oxford Edition which is ascribed by some to S. Jerom by others to Ruffinus Which if so must betray either his Ignorance or Sophistry Socrates indeed hath a Creed in the place quoted but he there tells us it was composed by Arius and Euzoius and begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We believe in one God the Father Almighty and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son who was made of him before all Ages God the Word by whom all things were made This he faith is the Apostles Creed which he so earnestly
Christi sed mirum videri non debet si sequor interpretem Ecclesiam cujus Authoritate persuasus credo Scripturis Canonicis I could be of the same mind with the Arians and Pelagians if the Church had approved what they taught Not that the words of Christ do not satisfy me but it ought not to seem strange if I follow the Judgment of the Church by whose Authority I believe the Canonical Scripture which place is certainly against him For 1. He saith the words of Christ do satisfie him i. e. as to Arianism and Pelagianism before mentioned 2. He puts Arianism and Pelagianism together implying that he had no more favour for that than for this which I do not remember he was ever charged with Therefore 3. His design is not to favour this or t'other Heresy but only to shew how far he could give up his Faith to the Judgment of the Church And consequently his own sense must be much distant from both these Perswasions else this could be no Argument of his wonderful submission to the Churches Authority A Romanist may make good advantage of this and therefore the Paris Doctors never put it among their Censures But it no more helps the Socinian than the things he calls his Arguments and Demonstrations He proceeds p. 31. Grotius is Socinian all over and p. 32. there is nothing in all his Annotations which they viz. the Socinians do not approve and applaud Ans Upon Joh. 1. 1. these words in the beginning Grotius will have to be taken from Gen. 1. 1. and understands them of the Creation properly or of the beginning of the Creature As he doth also v. 2. by him were all things made For which he quotes the Epistle of Barnabas Justin Athenagoras Tatian Tertullian and others This word was he renders jam tum erat then was or did exist when all Creatures began By which Existence before time he understands an Eternal Existence And yet he holds the Word or Son not for the Command or simple Power of God but for a Person Where observe that Grotius teaches that the Son is a Person eternally existing who in a proper sense made or created the World and if either Arian or Socinian approve or applaud this they must each depart from his own Heresy Therefore when upon those words Colos 1. 16. by him viz. the Son as Grotius himself takes it were all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created he saith this word is sometimes applied to the New Creature we must understand him as shewing the Various Acceptations of the word not as designing hereby to deny the Son to be Creator because he so expresly ascribes Creation to him upon that Text of St. John 3. In p. 32. he pretends that Petavius grants that the Fathers before the Nicene Council did agree in their Doctrine concerning God with the Socinian and concerning the Son and Holy Spirit with the Arians Ans 1. Petavius saith no such thing Let the Socinian vindicate himself by referring us to the places 2. Had he said so the Quotations we have given the Readet out of Ignacius Justin Iraeneus Clemens Tertullian and others would abundantly confute him 3. Patanius himself was a Trinitarian as appears from what he hath wrote upon this Argument And 4. He did not accuse these Fathers of Arianism or Socinianism but only censured some of those Arguments by which they would establish the Doctrine of a Trinity 4. The Letter reports Episcopius suspected of Arianism p 34 35. he saith the Father is so first as to be first in Order i. e. in time Ans 1. Episcopius saith the Father is first in Order which we all grant But it is the Socinian Comment that makes the first in Order to be the first in time which we deny Because though the Father is first in Order yet the Son is Co-eternal with the Father as before 2. This Author denies a Co-ordination and asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity But this Subordination doth not destroy but only Explains the Doctrine of a Trinity as is noted already And 3. In his Institut Theol. l. 4. c. 32. He ascribes a Divine Nature to Father Son and Holy Ghost and teaches that they are all properly Persons And if this be Arianism or Socinianism we are all such 5. He Complements his dear Friend Sandius for a Gentleman of Prodigious Industry and Reading and no less ingenious than Learned Ans Whatever his Industry and Learning was I mâ—st deny both his Judgment and Honesty 1. His Judgment For he knows not how to distinguish between the genuine doubtful and spurious Writings of the Antients but thinks Clemens the Father of the Constitutions under his Name Which is utterly impossible because l. 7 c. 48. the Author mentions three Bishops of Jerusalem made by the Apostles James Simeon and Judas But St. John the last of the twelve Died and this Clemens himself suffered Martyrdom in the year 100. while Simeon lived about seven years after How then the Apostles could appoint Judas his Successor or Clemens their Scribe Record it neither their Learned Sandius nor our Socinians those Men of Wit and Reason can resolve me They as well as the Apostolic Canons were probably written about the end of the Second Century and seem to owe themselves excepting their Corruptions to Clemens of Alexandria He receives likewise the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius and de Vet. Script Eccles he would prove the Legitimacy of that ad Philip. by this Argument viz. Origen who flourished about the middle of the Third Age hath something upon St. Luke like something in that Epistle where observe 1. Origen doth not mention either Ignatius or this Epistle 2. Ignatius and Origen might hit upon somewhat like Notions without Communication And 3. These ascribed Epistles are not mentioned by Eusebius Jerom or any other hefore them whence we ought in all reason to reject them Dr. Peirson late Bishop of Chester observes they appeared not till 400 years after Ignatius whence he declares them spurious Vind. Epist 8. Ignat. c. 10. 2. By such intolerable Errors he creates difficulties to himself For the design of his History is to prove that all Antiquity is Arian Bur the Epis ad Heron. which is one of the ascribed saith that if any asserts that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man which phrase was always used in opposition to his Divinity Iren. l. 3. c. 26. and Eusebius in the case of Ebion the same is a Jew and a Murtherer of Christ Now had he like a Man of Art and Judgment rejected these Epistles he had removed this Block at which he must now stumble and fall 2. I deny his Honesty For Hist l. 1. Secul 1. he will have the Creed called the Apostles to be composed by them to be the only Creed used in the Church and that very Creed too which was established at Nice And that Evag. H. l. 3. c. 17. saying we are Baptized into a Creed composed by 318 Bishops intended no other but this When this was never mentioned in that Council and the Concert is totally Ruined by the Testimonies we have already produced upon this Argument Sect. 4. Should I draw out all the instances of weakness and knavery I â—hould leave but little of that book behind me A fit man for an Ecclesiastical Historian whose want of Judgment and Honesty makes his writings like a sword in some mens hands dangerous to them that come in the reach of it Sure I am no Student ought to read him till he is well acquainted with the true state and doctrine of antiquity His accounts of antiquity and the brief history of the Socinians may go together and if each will be pretenders to wit and reason I matter not so long as we have on our side better pretensions to truth and Honesty Dr. Wallis in one of his letters gives an account of this Sandius's conversion and his dying in the Trinitarian Faith I earnestly pray that the same Mercy and Goodness would open the eyes of all Arians and Socinians that they may no longer lye under strong delusions and the belief of a Lye but may come to the knowledg of the truth and be saved FINIS Boeks Printed for John Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-Street AN Enquiry into Several Remarkable texts of the old and new Testament which contain some difficulty in them with a probable Resolution of them In two parts By John Edwards B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge A new Discourse of Trade wherein is Recommended several weighty Points relating to Companies of Merchants The Act of Navigation Naturalization of Strangers and our Woollen Manufactures the Ballance of Trade and the nature of Plantations and their Consequences in Relation to the Kingdom are seriously Discussed And some Proposals for erecting a Court of Merchants for determining Controversies relating to Maritime Affairs and for a Law for Transferrance of Bills of Debts are humbly Offered By Sir Josiah Child Miscellaneous Essays By Monsieur St. Euremont Translated out of French with a Character by a Person of Honour here in England continued by Mr. Dryden Monarchia Microcosmi The Origin Vicissitudes and Period of Vital Government in Man For a farther Discovery of Diseases incident to Human Nature By Everard Maynwaringe M. D.
P. 132. saith That all things were modelled not created by him and P. 133. explains it thus Christ is said to modell and order all things upon carth because of the great change he introduced For which sence he quotes Camero Piscator Diodate Dallee Vorstius Davenant and Grotius Answ I can find nothing in Camero Dallee and Vorstius upon this Text Had they spoke to his purpose I doubt not but be would have given us particular References Piscator saith all things were per eum condita made or created by him as the word usually signifies But for Argument sake suppose it may in a remoter and looser sence signifie also to modell and order Yet let the Socinian tell me what reason he hath to tye Piscator's sence to these exclusive of that Since that is the common import of the Word and is agreeable to the mind of this Author who upon all occasions asserts the Divinity of the Son and ascribes to him the creation of the world For upon these words John 1. 3. By him were all things made Piscator saith the Evangelist doth here assert the Deity of the Son from the effects or things that he hath done videlicet ex omnium rerum conditarum creatione from his creating all things made where himself applies this word condita to the creation of the World by the Son Therefore the Socinian is false and unjust in pretending that this Author understands it not of creation but of modelling and ordering things Diodat is so far from the Socinian sence that upon these words he asserts the Eternal Generation of the Son and speaks him with the Father an equal and co-operating cause of all things Davenant upon this Text thus Christus non est creatura sed creaturis omnibus prior quia per ipsum conditae sunt Christ is no creature but is before all creatures because they were all made by him Where this Author by this word conditae must necessarily mean a creation properly because he gives this asareason why Christ is no creature but is before all creatures viz. because he made them all But he cannot possibly understand by it to model or order because he might model or order and yet notwithstanding be a creature and after those creatures too Therefore the Socinian doth here pervert the sence of this Author and also totally ruines that Argument by which he proves that sence Which is a crime so salse and malicious that it can admit no Palliation As for Grotius he shows indeed that the word here rendred to create doth not always signifie properly to create but is sometimes applyed to the new creature We grant it But by the leave of so great a man and of this little Socinian too this doth not prove it doth not signifie properly to create in this text That it is taken improperly in some places is no Argument that it ought to be improperly in this Though I shall prove in it's place that Grotius was neither Arian nor Socinian yet I must say that he hath not in all places done that justice to this Cause which he might and ought to have done it It is worth our while to observe that to prove that Christ is a creature these men will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to create in as large and loose a sence as the English word make doth as to make the World to make a Verse c. to signifie properly to create in Heb. 3. 2. contrary as we have shown to the evident sence and design of that place But to prove he did not make the World they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Colos 1. 16. to signifie not to create but to model and order Though it doth most properly signify to create and V. 17. by ascribing to him an Existence prior to all things ought to lead and determine us to this sence This is plain shuffling And indeed where men will take words of a various signification in such a sense as is agreeable to their own Hypothesis but not to the scope and design of the place that uses 'em they may perplex any truth and colour over the foulest Heresy in the World and in fine turn the whole Scriptures into contradictions and non-sense That Christ was no creature I shall further prove against this Letter and the Arian both by these two steps 1. That he was before all creatures and 2. That he was from eternity 1. He asserts his own Existence before the world for John 17. 5. He had Glory with the Father before the world and therefore he must exist before it for non entis nulla sunt praedicata They say indeed this Glory was in decree only as the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world in decree only But these are not parallel cases for then that Lamb could be slain no otherwise But the Scriptures do abundantly declare that Christ did actually exist before the world and therefore might be actually glorified before it Necessity requires that interpretation as to the Lamb but there is no such necessity in this case and therefore no such interpretation is to be admitted for we must never leave the common proper and literal sence of a Scripture unless it be for the sake of a concurrence with or non-contradiction of some other Scripture which is not in this case because no Scripture saith he did not exist before the world This is a fallacy à bene conjunctis ad male divisa when Men put such odd constructions upon a Text taken by it self which it abhors when taken together with others For in this case was there no Text but this which ascribes to him a Being before the World their gloss might perhaps seem to have a little colour of probability in it and that is the most it could then pretend to But take this Scripture together with those that declare he did exist when all things began Joh. 1. 1. That he was before all things Coloss 1. 17. That he made and created all things Joh. 1. 3. Col. 1. 16. The case is so plain from the light which one text gives to another that a Man would think that none but the wilfully blind could mistake it If in this manner we follow this or some other point in controversy between the Socinian and our selves from one text to another till we have laid all those together which speak to the same point one would think that either the Scripture is so worded that it is extreamly apt to lead all plain honest minds into error or else that the Socinian sence is but mere shuffles and evasions of the truth One of these must be Judge choose but consider it is on the part of God and Socinus who stand here opposed each to other Upon this Scripture Irenaeus in the next age after the Apostles l. 4. c. 28. Thus ante omnem conditionem glorificabat Verbum Patrem suum glorificabatur ab eo Before every Creature
the Word i. e. the Son did glorifie his Father and was glorified by him By which this Father doth speak 1. His Existence before all Creatures For every thing did glorifie it's maker so soon as it did exist but the Son did glorifie his Father before all Creatures and consequently did exist before them And 2. His Divinity For had Irenaeus numbred the Son with the Creatures as the first of them in the Arian sence or as the last of them in the Socinian he must have worded it with some respect to them as thus before all other Creatures or the first of all Creatures the Son did glorifie c. but this form distinguishes him from all Creatures not as one of them but as being already distinct from as well as before them all The Son then was before the World i.e. before the Creation and consequently before all creatures which was the thing to be proved whence it follows that there is no necessity of taking those Texts which ascribe Creation to him in an improper sense and if no necessity they must be taken in a proper one because all Scriptures must be taken properly unless that sense doth contradict some other Scripture which is not in the case before us because no Text saith the Son did not or that the Father only did create the World 2. Since the Son was before the world he must be from Eternity because the Scriptures no where suggest a creation between Eternity and Time But on the contrary Moses declares that the creation of the World was the beginning viz. of the creature and consequently there could be no creature before it Whence in the Scripture-Phrase to be in the beginning that is before the world and to be from Eternity are the same thing For wisdom doth thus express her Eternal Existence Prov. 8. 22 23. He possessed me in the beginning of his ways before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was and v. 24 25. when there were no depths I was brought forth when there were no Fountains abounding with water before the mountains were setled before the Hills was I brought forth Thus to be in the beginning and to be before the world are Phrases which the Spirit uses to express the Eternal existence of wisdom but the Son was in the beginning Joh. 1. 1. he was before all things Colos 1. 17. and before the world Joh. 17. 5. therefore the same Phrases must as well express the Eternal existence of the Son too If the Son then was any where called a creature it must be restrained to his man-hood as his descent from Abraham is Rom. 9. 5. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the flesh which restriction must imply that there is something excepted as to which he is no creature and as to which he did not descend from Abraham which can be no other than the Divine Nature whence the next words say he is over all God blessed for ever Irenaeus l. 3 c. 18. reads it thus Exquibus Christus secundum carnem qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula Of whom Christ was according to the Flesh who is God over all blessed for ever and Tert. adv Prax. c. 13. thus who is Deussuper omnia benedictus in aevum omne God over all blessed for ever which Reading is farther from the Socinian Conceit of its being a thanksgiving for Christ Thus who is over all God be blessed for ever than our Translation is From this Text which the Socinians have so miserably disguised not these Fathers only but the first Ages of Christianity too have always pleaded the Divinity of the Son He continues his Argument from 1. Cor. 3. 32. Christ is God's that is saith he God's Subject and this he fansies must be God's creature Answ Why not God's Son since the Scriptures so often call him so but if it must be God's Subject yet it can do him no Service For he is his Subject in regard of his Humane Nature and Offices Nay his Subordination to the Father as Son the Apostle as we shall show calls a Subjection which will appear to be so far from affecting his Divinity that it gives light and strength to this Doctrine He cites Mat. 12. 17 18. behold my Servant His Argument lyes thus p. 5. If Christ were God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without restriction affirmed of him that he is the servant of God Answ It is not affirmed of him absolutely and without restriction but in reference to his Humane Nature and Offices and till the Socinian doth prove that it is absolutely affirmed of him i. e. that Christ is in all respects a Servant and not in some only it hath not so much as the face of an Argument His next Scripture is Phil. 2. 8 9. he humbled himself and became obedient to death therefore God hath highly exalted him Answ His obedience to death doth indeed prove that he is man for else he could not dye this we all grant but neither this nor his Exaltation can ever prove he is not God which is the thing in controversie The truth of this will appear from our explication of his next Scripture which is 1 Cor. 15. 28. Then shall the son also be subject to him who put all things under him Which subjection he conceits destroys his Divinity Ans Then shall the Son be subject that is at the end of the world v. 24. which implies that till then he is in some respect not subject which is a demonstration of his Divinity For all creatures are in all points his Subjects therefore if there is any one respect in which the Son is not subject then the Son must be God Now his non-subjection is this that now he hath a Kingdom viz. The Church given by the Father in which he reigns himself as Mediator whence V. 25. He must reign This Kingdom the Church is separate from the Dominion of the Father which is the World Therefore so far as he reigns in this Kingdom so far he reigns separate from the Father and that is not subject to him Hence he saith Matt. 28. 18. All Power is given me Phil 2. 9. God hath highly exalted him and again Psal 2. 9. I have set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion But at the end of the World He shall deliver up this Kingdom to the Father V. 24. And then he shall reign no otherwise than as subordinate to the Father as Son which the Text expresses by subject to the Father Whence it must be granted that when he saith the Father commands and sends me c. These were spoken and ought to be understood antecedent to this exaltation To close this Argument On the one hand this exaltation proves no more than this That the Son hath now a Kingdom which he had not before but it doth not prove that he did not reign before with the Father in