World And if the Author of this Epistle does affirm these words of the Psalmist to be spoken of Christ then they must acknowledge Christ to be the true God who made Heaven and Earth But the Author of this Epistle does as evidently affirm these words to be spoken to or of Christ as he does the words of any other Text cited in this Chapter And for this I appeal to the common sense of every man that reads them These Interpreters indeed are contented that the latter part of this Citation should be spoken of Christ but not the former But why not the former as well as the latter when they have so expresly told us that all the words of this Psalm are manifestly spoken of God What is the mystery of this Could they not as easily have interpreted the former part which speaks of the Creation of Heaven and Earth concerning the moral World and the new Creation or Reformation of Mankind by Jesus Christ and his Gospel as well as so many other plain Texts to the same purpose No doubt they could as well have done it and have set as good a face upon it when they had done it But why then did they not do it It was for a reason which they had no mind to tell but yet is not hard to be guessed at namely that if they had admitted the former words to have been spoken of Christ they knew not what to do with the latter part of this Citation They shall perish but thou remainest they shall wax old as agarment and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed What shall perish and wax old and be changed Why the Earth and the Heavens which the Son had made that is the moral World the Reformation of Mankind and the new Creation of things by the Gospel All these must have undergone the same fate with the natural World and must not only have been defaced but utterly destroy'd and brought to nothing This they would not say but they did see it tho they would not seem to see it And we may plainly see by this that they can interpret a Text right when necessity forceth them to it and they cannot without great inconvenience to their Cause avoid it But when men have once resolv'd to hold fast an Opinion they have taken up it then becomes not only convenient but necessary to understand nothing that makes against it And this is truly the present case But in the mean time where is ingenuity and love of Truth And thus I have with all the clearness and brevity I could search'd to the very foundations of this new Interpretation of this Passage of the Evangelist upon which the Divinity of the Son of God is so firmly established and likewise of the gross misinterpretations of several other Texts to the same purpose in this Evangelist and in other Books of the New Testament All which Interpretations I have endeavoured to shew to be not only contrary to the sense of all Antiquity of which as Socinus had but little knowledge so he seems to have made but little account but to be also evidently contrary to the perpetual tenour and style of the H. Scripture Before I go off from this Argument I cannot but take notice of one thing wherein our Adversaries in this Cause do perpetually glory as a mighty advantage which they think they have over us in this Point of the Divinity of the Son of God and consequently in that other Point of the B. Trinity namely that they have Reason clearly on their Side in this Controversy and that the Difficulties and Absurdities are much greater and plainer on our part than on theirs Here they are pleas'd to triumph without modesty and without measure And yet notwithstanding this I am not afraid here likewise to join issue with them and am contented to have this matter brought to a fair Trial at the Bar of Reason as well as of Scripture expounded by the general Tradition of the Christian Church I say by general Tradition which next to Scripture is the best and surest confirmation of this great Point now in question between us and that which gives us the greatest and truest light for the right understanding of the true sense and meaning of Scripture not only in this but in most other important Doctrines of the Christian Religion I am not without some good hopes I will not say confidence for I never thought that to be so great an advantage to any Cause as some men would be glad to make others believe it is hoping to help and support a weak Argument by a strong and mighty confidence But surely modesty never hurt any Cause and the confidence of man seems to me to be much like the wrath of man which St. James tells us worketh not the righteousness of God that is it never does any good it never serves any wise and real purpose of Religion I say I am not without some good hopes that I have in the foregoing Discourses clearly shewn that the tenour of Scripture and general Tradition are on our Side in this Argument and therefore I shall not need to give my self the trouble to examine this matter over again Now as to the Point of Reason the great Difficulty and Absurdity which they object to our Doctrine concerning this Mystery amounts to thus much that it is not only above Reason but plainly contrary to it As to its being above Reason which they are loth to admit any thing to be this I think will bear no great Dispute Because if they would be pleased to speak out they can mean no more by this but that our Reason is not able fully to comprehend it But what then Are there no Mysteries in Religion That I am sure they will not say because God whose infinite Nature and Perfections are the very Foundation of all Religion is certainly the greatest Mystery of all other and the most incomprehensible But we must not nay they will not for this reason deny that there is such a Being as God And therefore if there be Mysteries in Religion it is no reasonable Objection against them that we cannot fully comprehend them Because all Mysteries in what kind soever whether in Religion or in Nature so long and so far as they are Mysteries are for that very reason incomprehensible But they urge the matter much further that this particular Mystery now under debate is plainly contrary to Reason And if they can make this good I will confess that they have gained a great Point upon us But then they are to be put in mind that to make this good against us they must clearly shew some plain Contradiction in this Doctrine which I could never yet see done by any Great Difficulty I acknowledge there is in the explication of it in which the further we go beyond what God hath thought fit to reveal to us in Scripture concerning it the more we
to mean no more but the Chief of the Angels These were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dii Superi and Dij Caelestes superior and heavenly Gods The Scripture terms them the Host of Heaven meaning the Sun Moon and Stars which they supposed to be animated or at least to be inhabited by Angels or glorious Spirits whom they called Gods Other of their Deities were accounted much inferior to these being supposed to be the Souls of their deceased Heroes who for their great and worthy Deeds when they lived upon Earth were supposed after Death to be translated into the number of their Gods And these were called Semidei and Deastri that is half Gods and a sort of Gods And as the other were Celestial so these were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of Terrestrial Spirits that were Presidents and Procurators of Human affairs here below that is a middle sort of Divine Powers that were Mediators and Agents between God and Men and did carry the Prayers and Supplications of Men to God and bring down the Commands and Blessings of God to Men. But in the midst of all this Crowd and confusion of Deities and the various Superstitions about them the Wiser Heathen as Thales Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle Tully Plutarch and others preserved a true Notion of One Supreme God whom they defined an infinite Spirit pure from all Matter and free from all imperfection And all the variety of their Worship was as they pretended in excuse of it but a more particular owning of the various representations of the Divine Power and Excellencies which manifested themselves in the World and of the several communications of Blessings and Favours by them imparted to Men and Tertullian observes that even when Idolatry had very much obscured the Glory of the Sovereign Deity yet the greater part of Mankind did still in their common Forms of Speech appropriate the Name of God in a more especial and peculiar manner to One saying If god grant If God please and the like So that there is sufficient ground to believe that the Unity of the Divine Nature or the Notion of One Supreme God Creator and Governor of the World was the Primitive and general belief of Mankind And that Polytheism and Idolatry were a corruption and degeneracy from the Original Notion which Mankind had concerning God as the Scripture-History doth declare and testify And this account which I have given of the Heathen Idolatry doth by no means excuse it For whatever may be said by way of extenuation in behalf of some few of the wiser and more devout among them the generality were grossly guilty both of believing more Gods and of worshipping false Gods And this must needs be a very great Crime since the Scripture every where declares God to be particularly jealous in this Case and that he will not give his glory to another nor his praise to graven Images Nay we may not so much as make use of sensible Images to put us in mind of God lest devout Ignorance seeing the Worship which Wise men paid towards an Idol should be drawn to terminate their Worship there as being the very Deity it self which was certainly the Case of the greatest part of the Heathen World And surely those Christians are in no less danger of Idolatry who pay a Veneration to Images by kneeling down and praying before them and in this they are much more inexcusable because they offend against a much clearer Light and yet when they go about to justify this Practice are able to bring no other nor better Pleas for themselves than the Heathen did for their worshipping of Images and for praying to their inferior Deities whom they looked upon as Mediators between the Gods in Heaven and Men upon Earth There is but one Objection that I know of against the general Consent of Mankind concerning the Unity of God and it is this That there was an ancient Doctrine of some of the most ancient Nations that there were two First Causes or Principles of all things the one the Cause of all Good and the other of all the Evil that is in the World The reason whereof seems to have been that they could not apprehend how things of so contrary a nature as Good and Evil could proceed from one and the same Cause And these two Principles in several Nations were called by several Names Plutarch says that among the Greeks the Good Principle was called God and the Evil Principle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Devil In conformity to which ancient Tradition the Manichees a Sect which called themselves Christians did advance two Principles the one infinitely Good which they supposed to be the Original Cause of all the good which is in the World the other infinitely Evil to which they ascribed all the evils that are in the World But all this is very plainly a corruption of a much more ancient Tradition concerning that old Serpent the Devil the Head of the fallen Angels who by tempting our First Parents to transgress a positive and express Law of God brought Sin first into the World and all the Evils consequent upon it of which the Scripture gives us a most express and particular account And as to the Notion of a Being infinitely Evil into which this Tradition was corrupted after Idolatry had prevailed in the World besides that it is a Contradiction it would likewise be to no purpose to assert two opposite Principles of infinite that is of equal force and Power for two Infinites must of necessity be equal to one another because nothing can be more or greater than infinite and therefore if two infinite Beings were possible they would certainly be equal and could not be otherwise Now that the Notion of a Principle infinitely Evil is a Contradiction will be very plain if we consider that what is infinitely Evil must in strict Reasoning and by necessary consequence be infinitely imperfect and therefore infinitely weak and for that reason though never so malicious and mischievous yet being infinitely weak and foolish could never be in a capacity either to contrive mischief or to execute it But if it should be admitted that a Being infinitely mischievous could be infinitely knowing and powerful yet it could effect no Evil because the opposite Principle of infinite Goodness being also infinitely Wise and Powerful they would tye up one another's hands So that upon this supposition the Notion of a Deity must signify just nothing because by virtue of the eternal opposition and equal conflict of these two Principles they would keep one another at a perpetual Baye and being just an equal Match to one another the one having as much mind and power to do good as the other to do evil instead of being two Deities they would be but two Idols able to do neither good nor evil And having I hope now sufficiently cleared this Objection I shall proceed to shew how agreeable this Principle that there is but
now to grapple withal And this I hope I have in some measure done in one of the former Discourses Nor indeed do I see that it is any ways necessary to do more it being sufficient that God hath declared what he thought fit in this matter and that we do firmly believe what he says concerning it to be true though we do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of all that he hath said about it For in this and the like Cases I take an Implicite Faith to be very commendable that is to believe whatever we are sufficiently assured God hath revealed though we do not fully understand his meaning in such a Revelation And thus every man who believes the H. Scriptures to be a truly Divine Revelation does implicitely believe a great part of the Prophetical Books of Scripture and several obscure expressions in those Books though he do not particularly understand the meaning of all the Predictions and expressions contained in them In like manner there are certainly a great many very good Christians who do not believe and comprehend the Mysteries of Faith nicely enough to approve themselves to a Scholastical and Magisterial Judge of Controversies who yet if they do heartily embrace the Doctrines which are clearly revealed in Scripture and live up to the plain Precepts of the Christian Religion will I doubt not be very well approved by the Great and Just and by the infallibly Infallible Judge of the World III. Let it be further considered That though neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery be any where to be met with in Scripture yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and H. Ghost in whose Name every Christian is baptized and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another as we use to speak of three several Persons So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture yet these Three are there expresly and frequently mentioned and a Trinity is nothing but three of any thing And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father Son and H. Ghost yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word whereby to express the distinction of these Three For which reason I could never yet see any just cause to quarrel at this term For since the H. Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another as we use in common speech to distinguish three several Persons I cannot see any reason why in the explication of this Mystery which purely depends upon Divine Revelation we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth And though the word Person is now become a â—erm of Art I see no cause why we should decline it so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other Words IV. It deserves further to be considered That there hath been a very ancient Tradition concerning three real Differences or Distinctions in the Divine Nature and these as I said before very nearly resembling the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity Whence this Tradition had its original is not easie upon good and certain grounds to say but certain it is that the Jews anciently had this Notion And that they did distinguish the Word of God and the H. Spirit of God from Him who was absolutely called God and whom they looked upon as the First Principle of all things as is plain from Philo Judaeus and Moses Nachmanides and others cited by the Learned Grotius in his incomparable Book of the Truth of the Christian Religion And among the Heathen Plato who probably enough might have this Notion from the Jews did make three Distinctions in the Deity by the Names of essential Goodness and Mind and Spirit So that whatever Objections this matter may be liable to it is not so peculiar a Doctrine of the Christian Religion as many have imagined though it is revealed by it with much more clearness and certainty And consequently neither the Jews nor Plato have any reason to object is to us Christians especially since they pretend no other ground for it but either their own Reason or an ancient Tradition from their Fathers whereas we Christians do appeal to express Divine Revelation for what we believe in this matter and do believe it singly upon that account V. It is besides very considerable That the Scriptures do deliver this Doctrine of the Trinity without any manner of doubt or question concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature And not only so but do most stedfastly and constantly assert that there is but One God And in those very Texts in which these three Differences are mentioned the Unity of the Divine Nature is expresly asserted as where St. John makes mention of the Father the Word and the Spirit the Unity of these Three is likewise affirmed There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. VI. It is yet further considerable That from this Mystery as delivered in Scripture a Plurality of Gods cannot be inferred without making the Scripture grosly to contradict it self which I charitably suppose the Socinians would be as loth to admit as we our selves are And if either Councils or Fathers or Schoolmen have so explained this Mystery as to give any just ground or so much as a plausible colour for such an Inference let the blame fall where it is due and let it not be charged on the H. Scriptures but rather as the Apostle says in another Case Let God be true and every Man a liar VIIthly and Lastly I desire it may be considered That it is not repugnant to Reason to believe some things which are incomprehensible by our Reason provided that we have sufficient ground and reason for the belief of them Especially if they be concerning God who is in his Nature Incomprehensible and we be well assured that he hath revealed them And therefore it ought not to offend us that these Differences in the Deity are incomprehensible by our finite understandings because the Divine Nature it self is so and yet the belief of that is the Foundation of all Religion There are a great many things in Nature which we cannot comprehend how they either are or can be As the Continuity of Matter that is how the parts of it do hang so fast together that they are many times very hard to be parted and yet we are sure that it is so because we see it every day So likewise how the small Seeds of things contain the whole Form and Nature of the things from which they proceed and into which by degrees they grow and yet we