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
or is not God This will easily appear from our Examination of his Arguments themselves which are these Argum. 1. P. 5. If Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than him But himself saith Joh. 14. 28. my Father is greater than I. Answ I deny the Consequence Because though the Son is less than the Father in some respects yet he is equal to the Father in others None of the former do destroy his Divinity but the letter do prove it For 1. The Son is less than the Father in regard of his Humane Nature and Offices But these we shall prove are not inconsistent with his Divinity And 2. In regard of his Sonship For the Father is of himself but the Son is of the Father Whence Episcopius infers a Subordination of Persons but yet establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity So the Nicene Fathers taught That the Son is God of God that is God of and from the Father but yet withall asserted That he is of the same Substance with the Father and consequently is God as the Father is And indeed this Subordination cannot destroy his Divinity because it doth not destroy his Nature For the Inequality arises not from the Essence but from the order and manner of subsistence But 3. In other respects the Son is equal to the Father this the Apostle asserts Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God viz. the Father Now if he thought it no robbery it could be no robbery and if no robbery he must be equal and if equal he must be God by Nature as the Father is This leads to the true sence of those words Being in the Form of God for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self strictly signifies not Substance so much as Accidents not so much the Nature as the Appearance of things whence Erasmus and the Socinians would have these words to signifie not that he is God but that he was like to God yet however the Apostle must here intend it Substantially that is his being in the Form of God must signifie that he is God as his being in the Form of a Servant signifies that he was a Servant And the Reason is because his equality with God is here inferred from his being in the Form of God but there cannot be an equality between a thing and the mere likeness of it between a real Nature and a bare similitude Whence Erasmus understood the force of the Word but not the reach of the Apostle's Argument Though Erasmus doth not deny the Divinity of the Son yet because he thinks this Text doth not respect his Nature I shall therefore oppose to his sence the Judgment of the Ancients as Arnob. Serap conflic l. 2. Novat de Trin. c. 17. Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 8. 10. Greg. Nys tom 2 cont Eunom Ora. 7. c. Which Judgment of theirs I shall confirm by these Arguments viz. 1. By the matter of the Apostle's Argument he was in the Form of God and in the Form of a Servant If this Text speaks him not God but like to God it must also speak him not a Servant but like to a Servant But that he was a Servant he saith himself Mat. 20. 28. I came to minister and therefore he must be God because the same Phrase and Sense applyed to each Nature must import the reality of the one as well as of the other 2. The order of the parts speaks our sense For being in the form of God i. e. While he was in the form of God he took upon him the form of a Servant therefore that form was before this But there was no such difference in the parts of his Life or Condition upon Earth that one should merit to be called the form of God the other the form of a Servant Therefore his being in the form of God must be antecedent to his humane Life 3. This was his choice and voluntary Act for he took upon him the form of a Servant But he had no liberty of choice in this world because his condition here was determined and foretold whence himself saith Luke 24. 44. That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me therefore this choice was before this life and consequently must be the Act of the Divine not of the Humane Nature So evidently doth this Text respect the Nature of Christ and therefore declare him to be equal to God the Father as being God by Nature as the Father is This Equality our Saviour himself doth prove Joh 5. 17. My Father works hitherto and I work whence the Jews concluded v. 18. that he made himself equal to God Upon which he doth not explain himself as if they mis-understood him which he did in the case of eating his flesh and drinking his blood But v. 19. he proves this equality what things soever the Father doth these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same the Son doth likewise Whence he must be equal to the Father in Operation and consequently in Power So Ambrose de fid l. 1. c. 13. and Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. Hence he requires v. 23. That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father which imports an equality of Honour flowing from an equality of Operation for the reason of the duty instructs us in the nature of the duty it self This Honour is owing from their works but they both do the same works therefore they must both have the same Honour Hence Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one that is not in concord only as the Socinian pretends but in power Because the context speaks not of Wills and Affections but of keeping his sheep none shall pluck them out of my hands because none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hands for which he gives this reason I and my Father are one which must be one in power And if they be one in power they must be one in Nature unless you make an Almighty Creature which is not only an absolute contradiction but also confounds the essential properties of God and the Creature which is a much viler Absurdity than they can with any shadows of Reason pretend against our Doctrine That gloss then of Athanasius cont Ari. Orat. 4. must be admitted viz. This shows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sameness of the God-head and the Unity of Power For indeed the abscribing to the Son the same Infinite Perfections and the same Honour but not the same Nature with the Father as the Socinian doth proclaims not only the perverseness of the Disputant but the Idolatry of the Professors too In that case of his being the Messias he sends Men to his works whose Nature and agreeableness to ancient Prophecies do sufficiently declare the point So here he first asserts his equality with the
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
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
with one consent apply it to Christ Mat. 3. 3. Mark 1 2 3. Luk. 3 4. and Joh. 1. 23. Where they all agree that the Voice in the Wilderness was the Baptist and that the way he was to prepare was the way of the Messias therefore according to their Application of Scripture the Prophet doth Stile the Son the Lord our God Observe farther that this Text calls the Messias Lord in the Hebrew it is Jehovah which we shall prove is an Incommunicable Name of God which therefore Asserts the Divinity of him to whom it is applyed And consequently the Prophet in this place declares him to be God in a proper Sense Compare Psal 46. 6 7. with Heb. 1. 8. and Psal 102. 25. with Heb. 1. 10. and you will find that according to the Apostle's Application of those Texts the Psalmist Ascribes to the Son an Everlasting Throne and the Creation of the World and certainly this Describes him not as the Seed of the Woman but as God § 4. This Pen having thus attack'd the Divinity of the Son now turns it self against that of the Holy Ghost affirming p. 16. that the Holy Ghost is only the Power and Inspiration of God at least is not himself God which they bold is ascertain'd by these Considerations Consid 1. The Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are spoken of as one and the same thing 1 Cor. 2. 4 5. Luke 1. 35. Ch. 11. 2c Mat. 12. 28. Luk. 24. 49. Compared with Act. 1. 4 5. Answ He is here to prove that the Holy Ghost is only the Power and Inspiration of God but is not himself God but these Texts say no such thing and consequently do not ascertain this Position 2. The Blessed Spirit is not properly the Inspiration of God but something distinct from it For 1 Cor. 12. 8 9 10. Wisdom Faith c. are given by the Spirit Whence Heb. 2. 4. they are called the Gifts of the Holy Ghost Hence each Text Distinguishes between the Spirit and these Gifts But neither of them are the Inspiration of God For Inspiration is the Act whereby the Holy Ghost Conveighs these Gifts to Men which v. 11. is called a dividing them This is clear from 2 Tim. 3. 16. all Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspired or given by the Inspiration of God Here Scripture is the gift or thing inspired God is the giver or inspirer therefore Inspiration can be but the Act whereby it is given or Inspired Therefore as the Graces before mentioned viz. Wisdom Faith c. are the Gifts of the Holy Ghost so the Holy Ghost must give them by way of Inspiration The Socinian then doth here confound the Agent and the Act making the Giver and the Giving the same thing which is as false and absurd as to say my Act of Donation is my Person 3. He Asserts that the Holy Ghost is only the Power of God that is as he often explains himself is neither God nor a Person But this is neither proved nor ever can be because such Power can know no more of God than a Grace or Vertue can do which are qualities not persons But 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God Whence the Spirit must be not a simple Power but a Person endowed with an Infinite knowledge and that can be no other than God What the Letter opposes the Scriptures are clear in for Act. 5. Ananias did lye to the Holy Ghost whence v. 4. saith he lyed not to Man but to God Therefore the Holy Ghost must be God Eniedinus who is much more Manly in his performances than this Epistler Parallels this of Ananias lying to the Holy Ghost and to God with the Jews Rejecting Samuel and God Thus the Jews Rejected Samuel immediately who was set over them but they Rejected God mediately who did set Samuel over them So Ananias lyed to the Holy Ghost immediately who was given to the Apostles But he lyed to God mediately who gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whence as the Jews did Sin differently against Samuel and God viz. immediately and mediately so did Ananias against the Holy Ghost and God whence he would have the Holy Ghost and God as much distinct as Samuel and God and that is essentially Answ That place as put by the Objector is not parallel with this For that saith they Rejected not Samuel but God but this doth not say that Ananias lyed not to the Holy Ghost but to God Therefore this Text doth not distinguish between the Holy Ghost and God as that doth between Samuel and God And consequently the Holy Ghost and God are not here made so distinct as Samuel and God But take these Texts right and we may allow a Parallel But then it must lye between Samuel and Peter and again between God and the Holy Ghost thus the Jews thought they Rejected Samuel only as Ananias thought he lyed to Peter only but saith God to Samuel they Reject not thee but me And saith Peter to Ananias thou hast lyed to the Holy Ghost that is not to Men but to God Therefore while that Text distinguishes between Samuel and God as different this Unites the Holy Ghost and God as the same Consid 2. p. 17. A Manifest Distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Ghost So that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself His Quotations are Rom. 5. 5. the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3. 36. ye are the Temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you and Rom. 8. 27. He the Spirit v. 26. makes intercession for the Saints according to the Will of God Answ He knows we grant there is a personal Distinction that as the Son so the Holy Ghost is not God the Father This is all these Texts do prove without which there could not be a Trinity But none of 'em prove that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God which is the design of this Consideration But because Rom. 8. 27. here quoted Ascribes Personal Acts to the Holy Ghost he makes Intercession Therefore that he may at once destroy his Divinity and Personality both he pleads that the Holy Ghost is spoke of as a Person by the same Figure that Charity is described as a Person 1 Cor. 13. 4 5. The Argument lyes thus Personal Acts cannot prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person because they cannot prove that Charity is a Person Answ This doth as effectually destroy the Personality of the Father and the Son as of the Holy Ghost For according to this Argument Personal Acts do not prove the Father or the Son to be Persons because they do not prove that Charity is a Person but that Argument which proves too much proves nothing at all 2. The Scriptures do Ascribe to the Holy Ghost not only those Personal Acts which they do not to
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
contends for where observe 1. What trust we may repose in Socinian Quotations for if he is so false where he makes a particular Reference what must the Reader expect where he only names an Author This Answer will prove what I here assert against the whole Party of 'em That throughout this Letter there is not one Quotation in seven but what is either false or not to his Purpose If they will have this an Argument of their Learning they may but I am sure it is no proof of their Honesty 2. The Socinian denies that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation but this Creed saith That he was before all Ages and made all things I demand therefore of our Socinians that they profess this Faith or acknowledge themselves the Perverters of Truth and Debauchers of Antiquity And indeed like the Harpies they rarely settle upon any place but they so pollute it that it wants a laborious Pen to cleanse and restore it to it self He hath then Presumption only but no colour of Proof that the Apostles composed this Creed We therefore proceed to the next part of our Argument 2. Though this Creed called the Apostles doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost yet it sufficiently teaches both For 1. It doth stile the Son his only Son which Words indeed in themselves import only this That he is a Son in such sort as none else is which the Socinian would perswade respects not his Divinity but his being born of a Virgin but take them together with the Scriptures whence they are themselves taken and by which they must be explained and then it will sufficiently appear that his only Son is a Son by Nature Whence S. Austin in Symb. l. 1. c. 2. Quando Unicum audis Dei filium agnosce Deum the only Son of God is God This some other Parts of our Dispute will evince so far as the Letter hath led us to this Argument But 2. As to the Holy Ghost he thinks nothing can be here pretended to prove him a Divine Person excepting only the Phrase of believing with the Preposition in which is set also before the Church and therefore can ascribe a Divinity to the one no more than to the other But his Thoughts are very short and dull For though this hath been a common Error which some at this day will hardly be drawn from yet we declare that we neither do nor need for the establishing this Doctrine hold any such force in this Phrase See Dr. Hammod's Practical Catechism lib. 5. Dr. Peirson and Heylen upon this Article who absolutely deny it because not this Creed only but all Antiquity apply it to Men and so do the Sacred Scriptures They instance in Exod. 14. 31. The People believed in the Lord and in Moses and 1 Sam. 27. 20. Achish believed in David To which we add that of our Blessed Saviour Joh. 5. 45. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom ye believe or trust as we translate it They with Musculus and others impute the Notion to S. Austin and Jerom whose Translation first omitted the Preposition in these Texts of the Old Testament which other Translations follow A little before these Fathers Greg. Naz. acknowledges the Preposition in the Translations of his time but yet saith this Phrase ought to be applied to none but the Lord for the People did believe in Moses not as Moses but as a Type of the Lord and consequently this did not terminate in Moses but did refer ultimately to the Lord. But he did not consider that Achish believed in David but he could not believe in David as a Type of the Lord when he knew neither the Lord nor that David was any Type at all Hence Ashwel took his Notion of the Peoples believing in Moses as subordinate to the Lord but there could be no such subordinate Faith in this Heathen Prince who yet believed in David This was therefore an Error growing and setling it self in the Church sometime before Jerom and Austin but however it was these two that fixed the Point and by that Omission in that Translation as well as otherwise occasioned others to e rt with them But you will say then where or how doth this Creed teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost I answer that the Son and the Holy Ghost are put into this Creed as equally Objects of Faith and Worship with the Father and this is the very thing that declares the Divinity of both Nor is this from Men but from God for it was so done upon the special Precept of our blessed Saviour in the form of Baptism which is the Original of all Creeds I confess the Fathers use this Phrase in their Disputes for a Trinity So Greg. Nys to 2. cont Eunom l. 1. if the Holy Ghost be not God Tì 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why do Men believe the H. Ghost But observe he doth not here Dispute from the sole force of that Phrase of believing in but from our believing in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father which makes the Blessed Spirit equally with the Father a sharer in our Faith and Adoration In this sense is Hila. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 9. who teaches that we cannot believe in the Father without the Son whence he concludes they must be the same in Nature But this Conclusion is drawn not from the Form of the Expression that we believe in but from the Matter expressed that they are both equally the Objects of our Faith And indeed there is no such Extravagance in the World as to teach that we believe in God in a Creature and a simple Power that he who will not give his Glory to another should set a meer Creature and a naked Power or Inspiration which is no Person equal with himself in the Faith and Adoration of his People So falsly doth this Letter pretend from this Creed that the Apostles did believe as the Socinians believe when neither did the Apostles compose it nor is it any way servicable to the Socinian Hypothesis SECT V. Now as if he had proved his Point when he had proved nothing but what we may safely grant him he concludes p. 24. parag 6. Theirs viz. the Socinians is an Accountable and a Reasonable Faith Answ A Faith just as Reasonable as this Inference For as this is drawn from no due Premises so that stands founded on neither Scripture nor good Argument A reasonable Faith indeed which makes a Finite God and an Infinite Creature Which denies the Son to be God and yet doth Worship him A reasonable Faith which cannot support itself without expunging some Texts out of the Sacred Canon without transposing the parts of others contrary to the Ancient and most Authentick Reading and without expounding some contrary to the very Letter and most evident Design of the place Socinus himself was so sensible of the reasonableness of this Faith that he not only rejects the sense of
Nature and Testimony too which Exposition doth not lose but secure the design of this Text. For since they are One in Nature and that Nature is Divine they must be One in Testimony and that Testimony must be infallible too because three Divine Persons who are one in Nature can neither agree in a false Testimony nor disagree in that Testimony they give Can we now think that this Doctrine which teaches there are Three who are but one God is false and impossible when it is so evidently founded on this and other concurring Texts which are the Word of Truth and which therefore can teach nothing which is false and impossible If any thing we teach seems absurd and contradictory or false and impossible as the Letter words it it is not from the Doctrine it self but from the Socinians Misrepresentation of it For 1. They say we teach that there are but One hereby suggesting to others and arguing themselves as if we mean in One respect only which is indeed impossible Whereas we teach that Three in one respect are but One in another which according to their own Doctrine takes away the Impossibility For the Socinian himself grants us upon these Words I and my Father are One that Two in one respect may be but One in another And if Two may be One why not Three Since the difficulty lies not between Two and One but between a Plurality whether they be Two or Three and an Vnity They allow the Thing it is only the Modus or Manner how Two or Three can be but One in which we differ Therefore since we so far agree they ought to set forth how we hold Three to be hut One together with our Reasons for this Doctrine which would lead even a prejudiced Reader to some deliberation and not by a partial and Sophistical Representation make our Doctrine seem prima facie absurd and impossible to the end they may huff off all consideration of it Indeed their manner of Vnion is common among Men but if ours is plainly founded on Divine Revelation as we maintain it is the singularity of the thing is not able to destroy the Thing it self and therefore ought in Justice to be so proposed as to leave Men to examine and consider it and not to be rejected without either 2. They say Let. p. 159. we teach there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them the true and most high God and yet there is but One true and most high God Ans We teach there are Three Divine Persons who together are the true and most high God They are every one a Divine Person or God as they have every one a Divine Nature but they are together the true and most high God as that Divine Nature is but One tho common to all Three The Distinction arises from the distinct manner of Subsistence but the Unity from the Sameness of Essence This speak Three that are God but not Three Gods because these are all within the Godhead as having but one and the same Substance and consequently can be but One God 3. Their Objections arise from the want of Parallel Instances in Nature whence they speak it absurd and impossible but the Absurdity lies on their side who measure Supernatural things by Natural and will believe nothing of God but what they see in the Creature as if an Infinite Nature must be in all things commensurable to the Nature and Thoughts of what is Finite 4. They declare it absurd and impossible because we cannot demonstrate the manner of it how Three can be but One when thâ— thing being matter of pure Revelation we had known nothing of it unless it had bâ—en Revealed and therefore now can know no more than is revealed Now it is revealed that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet these are not Three Gods but One God But how this is Revelation doth not tell us Therefore we are not absurd who teach what the Scriptures teach but they are absurd in demanding more The Church indeed uses the distinction of Personal and Essential that they are Three Personally and but One Essentially that is they are Three Persons and but One God Not that these Terms are fully and so clearly expressive of this Mystery as to remove all Cavils and Difficulties but that she may the best she can express her own Sense the Sense of Antiquity and the import of those Scriptures that respect a Trinity Let them give us more proper and significant Terms and we will use them but let them not reject a Divine Truth for the sake of those Terms which Heresie hath forced us to make use of 5. This method of theirs implies a whole train of Absurdities for we are to prove First That a thing is and then how it is If we prove the former that must be granted because proved though we should never be able to prove the Latter But they contrary to all the Rules of Art and method require us to prove how it is in order to their believing that it is And do reject that part which is proved only because the other is not According to this method they must deny a thousand things which they see which all Mankind will say is absurd with a witness They say p. 158 that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true that holds forth either a Doctrine or a Consequence that is absurd contradictory or Impossible Ans We readily grant it and such is that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned in the next Page For God is a Spirit but not a Body Because body is compounded of parts is subject to Dissolution and cannot be in all places at once therefore those Scriptures which ascribe humane parts to God cannot be true in a literal sense but only in an improper one And when these Men have proved such an absurdity contradiction ot impossibility in the Doctrine of a Trinity we will dispute no more They may indeed prove that three Men cannot be one or one Man three but as the Learned Bishop of Worcester Dr. Stillingfleet observes they can never prove that an infinite Nature cannot communicate it self to three different Subsistences without such a division as is among created Beings Because a Finite capacity can never comprehend the Powers and Operations of an infinite Nature So absurd are these Men as to decry revealed Truths for absurd and impossible only because they cannot understand them Should they do the like in natural things they would quickly become the contempt of Mankind We are not ashamed to own a Mystery in the Divine Nature when we find little but Mystery in common Nature her self Nor can we think it unreasonable that God should command us to believe that a thing is though he hath not told us how it is any more than it is unreasonable that Nature should oblige us to assent where the most refined reason can find no place of Entrance God
did ever maintain this Doctrine Athanas To. 1. cont Ari. Ora. 5. declares that the Government of the World is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by but One God Greg. Nâ—z who triumphed over Eunomius Ora. 35. observes that there are Three Opinions about God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anarchy which with Epicaras denies the Divine Government Pelyarchy which with the rest of the Gentiles asserts its Government by many Gods and Monarchy which is by but One God The two first he saith introduce Confusion while the last only can keep the World in Order And Euseb de Eccles Theol. l. 1. c. 11. observes that tho the Church teaches that Form meaning in the Nicene Creed God of God yet she designs hereby not Two Gods but Two persons in the God head Now had these Sveinians first destroyed this Notion by proving that a Trinity must import not Three persons in the God head but Three Gods and then valued themselves upon these Names of Monarchians and Vnitarians they had acted like Men But their insisting upon these terms without disproving our Doctrine speaks them as wretched as their Cause the one Barren the other Blind since both are forced to call in exploded Cavils to support them Hence he proceeds to Glory in some Men of Name among them as Theodotion and Symmachus both of whom Translated the Old Testament into Greek and by Eusebius are called Ebionites or Nazarens Ans Eusebius speaks them Ebionites but not a word there of a Nazaren under which name he vainly strives to sweeten himself and Party that they might seem to appear with some little face of honest Christianity We acknowledg their Translation of the Old Testament but being branded for Ebionites we must presume they denied great part of the New As for Symmachus he is expresly said to reject the Gospel of St. Matthew Therefore since our Socinians so passionately desire to pass for Ebionites that I may gratify 'em what I can I grant 'em there is one good reason why it should be so and that is as the Ebionites reject some parts of Scripture and corrupt others so do the Socinians too and now at length scoff at the Divine Authority of the Whole The matter is too plain to be denied I have sometimes heard it my self and know of persons that complain of some under their charge that are debauched in their Principles and Manners by such Doctrines But whether these are the strict fort of Socinians or Socinians at large viz. Atheists and Deists that now heard among them I think they ought to acquaint us But let old Theodotion and Symmachus be what they will what is the Glory of having these two on their side when the whole Church was against them It must be a miserable Crap where such gleanings are their Vintage But they have a third it seems Paulus of Samasatum p. 27 a Man both Learned and Eloquent Ans He did indeed deny the Divinity of the Son which is the only thing it seems that makes him great and good For Eusebius H. l. 7. c. 27. and the Synodical Letter c. 30. say He had neither Wealth nor Learning but made himself vastly rich by Sacriledg and Oppression His Pride was unmeasurable be walked the Streets with Guards He abolished the Psalms Sung in Honour of our Saviour and had others Sung in praise of himself He incouraged and protected the Wicked gaining to his side the worst of men Prateolus among other things saith He was proud and simple He taught that Christ was more for the Jewish than the Christian Religion whence he taught Circumcision Of a Beggar he became Rich by Sacriledg Oppression and Knavery These are the Characters of an Heretie which neither himself nor Friends could ever Answer and whom the vilest object would blush to own unless a Socinian who would fain Adorn themselves with this mans Glories like the wild Savages who dressed up themselves with the guts of Beasts His next man i Photinus of Siâ—mium who being deposed by the Council his City would not part from him till the Emperor sent an Army to Expel him Ans 1. Praleonus Haev l. 14. 25 saith Photinus held that Christ was a mere Man Ex utroque sexu natum born of both Sexes but this the Socinians deny for they hold he was Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin therefore this letter is false in reckning Photinus one of them 2. But however an Heretick he was and therefore a Party with the Socinians and it seems so dear to his City that the Emperor was obiiged to Expel him by an Army Suppose it yet had this man considered how often Constantius imposed his Arian Creatures by Force and sometimes Established 'em by Blood he must have expected to lose more than he thought to have gained by this Plea 3. This is an Appeal from the Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical to the Mob an Argument that his Heresie had left him but few if any Friends of Sense and Judgment He proceeds to Eusebius H. l. 5. c. 2 and Theodoret. Haer. Fab. c. 2. de Artem. And pretends they say that these Nazarens constantly affirmed that they derived their Doctrine from the Apostles And that it was the genenal Doctrine of the Church till the Popes Victor and Zepherine set themselves to root it up Ans Neither of these in the places quoted mention a Nazaren But the Heresie of Arlemon renewed by Paulus Samofatensis who taught that Christ is no more than Man Eusebius saith indeed there were some who affirmed that all the Antients and the Apostles themselves taught this Doctrine and that it continued till Victor and Zepherine But he calls this an impiouse Lye and proceeds Perhaps this might seem credible did not the sacred Scriptures and the Writings of certain Brethren more Antient than Victor contradict them I mean Justin Miltiades Tatian Clemens and many others in all whose Books the Divinity of Christ is taught For who knows not the Writings of Irenaeus Melito c in which Christ is set forth as both God and Man The Psalms and Canticles of the Brethren written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning ascribe a Divinity to him Seeing then this was so long since the Doctrine of the Church how can it be that all men to the time of Victor could teach that Doctrine which these men hold Theodoret in the place cited saith that Artemon pretended the Apostles taught that Christ was a mere Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perverting the sense of the Sacred Scriptures This exactly agrees with that of Eusebius Therefore this Letter wisely refers us to those very places of Antiquity which declare that Doctrine to be Heresie and condemn the Maintainers of it of Falshood and Impudence which yet it self would support He told us the Socinians are Learned and Reasonable Men but I hope this is not one of his Proofs of it However the Letter proceeds Victor
say the Socinians began to persecute the Apostolic Doctrine of One God or which is the same that God is One in the Year 194 but with little success till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians grew into general credit for Justin Martyr Origen and other principal Fathers teaching as the Arians afterwards did that the Father is before the Son and the Holy Ghost in Time Dignity and Power yet that the Word or Son was ereated sometime before the World and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son Ans The Letter tells us That the Socinians say this and indeed it may pass for a Socinian Story for it hath not one Word of Truth in it For 1. The Doctrine of One God or that God is One that is One person as they explain it never was the Apostolic Doctrine as Eusâ—bius now quoted by himself doth declare both from the Scriptures and from the most ancient Fathers as well as from the Hymns composed in honour of Christ from the beginning of the Cospel 2. The Doctrine of One God or that God is One that is not One person exclusive of other persons but One God exclusive of other Gods was the Doctrine of the Apostles and Apostolic Men appears from the same place in Eusebius and from all the same Topicks already mentioned 3. That Victor did persecute and root out the Heresie be contends for doth not appear from any Monuments of those times nor is in any reason to be supposed because that Heresie had not then obtained in that Church and what he did was only according to the common Rules and Practice of the Church to quash this Heresie in its beginning 4. The Letter makes it that that pretended Persecutition did little succeed till it was assisted by the Doctrine of Justin Martyr and Origen which supposes that their Doctrine began under that Persecution which is impossible for this Persecution the Letter saith began A. D. 194. but Justin suffered about 30 years before that time and Origen did not appear till the middle of the Age after And 5. Neither these nor any other Fathers from the Apostles to Origen did ever teach any such Doctrine which might be easily proved by an induction of Particulars so far as their Works are come down to our hands Justin Martyr saith indeed Apol. p. 60. that beside the Father we worship the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second place and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third Now here is a Priority of Order or Prace but where is that of Time and Power Not in this Father I am sure but in the Socinian Comment only We charge him with Falshood let him clear himself by a particular Reference What Justin here saith ever was and still is the Doctrine of the Church So Novat de Trin. c. 31. Pater qua pater the Father as Father is before the Son and yet he declares that the Son is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father which speaks as we said a Priority of Order or Place but not of Time because the Father and Son are co-eternal This must necessarily be the Sense of our Justin for in the same Apology p. 64. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We worship God only Wence any Man in his Wits must conclude that they held that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God Else how could they worship all Three and yet worship none but God And if they are God they cannot be after the Father in Time or Power but must be co-eternal and co-equal with him Had Justin taught that the Son and Holy Ghost are after the Father in time and yet had worshipp'd them he would hereby have totally ruin'd the very Reason and Design of this as well as of other Apologies which were purposely written to justifie the Christians who suffered any thing rather than worship the Gentile Gods for this very Reason that they were not from Eternity and consequently were not Gods but Creatures Our Socinian it seems thinks it enough to Name an Author tho he can find nothing in him to his purpose having neither Authority nor Argument for what he saith Iren l. 3. c 26. Indeavours to prove that the Son is God by Nature and after some time spent on this Argument thus diligenter igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus per ea quae dicta sunt generationen ejus quae ex Virgine substatiam quoniam deus The blessed Spirit diligently signifies by what things are spoken his Generation which is of the Virgin and his substance as he is God By his Generation he intends his humane Nature and by his Substance as God the Divine This he saith is expressed Isa 7. 14. by that word Immanuel God with us of God in our Nature He proceeds his humanity appeaâ—s from his eating Butter and Hony and his Divinity from his choosing the good and refusing the Evil v. 15. This last he saith is added least by his eating Butter and Hony mude solummodo eum hominem intelligeremus we should think he is merely Man And again the Word Immanuel intimates that we cannot see God in his own Nature but as he is manifested in our's It is therefore impossible that Irenaeus should hold that the Son is God as to Title or Office only as the Arians afterwards did when he so plainly teaches that he understood him to be God in the Trinitarian sense and that is in Substance or Nature This shows what sense we are to take him in l. 1. c. 2. where he lays down this as one Article in the Christian Faith that Christ is Lord and God which Faith he faith the Church throughout the World received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the Apostles and Apostolic Men And c. 3. this Faith the Church keeps as if she had but one Soul and but one Heart where observe 1. That God must here signifie God by Nature or Substance because he so explained himself in the place before quoted 2. It is impossible that the Doctrine against the Divinity of the Son could be the Doctrine of the Church from the Apostles to Victor when the Deity of the Son was the Doctrine of the whole Church from the Apostles to Irenaeus who was cotemporary with Victor as appears from the Fragments of his Epistle to this Victor himself in Euseb H. l. 5. c. 24. Clemens of Alexandria who flourished under Victor and Zepherine both is as clear in this matter â—as Pen can write for he not only saith adm ad Gent. that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both God and Man and Paed. l. 2. he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I can render no better than in the Words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Fiesh but he also ascribes those things to the Son which all Men must grant us can be true of none but God For Strom. l. 7. the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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.