Geo. Royse, RRmo. in Christo Patri, ac Dom. Dom Johanni, Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest.
Novemb. 21. 1692.

[Page] AN ANSWER TO THE Brief History OF THE Unitarians, Called also SOCINIANS.

Prov. 18. 17.

He that is first in his own Cause seems just; but his Neighbour comes, and searches him.

By William Basset, Rector of St. Smithin, London.

London, Printed, and Sold by Randal Taylor, near Stationers-Hall, 1693.

[Page] TO THE Most Reverend Father in God, JOHN, By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop OF Canterbury, Primate of England, and Metropolitan, and One of Their Majesties Most Ho­nourable Privy-Council.

IT is the Design of these Papers to baffle and expose those Little Pleas and Objections which the Late Author of the Socinian Letters hath [Page] urged against the Divinity of the Son.

My Lord,

This Cause doth merit, as well as the Author want your Grace's Pa­tronage; For which Reason I hum­bly presume to prefix so Great a Name, not doubting but they will meet with what Favour they may ei­ther deserve or want. That that God who hath raised, would preserve, guide and strengthen you in those Undertakings which so great a Place doth call, and so Pious a Mind, more Large and Rich than that Place it self doth dispose you to, for the well­governing the Church, and the Uni­ting us in the True Faith, and in all the Designs and Interests of Religi­on, is the earnest Prayer of

Your Grace's Most Humble Servant, William Basset.


WHen I first met with these Socinian Letters, and found that words, and fallacy were their whole composition; I could not but think them so unlike their Patrons, or their Patrons so unlike the Cha­racter they affect, which is to be men of Wit and Reason, that I Judged them not Wor­thy an answer. But since it appears that these, like some other the worst things a­mong us, do not want their admirers, I thought this performance my duty.

In it I have answered not only the first of these letters, but divers parts of the rest, as well as some things in more manly writ­ers, as Eriedinus, Crellius, &c. By calling in the other letters to asist this, and other Socinian authors, to supply the weakness of them all, I put the Objections, in their full strength, to the end their overthrow may be the more conspicuos to the world, and the more sensible to themselves. If they venture [Page] upon argument, and do any thing, that affects the cause, I am ready to support it, But if they only load me with words, and cavils, I must neglect them.

If these labours are succesful in recover­ing any, whom this Heresy hath infected, and in preserving those, who yet are whole; and hereby in giving any check to the growing errors, and prophaness of the age, I shall place the time spent upon this argu­ment among my happy minutes. That it may be productive of such blessed effects, was the hope, and design, and shall be the pray­ers of

Yours, W. B.

AN ANSWER To the FIRST of the Four LETTERS, INTITULED, A Brief History.

SECT. 1.

These Letters are Intituled, A Brief Histo­ry; yet instead of History you find little, if any, but an abuse of divers Authors in the end of the First. A Title as foreign from the Letters, as the Letters from the Truth, that is, neither to the point.

THat term [Ʋnitarian] is put as a di­stinction between them and us: take it as it signifies him, who believes one only God, exclusive of all others; [Page 2] and then it makes a distinction without a difference; for we are as intirely in that Faith, as the Socinian can be: but as they make it signify one, who believes the Father only to be God, exclusive of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, I must de­clare it a term suitable to these Letters, i. e. full of Error, and Blasphemy.

That word [Socinian] we leave to the Followers of Socinus, who (their belov­ed Sandius saith) differed from all the World; which proclaims those under this denomination, Men of Novelty and Error.

The Title Page quotesAct. 17. 11.They searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Answ. St.Basil saith ofEunomius, tom. 1. l. 5 [...], [...]. Thou seekest, that thou may'st find, not Faith, but Infidelity; not to discover a Truth, but to establish an Error. This (I fear) we shall find too true of our Socini­ans; who wrest the Rule of Truth [...]o their own prejudicate Opinions. Sure I am, did men sincerely follow this ex­ample, we should find but few of this [Page 3] perswasion; since their Heresy is found­ed not upon Scripture, but upon those false Glosses, and Sophistical Evasions, which make the Scriptures of none effect.

The Preamble to the Letter pretends, that his Friend demands an account of theSocinians. Their Doctrine concerning God (in which only they differ from other Christians) the Remonstrantsprofessedly agreeing with them in other points of Faith, and Doctrine.

Answer, Their Doctrine concerning God is, That the Father only is God; P. 4. But that they differ from other Christians in other points beside this, is notorious to the world.

They own the Arians to be Chri­stians, and Ʋnitarians, because they agree with themselves in this Do­ctrine; P. 33. But the Arians a­scribe to the Son the Creation of the World, while the Socinians deny his Existence before the Incarnation: Therefore either the Arians are no Christians, or the Socinians differ from other Christians in other Do­ctrines besides this.

[Page 4] But he would prove that in other points the Socinians agree with other Christians, because in other points they agree with the Remonstrants: Which implyes,

1. That there is no difference be­tween themselves, and the Remon­strants, but this; which is well known to be false, And

2. That themselves, and Remonstrants are all the Christians in the World: Because he makes it, that their agree­ment with these doth prove their a­greement with other Christians; but this is false too: Because these Remon­strants were condemned by the Synod at Dort about the five Propositions.

You have then a double falshood in the compass of this one Paren­thesis; the one in inlarging the number of his Friends; the other in lessen­ing the number of his Errors. The design of which must be to perswade the Reader, That there is but one step between the Orthodox Faith, and this Heresy, to the end he may the more easily decoy 'em into it. [Page 5] According to this beginning you must expect but little, if any truth, and honesty in this Letter, which we shall now consider.


He saith, P. 4. That—Christ was a Man, the Son, Prophet, Messenger, Minister, Servant, and Creature of God; not himself God, they think is proved by these (as they call them) Arguments.

Answer. I Am glad to find any mo­desty in a Socinian, for they [call] them Arguments; and they [think] they prove: But with better assurances we declare they are no Arguments, nor do they prove the point in Controversy: For though they prove that Christ is Man, yet they do not prove he is no more than Man, or is not God. This will easily appear from our Examination of his Arguments themselves, which are these,

[Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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; [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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. [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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.

[Page 14] 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 isHeb. 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 [Page 15] 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.

[Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] did not want it. And the fallen Angels were denyed it.

The same Letter 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 non­sense.

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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] every Creature the Word, i. e. the Son, did glorifie his Father, and was glo­rified by him. By which this Father doth speak,

1. His Existence before all Creatures: For every thing did glorifie it's maker so soon as it did exist; but the Son did glorifie his Father before all Creatures, and consequently did exist before them. And,

2. His Divinity. For had Irenaeus numbred the Son with the Creatures, as the first of them in the Arian sence; or as the last of them in the Socinian; he must have worded it with some respect to them, as thus, before all [other] Crea­tures: or the first of all Creatures; the Son did glorifie, &c. but this form di­stinguishes him from all Creatures, not as one of them, but as being already di­stinct from, as well as before them all.

The Son then was before the World, i.e. before the Creation, and consequent­ly before all creatures, which was the thing to be proved; whence it follows, that there is no necessity of taking those Texts, which ascribe Creation to him in an improper sense; and if no necessi­ty, they must be taken in a proper one; [Page 26] because all Scriptures must be taken pro­perly; unless that sense doth contradict some other Scripture; which is not in the case before us, because no Text saith the Son did not, or that the Father only did create the World.

2. Since the Son was before the world, he must be from Eternity; because the Scriptures no where suggest a creation between Eternity and Time: But on the contrary, Moses declares that the creation of the World was the beginning, viz. of the creature, and consequently there could be no creature before it. Whence in the Scripture-Phrase to be in the beginning, that is, before the world; and to be from Eternity, are the same thing. For wisdom doth thus express her Eternal Existence, Prov. 8. 22, 23. He possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was: and v. 24, 25. when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no Fountains abounding with water: before the mountains were setled, before the Hills was I brought forth. Thus to be in the beginning, and to be before the world, are Phrases, [Page 27] which the Spirit uses to express the Eter­nal existence of wisdom: but the Son was in the beginning, Joh. 1. 1. he was before all things, Colos. 1. 17. and before the world, Joh. 17. 5. therefore the same Phrases must as well express the Eternal existence of the Son too.

If the Son then was any where called a creature, it must be restrained to his man-hood, as his descent from Abraham is, Rom. 9. 5. it was [...] as to the flesh: which restriction must imply that there is something excepted, as to which he is no creature; and as to which he did not descend from Abraham; which can be no other than the Divine Nature: whence the next words say, he is over all God blessed for ever. Irenaeus l. 3 c. 18. reads it thus, Exquibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula. Of whom Christ was according to the Flesh, who is God over all blessed for e­ver: and Tert. adv. Prax. c. 13. thus,—who is Deussuper omnia benedictus in aevum omne: God over all blessed for ever: which Reading is farther from the Socinian Conceit of its being a thanksgiving for Christ, Thus, who is over all God be blessed for ever, than our Translation is. From [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28] this Text, which the Socinians have so miserably disguised, not these Fathers only, but the first Ages of Christianity too, have always pleaded the Divinity of the Son.

He continues his Argument from 1. Cor. 3. 32. Christ is God's: that is (saith he) God's Subject; and this he fansies must be God's creature.

Answ. Why not God's Son, since the Scriptures so often call him so? but if it must be [God's Subject] yet it can do him no Service: For he is his Subject in regard of his Humane Nature, and Offi­ces: Nay, his Subordination to the Fa­ther, as Son; the Apostle (as we shall show) calls a Subjection: which will ap­pear to be so far from affecting his Di­vinity, that it gives light, and strength, to this Doctrine.

He cites Mat. 12. 17, 18. behold my Servant.

His Argument lyes thus,p. 5.If Christ were God, it could not without blasphemy be (absolutely, and without restriction) affirmed of him, that he is the servant of God.

Answ. It is not affirmed of him abso­lutely, and without restriction, but in reference to his Humane Nature, and [Page 29] Offices: and till the Socinian doth prove that it is absolutely affirmed of him, i. e. that Christ is in all respects a Servant, and not in some only; it hath not so much as the face of an Argument.

His next Scripture isPhil. 2. 8, 9.he hum­bled himself, and became obedient to death, therefore God hath highly exalted him.

Answ. His obedience to death, doth indeed prove that he is man, for else he could not dye: this we all grant: but nei­ther this, nor his Exaltation can ever prove he is not God, which is the thing in controversie. The truth of this will appear from our explication of his next Scripture, which is,

1Cor. 15. 28.Then shall the son also be subject to him, who put all things under him. Which subjection he conceits destroys his Divinity.

Ans. [Then] shall the Son be subject; that is, at the end of the world, v. 24. which implies that till then he is in some respect not subject; which is a demon­stration of his Divinity. For all crea­tures are in all points his Subjects; there­fore if there is any one respect, in which the Son is not subject, then the Son must be God.

Now his non-subjection is this, that [Page 30] now he hath a Kingdom, viz. The Church given by the Father, in which he reigns himself as Mediator, whence V. 25. He must reign. This Kingdom the Church is separate from the Dominion of the Father, which is the World: Therefore so far as he reigns in this Kingdom, so far he reigns separate from the Father, and that is not subject to him. Hence he saith, Matt. 28. 18. All Power is given me: Phil 2. 9. God hath highly exalted him; and again Psal. 2. 9. I have set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion. But at the end of the World, He shall deliver up this Kingdom to the Father, V. 24. And then he shall reign no other­wise than as subordinate to the Father, as Son; which the Text expresses by [subject to the Father]. Whence it must be granted, that when he saith, the Father commands and sends me, &c. These were spoken, and ought to be un­derstood, antecedent to this exaltation.

To close this Argument. On the one hand this exaltation proves no more than this, That the Son hath now a King­dom, which he had not before; but it doth not prove that he did not reign be­fore with the Father in the Government of the World: And on the other hand, [Page 31] this subjection proves that the Son shall resign this Kingdom, but it doth not prove, he shall not reign with the Father for ever: Because this subjection is not a subjection of the creature to God, but a subordination of one Person to another in the Sacred Trinity.

Argum. 3.P. 6, 7. The true God is not the Minister, or Priest of any other.But Christ is the minister, and Mediator of God, and Men; Heb. 8. 6.He hath ob­tained a more excellent Ministry:ch. 2. 17.He is a faithful High-Priest.—

Answ. These Texts respect not his Nature, but his Offices; and therefore do not deny his Divinity. For the same Apostle applies to him those Scriptures, which can be spoke of none but God; as Psal. 45. 6, 7. Thy Throne, O God, is for ever, and ever: Which Heb. 5. 8. declares that God spoke of his Son: And Psal. 102. 25. Thou hast laid the foundations of the Earth; and the Heavens are the work of thy hands: This also V. 10. applies to the Son.

These Texts are sufficiently vindica­ted by the learned Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. Sherlook, who shows that this word [God] Psal. 45. 6. is not a Nomina­tive, and is not spoke of the [Page 32] Father, as the Socinians, and particular­ly this Letter from Eniedinus, would have it; who render it [God is thy Throne] i. e. The Father is a Throne to the Son: But it is an Attick Vocative, and consequently can be spoke of no other than the Son, whom it stiles [God] and to whom it ascribes an Everlasting Dominion: As the other Psalm doth the creation of the World. Those very Socinians, who have read this answer, do yet still insist upon their own sence, without taking any notice of that an­swer; which is an evident Argument they do not pursue the discovery of Truth, but only serve their own Hypothesis.

Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 4. c. 15. ar­gues the same thing from the Hebrews, and Aquila's Version. And sure I am that from hence the Apostolick Ages did always assert the Divinity of the Son. Thus Just. M. Dial. Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 7. Orig. cont. Cels. l. 1. Cypr. adv. Judae. &c. And certainly since each Testa­ment, viz. the Old in its Doctrine, and the New in the express application of it to the Son, do joyntly proclaim this Minister, this Priest to be God, as well as man, the Socinian must be extremely unjust in pleading the one in contradicti­on to the other.

[Page 33] He insists, The true God cannot Me­diate or Intercede, but Christ Intercedes, 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and Me­diator—the Man Christ Jesus.

They object elsewhere, that Christ the Mediator is here Distinguished from God, there is one God, and one Media­tor, whence they presume this Mediator cannot be God.

Answ. The Mediator is distinguished from God, not simply, because (as we shall prove) himself is God: But only secundum quid, as Mediator; for as such he not only is both God and Man; but also by his Mediatorship stands between both, in order to the reconciling both to­gether; and consequently, must be di­stinct from both. But that this Mediator is God as well as Man, will appear:

1. From the Sense of Antiquity, and the Judgment of the Church in all Ages, which ever held that the Mediator must be utriusque particeps, Partaker of both Natures, that there may be some equa­lity between the Mediator, and the Per­sons between whom he mediates, to the end he may the more powerfully recon­cile both together. Upon which bottom [Page 34] Irenaeus, who was Disciple to Polycarp, as Polycarp was to St. John the Evan­gelist. l. 3. c. 20. thus, adunivit homi­nem Deo; whence Theodoret, Dialog. 2. [...], he hath United Man to God. And,

2. From the Nature of his Mediatory Kingdom, which requires Omnipotence, whereby he may be able to support and govern it: and Omniscience, whereby he may know all the wants and circum­stances of it. Therefore since the Na­ture of this Kingdom of Christ doth re­quire infinite perfections, which are in­competible to a Creature, it doth evi­dently declare the Deity of this Media­tor; who is accordingly not only stiled God, but hath likewise the incommuni­cable Name, viz. Jehovah, and Perfecti­ons of God ascribed to him in the Scrip­tures.

3. The design of this Text is not to declare that the Father only is God ex­clusive of the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but to teach us that there is but one God, and one Mediator exclusive of the ma­ny Gods, and many Mediators, acknow­ledged by the Gentiles. But still (not­withstanding [Page 35] any thing in this Text) this Mediator may be with the Holy Ghost One God with the Father. They have therefore brought a Text to dis­prove our Doctrine, which neither as to Letter, or design, makes any thing against us.

But this Letter pleads, that God can­not mediate, but Christ doth, therefore Christ cannot be God.

Answ. We grant that God cannot in­tercede with the Creature, because this would imply that he is neither Almigh­ty, nor All-sufficient; but the Son may intercede with the Father without bring­ing his Divinity into question.

Therefore (to put the Socinian into a right method of dispute, which he yet seems totally a stranger to, there being nothing proper and concluding in all his Arguments) let him prove that in this Text these words [One God] are spoke exclusive of the Son; and that the Son's Intercession with the Father is inconsistent with his Divinity: This is to his purpose, and most be done, or else he must give up this Text, and indeed his Cause together.

[Page 36] His Argument is fallacious; for it ap­plies that to God in reference to the Crea­ture, which we apply to one Person in the God-head in reference to another; and lyes thus, God cannot pray to the Creature, therefore the Son cannot pray to the Father: a Socinian Argument in­deed, which all men else would be asha­med of.

But it is said [the man Christ Jesus] true, but this is not simply man, but man united to the eternal word, or Son of God. So [the man Jesus Christ] suf­fered for us; but there was such an Uni­on between the two Natures, that what was suffered by the One, was imputed to the other; whence, Act. 20. 28. We are purchased by the Blood of God, that is, by the Blood of Christ united to the se­cond Person in the glorious Trinity. This Text Tertullian ad Ʋxor. l. 2. c. 3. quotes without any Anti-Trinitarian gloss upon it; and indeed these blasphemous Interpretations now in use with these men, were utterly unknown to the Apo­stolick Ages.

Argum. 4p. 7, 8.God doth all things in his own Name, and by his own Autho­rity; [Page 37] he ever doth his own Will: and seeks his own Glory: but Christ saith,John 17.28.I am not come of my self: John 5. 43.I am come in my Father'sName: John 5. 30.I seek not my own Will: and ch. 8. 50.I seek not my own Glory.

Answ. This is true of God in reference to the Creature; but it is not true of one Person in the Trinity in reference to another. For though God cannot come in the Name, and by the Authority of a Creature, yet the Son may come in the Name, and by the Authority of the Father: because, though the Son is equal to the Father as God, yet the Fa­ther is greater than the Son, as Father. For which reason Episcopius, whom this Letter bespatters for an Arian, Institut. Theol. l. 4. c. 32. saith, That the Son refers all things to the Father, as the Fountain of the Deity; of, and from whom the Son is. By this he rejects a Co-ordination, but asserts a Subordina­tion of Persons in the Trinity: and therefore at the same time both ruins these Objections, and also establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity.

[Page 38] He proceeds; God declares himself to be the prime object of Faith and Worship; but the Son doth not so, for John 12. 44. He that believes on me, be­lieves not on me, but on him that sent me.

Answ. Christ doth in this very Text propose himself as the object of Faith and Worship; for he saith, He that believes on me, which asserts that men did believe on him, and implys that they ought to do so; what follows is but a qualificati­on of the thing suitable to his subordi­nation to his Father; for such an one believes not on me, that is, solely, or ultimately: but on him that sent me, i. e. on him, as well as me; by which he doth not exclude, but include himself with the Father, as the object of Faith and Worship. This sense must be al­lowed, else you run into these two ab­surdities, viz.

1. You make the first clause assert, what the second denyes; and the second deny what the first asserts, viz. That men do believe on him, and yet do not believe on him: thev do not believe, and yet they believe still.

[Page 39] 2. These Scriptures, which make Faith in Christ a condition of Salvation, such as John 3. 36. He that believes on the Son, hath Everlasting Life; must be razed out of our Bibles.

But perhaps he may trifle upon that word [prime] object, which hath no­thing in it. For if the Father be the prime object as he is the first Person in the Trinity; yet the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are the One, and only ob­ject in regard of Nature.

But as the Texts, he here quotes, cannot serve his Hypothesis, so there is One among them, that totally destroys it, viz. John 8. 42. I proceeded forth, and came from God: that is, I am not from the Earth, but from Heaven: this is the Apostles sense, Ephes. 4. 9. That he ascended, what is it, but that he descend­ed first? Whence he did not first ascend to receive his Doctrine and Authority from God, as Socinus dreams; but he first descended from God, with whom he was in the beginning, John 1. 1. and with whom he was glorified before the World, John 17. 5. Our sense falls in with vari­ety of Scriptures, which on every side [Page 40] confirm and support it: but theirs la­bours with endless difficulties in wresting and perverting them; that is an Argu­ment of truth, but this os falshood.

Argum. 9.God was always most wise, but Christ increased in Wisdom, Luke 2. 52.

Answ. The Text saith, he increased in Wisdom and Stature, which word [Stature] suits not a Divine Nature, but an Human Body, which shews that the Text speaks of him, not simply, as if in his whole Capacity, without any exception, he increased in Wisdom, but only as Man, and consequently this Text proves he is Man; but doth not prove he is not God, which is the design of this Argument. This is a demonstrati­on of a studied corruption of the truth; for (like the Devil) he quotes but one part of the Text, to the end he may pervert the whole.

He proceeds, God was never ignorant of any thing; but he makes it that Christ was ignorant of two:

1. Of the place where Lazarus was buried, John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him?

[Page 41] Answ. This no more proves that he knew not the place, than Gods asking Cain, Gen. 4. 9. Where is Abel thy Bro­ther, doth prove that God knew not what was become of him? How can we presume he was ignorant of this, who of himself knew both his death, and the time of it too. That he would not in every thing give demonstrations of his Divinity, is no argument against it.

2. He pleads that Christ knew not the day of Judgment, for Mark 13. 32. Of that day knows no Man (in the Greek 'tis [ [...]] none knows) no not the Angels—neither the Son, but the Father; St. Mat­thew, ch. 24. 36. adds, but the Father only.

Answ. He knew it not as Man; but this doth not prove, he is not God, and did not know it as such. For John 21. 17. He knew all things, and therefore must know this, or this must be nothing. In 1 King 8. 39. God only knows the Hearts of Men; but Joh. 2. 25. Christ knew what is in Man: But to know the Hearts of Men, and to know what is in Man, are the same in Sense; therefore Christ knows what God only knows; and consequent­ly [Page 42] Christ must be God, and for that cause Omniscient. Revel. 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart. This Let. 4. p. 154. doth acknowledge that Christ spoke of himself. But this (as we know) is proper to God, who alone can search the Heart: Therefore our Savior's Application of it to himself, is a Manifest Assertion of his own Divinity, and consequently of his Omniscience, which is inseparable from the Divine Nature. Whence it must be that he knew it not as Man only, but yet at the same time must know it as God.

But here the Socinian pleads, that he knew many things not of himself; but by Communication from the Father, as the Prophets did, 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil thou wilt do to the Children of Israel: Therefore some extraordinary Knowledges in Christ, do speak his know­ledg no more Omniscient and Inherent, than that of the Prophets. So to this purpose p. 155.

Answ. These are very unlike Cases. For,

1. This Prophet knew this Man so far as concerned his future Dealing to­wards this People: But this doth not [Page 43] prove, that he knew this Man any far­ther, or any other Man at all. Whereas Joh. 2. 24. Christ knew all Men, and v. 25. He knew what was in Man; and there­fore all that is in Man: Which never was affirmed of any of the Prophets. From which alone it appears, that his Knowledge was much more extensive than any of the Prophets.

2. He knew all things Joh. 21. 17. which imports an infinite Knowledge; But an infinite Knowledge can never be Communicated to a finite Understand­ing: Because there is an infinite Dispro­portion between the faculty and the ob­ject: Therefore the Knowledge which Christ had, speaks him infinite, and that is God.

3. This Hypothesis, viz. that such a Knowledge can be Communicated to a Creature, doth confound the Essential properties of God, and the Creature, be­cause it makes the Creature infinite, as well as the Creator, and

4. Our Saviour saith, Revel. 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart: Which Phrase [search the Heart] was never applyed to any of the Prophets; but on­ly [Page 44] to Father, Son and Holy Ghost: Yet he saith, not only I do it, but I am he that do it; which is more Emphati­cal, and implies, that this is his own Act, and consequently, that his Knowledge of the Heart, is from his own self. There­fore his Knowledge was not like the Pro­phets; for their's was Finite, but his Infinite: Their's Communicated, his Inherent.

For which Reasons, as well as others, Antiquity put that Sense upon these Texts, which might not deny, but esta­blish not his Omniscience only, but such as is not Communicated, but Inherent too: For Greg. Naz. Ora. 36. Athanas. tom. 1. Contr. Ar. Ora. 4. &c. he knows this day [...] as God: And consequently must know it of himself, but he knew it not, [...] as Man; hereby making those words [none knows] to exclude not what is God, and therefore not the Son as God; but all the Creatures, and there­fore the Son as Man.

In the same Sense must we take that of St. Mathew Ch. 24. 36. of that Day, and Hour, knows no Man, no, not the An­gels of Heaven, but my Father only. For [Page 45] here [Father] must not be taken perso­nally for the Father, in opposition to the Son, and the Holy Ghost: But essenti­ally for God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in opposition to that word [Man] of that Day and Hour, knows no Man—but the Father only; therefore these words [the Father only] exclude the Son from this Knowledge as Man, but not as God. This exposition is cleared, and confirmed from hence.

1. That in the Scriptures [Father] doth often signifie God essentially, in­cluding, Son and Holy Ghost, who are of, and from, the Father.

2. This Sense must be granted, else you make this one Text, to contradict all those which say the Son knows all things, &c. and

3. These Exclusive Particles [none] knows, or the Father [only] i. e. God [only] knows: Must be so Interpreted in divers places of Scripture, as particu­larly Luk. 10. 22. No Man [in the Greek it is here also [...] none] knows who the Son is but the Father, or the Father only. Whence they may as well exclude the Holy Ghost from the Knowledge of the [Page 46] Son, as the Son from knowing the Day of Judgment; because this Particle [none] must be as Exclusive in that Text, as in this. But this Word cannot Exclude the Holy Ghost from the know­ledge of the Son, because 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God: Which word [search] doth imply, that this Knowledge is per­fect, and from himself, when applyed to the Spirit, as well as when applyed to the Father in the searching the Heart: And consequently by parity of Reason, it cannot Exclude the Son from the Know­ledge of that Day.

Therefore when I find these Texts cited by the Socinians, confineing these Knowledges to God; and yet meet with others, which ascribe infinite Knowledge to the Son, and the Holy Ghost, I must conclude, not that the Son and Ho­ly Ghost, are either ignorant of some things, for then I must contradict those Texts, which say they know all things, or that they are Creatures indowed with an infinite Knowledge; because this (as is Disputed already) is utterly im­possible: But I must conclude they are [Page 47] God; and therefore are not Excluded by those Texts, from knowing those things of themselves; but are included with the Father in the God-Head; and therefore are with the Father, that One God, to whom all things are open, and naked.

He proceeds, Christ ascribed the Infal­libility of his Judgment to the Father, Joh. 8. 16. If I Judge, my Judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and my Fa­ther, that sent me: Which he thinks an Argument against his Divinity.

Answ. I am not alone, but I and my Fa­ther—that is, the Father hath not left me alone, but bears witness to me by Miracles. This speaks not the in­sufficiency of his Judgment, but the in­credulity of this People, and the abun­dant means, that he vouchsafed them. Whence he so often appeals to his Works Joh. 10. 25. The Works that I do in my Fathers Name, they testifie of me, and v. 38. though ye believe not me, yet be­lieve the Works. Therefore this proves the Grace of God the Father, but doth not disprove the Divinity of the Son.

He insists, God cannot be tempted, [Page 48] Jam. 1. 17. but the Son was Tempted of the Devil.

Answ. If God cannot be Tempted, what is the meaning of Mat. 4. 7. Jesus said—thou shalt not Tempt the Lord thy God? St. James saith, God cannot be Tempted with, or to evil: No more was our Blessed Saviour, for he complyed not with the Temptation.

He citesLuke 18. 19.Why callest thou me Good? There is none good, save One, that is God. On which the Letter saith,he refused to be called Good, because God only is Good.

Answ. The true meaning is, he refu­sed to be called good, unless in Relation to his Divinity, implying that himself is good, not by Participation, as Man is; but essentially as God is: Therefo r he asks, why callest thou me good, viz. as Man, or as God? That sense he Rejects, this he claims as his due. So Athanas­tom. 1. de Hum. Nat. Suscept. [...], [...], [...]. If you think me Man, and not God, call me not good. Suppose this Text is of it self capable of those two senses, the one of which speaks him [Page 49] but Man, the other God: Wee may easi­ly determine which Sense to take it in; for their's contradicts all those Scriptures, which declare his Divinity: But our's comports with them, without Contradiction to any: Therefore not their's, but our's must be ad­mitted, because it must be interpreted in con­currence with other Scriptures, but not in contradiction to 'em.

Arg. 6.p. 10.God gives what, and to whom he pleases, but Christ saith, to Sit on my right Hand, and on my left—is not mine to give, Mat. 20. 23.

Answ. Is not mine to give, i. e. as Man, not mine Exclusive of the Father, or contra­ry to the Divine Oeconomy, according to which, something is ascribed as peculiar to every Person in the Sacred Trinity. That this is the meaning, is evident from Joh. 10. 28. I give unto them Eternal Life: No­thing can be greater than this, yet the Son gives this, as well as the Father. There­fore in what Sense the other is not his to give, in the same Sense Eternal Life is not his to give: But in what Sense he gives Eternal Life, in the same Sense he gives the other too, whatever you please to under­stand by it. This they know is our Doctrine, and therefore ought not only to propose [Page 50] this Scripture, but also to prove an incon­sistency between this Scripture, and this Do­ctrine: This he doth not attempt, not will ever be able to perform. But it seems it is enough for a Socinian to start an Error, and then leave it to the World, in hope some may take it, as the Man did the Snake, in­to their Houses.

He proceeds, God needs no aid of any other; but Christ saith, he that sent me, is with me.

Answ. The thing in Controversie is, whether the Son be God, as well as Man: The Socinian brings this Text against us; but if we at present only suppose that he is both, which we must do, till it be disproved, he can never tell me, why the Fathers pre­sence with the Human Nature of Christ should necessarily imply a denial of his Divine Nature; and consequently this Text is no due Medium, whence to con­clude his point.

He adds,God cannot Pray for himself, and People, but Christ Prays for himself and Disciples. Luk. 22. 42▪ Heb. 5. 7.&c.

Answ. We Teach that Christ is both God and Man: Now he Prayed for him­self, only as Man, Luk. 22. 42. that this Cup, viz. his Passion, now at hand, might pass [Page 51] from him. He Prayed for others, as Priest, Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever, whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh—he offered up Prayers: Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God, that is to say, his Praying must hinder the Human Na­ture from being united to the Divine; for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason. Nay, as Man he dyed, yet not­withstanding this was United to the Divi­nity: And if his Death could not hinder this Union, much less can his Praying.

But to shew the weakness of this Argu­ment, we will add, though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God; for so there is nothing above him, yet he may Pray considered personally, as the Son of God, viz. the Father; for as Son, he is subordi­nate to the Father, and consequently as Son may Pray the Father. This is an Argu­ment then no more to his purpose, than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Tra­vels, or Noah's Planting a Vinyard.

He urges farther, Christ Dyed, and the Fa­ther raised him from the Dead, Ephes. 1. 19, 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God.

He that dyed, and was raised, must be Man; but his Argument implies, that he who raised him, must be God, which is [Page 52] enough to our purpose: For he raised himself, John 2. 19. destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up; which v. 21. saith, he spake of the Temple of his Body. Therefore (according to his own Hypothesis) the Son must be God, as well as Man▪

But theSocinian pretends, Let. 3. p. 89.That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father; and ac­cordingly his being raised is always attribut­ed to the Father, not to himself.

Answ. This is false; for that Text doth attribute it to himself, I will raise it up. Therefore either the Son must be the Fa­ther; or else his Resurrection is not al­ways attributed to the Father.

2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father, then he must be raised by the Father: for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised; and con­sequently he could not say, I will raise it.

3. This notion makes the Raiser, and the raised, to be the same: which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker, and the thing made to be the same. There­fore when he saith, I will raise it up, he speaks not as Man, for as such he was to be raised: but as God, who alone is the raiser of the dead. And,

[Page 53] 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son: as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father; for then those Texts, of which some ascribe it to the Father, others to the Son, must be contradictory. But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both, be­cause now both must be God, or else they could not raise the dead.

His next Scripture, which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me; is already an­swered in Arg. 2. For this Power here gi­ven him respects only the Government of the Church, to which he was now exalted; which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion: but this doth not prove that he had not, antece­dent to this, a Power with the Father in the Government of the World. This proves he had now a new Government, but doth not prove that therefore he was not God: because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World, but yet was God. Such additionals prove an al­teration in the things added, but not in those Divine Persons, to whom they are added. All the difference is, this Power was given the Son. True, but this (as be­fore) [Page 54] speaks the Son subordinate to the Father, but doth not destroy his Nature, by which he is God.

Argum. 7. p. 11.Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God: and is described to be the Son of God, and the Image of God.

Answ. He is personally distinct, and therefore is not God the Father: but he is not essentially distinct, and therefore must be God the Son. If the Socinian then would gain his point, he must prove not only [a] distinction, which we grant▪ but [such] a distinction, which we deny.

But he hath said that Christ is theSon of God, andthe Image of God; whence he concludes,p. 12. thus,it is as impossible that the Son, or Image of the one true God, should himself be that One true God; as that the Son should be the Father, and the Image be the very thing, whose Image it is.

Answ. Profoundly argued, and like a a Socinian! For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God: when Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are together the one true God. Therefore take the One true God, and the invisible God, personal­ly for the Father only; and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be [Page 55] that One true God, because the Son cannot be the Father: and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God, because (as he saith) the Image cannot be that very thing, whose Image it is.

But take the One true God, and the in­visible God, essentially for Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and then the Son with the Fa­ther, and Holy Spirit, is that One true God: and the Image of the invisible God, with the Father and Holy Ghost, is that invisible God; because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God.

Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God, because as an Image repre­sents that very thing, whose Image it is, so the Son represents the Father, as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both. Whence 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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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, [Page 61] 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 [Page 62] 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, 1Cor. 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 [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] 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.

[Page 65] 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 'tis impossible the Spirit should be God himself.His Quotations are, Rom. 5. 5.—the Love [Page 66] 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 [Page 67] 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 Charity, or to any thing else, which is not a Person: But a Subsistence to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, together in the same Text 1 John 5. 7. there are three—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, implying, that the Subsistence of the Holy Ghost is as Real and Personal, as that of the Father, and the Son. They Ascribe to him also Life, Un­derstanding, Will and Power; For 1 Cor. 12. 11. he divides the Manifold Gifts of God, to every one as himself Will: Whence these two Cases are so unlike, that even Biddle the Socinian, was ashamed of it. For (notwithstanding this of Charity) he As­serts the Personality of the Holy Ghost, even while he denies his Divinity.

3. Scripture must not be taken figura­tively, without a necessity, else you may turn the whole into an Allegory, and loose at once both the Letter and Design in a [Page 68] Cabalistical Sense. Now this necessity doth lye in the Case of Charity, as much as in that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned, Let. 4. p. 159. For all Men do as well know, that Charity can be no Person, as that God can have no Human Parts, as Eyes, Ears, Hands, &c. but this is so far from lying in the Case of the Holy Ghost, that Let. 3. p. 99. doth consess▪ that all the Arrians, and ma­ny Socinians do acknowledge, that the Holy Ghost is a Person. Whence this is a conceit so weak, as well as Novel, that even the Ʋnitarians themselves (as he idlely calls them) are divided upon it. It is plain then, that in the Judgment of their own Party, as well as of the Church in all Ages, here is no necessity of a Figurative Interpretati­on; and consequently no such ought to be admitted. The Socinian Arguments (we see) are like Ghosts, that appear only to whom they please, since none but a few of their own Party have yet discerned 'em.

Consid. 3. p. 18. The Spirit is obtained for us of God by our Prayers, Act. 15. 8. Luk. 11. 13. Whence he thinks the Spirit is not God, because he is given by ano­ther.

[Page 69] Answ. By the Spirit he here understands the Gifts of the Spirit; as himself explains it: whence he proceeds thus: but they, viz. the Socinians, say also, That if the Holy Spirit were at all a Person, much more God, his Gifts—would be bestowed by himself. which,

1. Convinces him of contradiction: for he saith, they are the gifts of the Spirit, yet denyes that they are given by the Spi­rit: which is as much as to say, they are given by the Spirit, and yet are not given by the Spirit, which is a contradiction in terms. And,

2. This utterly destroys his Argument, which is this, that the Spirit doth not be­stow his own gifts, therefore the Spirit is not God, but the Spirit must bestow his own gifts, else they could not be his own gifts, but must be the gifts of him that be­stows 'em; therefore the antecedent being false, the consequent must be false too.

Now that the Spirit doth bestow these things, which he acknowledges to be the gifts and graces of the Spirit, is expresly asserted by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10, 11. where he saith of these very gifts and gra­ces of the Spirit, that the Spirit divides [Page 70] them to every one as he will; and if he devides 'em to Men, he must give 'em to Men; be­cause these are Synonymous Terms, which are both expressive of the same thing.

The Texts he quotes, do prove these things are given by the Father, we grant it: but this, and other Texts do prove they are given also by the Spirit; but those Texts can no more exclude the Spirit, than these can exclude the Father. Therefore they must be given by both, as indeed they are by the whole Trinity; for which reason they are ascribed now to one Person, then to another; as Faith, Repentance, &c. which are the gifts of the Spirit, are attributed not to the Spirit only, but sometimes to the Father, as himself proves, and sometimes to the Son, as the Apostle declares, Act. 5. 31. him, viz. the Son hath God exalted—to be a Prince, and a Saviour, to give Re­pentance (which implyes Faith) to Israel; and Act. 2. speaking of the gift of Tongues, saith, v. 32, 33. that Jesus, who was rai­sed from the dead, being by the right hand of God exalted, [he] viz. the same Jesus hath shed forth this, which ye do see and hear. The result is,

[Page 71] 1. That the Socinian is partial and un­just, in quoting one Text of Scripture in opposition to another; And,

2. He hath not only lost his own Ar­gument, but hath also furnished us with one against himself; for he argues thus, the Spirit doth not give these gifts to men; therefore the Spirit is not God; which im­plyes that if the Spirit doth give these gifts, then the Spirit is God; but (we see) he doth give these gifts, and therefore must be God. And indeed he can be no other than God, who divides these manifold gifts of God according to his own Will.

He proceeds,there is no Precept, nor Ex­ample in all Holy Scripture of Prayer made to the Spirit on this, or any other occasion: which (on theTrinitariansupposition) that the Holy Spirit is a Person, and God; no less than the Father, is very surprizing, nay utterly unaccountable.

Answ. We deny it, for 2Cor. 13. 16. we read thus;The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God, and the Com­munion of the Holy Ghost be with you all;which Text we shall first explain, and then apply it to the present Argument.

[Page 72] That word [God] the love of God, must not be taken essentially for God, as if the Son, and Holy Ghost were not God: but personally for God the Father, and there­fore can distinguish them only from the Fa­ther. My reasons are these,

1. Other Scriptures (as we have said) do not only stile the Son, and the Holy Ghost God, but do also ascribe to them infinite Perfections, which are not com­petible to any Creature; and likewise at­tribute to them the Name Jehovah, which is proper to God, as we shall prove anon. Therefore if you make that word [God] in this Text to signifie God essentially, and consequently to exclude the Son, and Holy Ghost from the Deity; then this Text must contradict all them: but that cannot be the true sense of one Text, which contradicts another. And,

2. St. Paul himself doth thus explain it, Ephes. 6. 23.—Faith from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: where he distin­guishes the Son not simply from God, but from God the Father; this denyes that the Son is the Father, but still implyes that the Son is God. Now this Text being the more full and perfect, explains that in the Co­rinthians, [Page 73] by teaching us to supply these words [the Father] The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, viz. the Father, and the Communion of the Holy Ghost—Now this Text thus supplyed and perfected by that, doth make a distinction of Persons, but not of Essences, that is, it teaches that the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are not the Father, but yet one God. This sense St. Paul expressed to the Ephesians, and therefore must intend it to these Corinthians.

Now the Text, thus explained, is not only a benediction to this Church, but al­so a Prayer to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, that this Grace may descend upon it.

We never pray to God, but we pray to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which was the judgment of Antiquity: For Justin Martyr, who florished in the middle of the Age next after the Apostles, saith in his Apologie, we Christians worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and yet against gentile Polytheism in the same Apology declares, that they worshiped God only; therefore they must necessarily understand it, that all three Persons together are that one God, whom they worshiped, and to [Page 74] whom they prayed, which is one part of Worship.

But you will say, what is the reason then, we are not commanded to pray expresly and particularly to the Holy Ghost, as we are to God?

Answ. 1. In divers Scriptures [God] is put essentially for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; therefore in those Scriptures all Commands, and Examples of praying to God, are to be understood inclusively of all three Persons, who are essentially one, and the same God.

2. The Father is the first Person in the Trinity▪ of and from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost are▪ therefore as for this reason the Son refers things principally to the Father, but not exclusive of himself▪ so for the same reasons Prayers are direct­ed principally to the Father, but yet are to be understood inclusive of the Son, and Holy Ghost, but not exclusive of them.

3. The Father is principal Agent in the Government of the World; and the first mover in all Divine Operations, saying to the Son, and the Holy Ghost, let us make Man: whence the Son saith, John 5. 17. my Father works hitherto, and I works by [Page 75] which he speaks the Father principle Ope­rator, but himself a Co-operator with him.

Again, the Son from the Father hath the Government of the Church, whence it is called the Kingdom of Christ, to which the Father Exalted him, and from the Fa­ther and the Son, the Holy Ghost is in the Ministration of it. Upon which Accounts, Prayers are directed primarily, and expres­ly to the Father, but yet are intended as ex­tensive to the Son and Holy Ghost. They are directed most particularly to him from his Priority of Order and Operation; but yet they belong to all three in regard of the sameness of their Nature.

These things are suited to the Rules and Methods of the Divine Oeconomy, and may seem difficulties; but had our Consi­derer considered well, he had never made them supports of an Heresie.

Consid. 4. p. 19.If the Holy Spirit, and our Lord Christ are—God, no less than the Father, then God is a Trinity of Persons, or three Persons; but this is contrary to the whole Scripture, which speaks of God as but one Person; and speaks of him, and to him by singular Pronouns, such as I, Thou, We, Him, &c.

[Page 76] Answ. We deny that any one Text of Scripture, doth prove that God is but One Person. He quotes, Job. 13. 7, 8. Will ye speak wickedly for God?—Will ye accept his Person?—Whence he thinks, there can be but one Person, viz. the Father in the God-head. To which we Answer thus.

1. The letter of these Texts doth not say, that God is but One Person: Or that there is but one Person in the Godhead, which is the thing to be proved.

2. The Reason and Design of 'em, can­not possibly import any such thing. For these expressions are used to signifie only the doing unjustly for God, as Men do for others, when said to accept their Persons. For Job hereby accuses his Friends of In­justice and Partiality, in that they justified God's Visitations upon, by Condemning him of Hypocrisie. Therefore these Texts are not suited to the Nature of God, nor designed to Determine, whether there be only one, or more Persons in the God head, but to signifie unjust Censures; and there­fore must import not a Singularity or Plu­rality of Persons, but only Partiality in their Judgment, between God and himself. [Page 77] Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his Per­son?

3. Phrases that are taken from the com­mon ufuages of Men, or as common forms of Speech, are not to be used in an Argu­ment, in which the Holy Pen-man did not intend them to the Contradiction of those Texts, which professedly speak of that point, this all Men of Reason and Judg­ment, must grant me; because in expound­ing Scripture, we are to consider not only Words, but Phrases, together with the Scope and design of the place, and if so, it must be granted in this Case before us, that these Texts in Jobe, which concern not the Nature of God, ought not to be brought to prove, there is but one person in the God-head, when so many Texts on set purpose, declare the Divine Nature of three.

He quotes also,Heb. 1. 1. 2, 3▪ God—hath spoken to us by his Son, who being—the express Image of his Person.

Answ. 1. God here must signifie the Fa­ther, because he speaks to us by his Son, whence the Son is the Image of his Fa­ther's Person. But however this doth not [Page 78] reach his Case; for it proves indeed, that God the Father is but one Person, which we all grant: But it doth not prove there is no other Person in the God-head, which is the thing in controversie. Nay,

2. This Text is not only, not for, but is really against, him. For if the Son be the express Image of his Father, he must duly Represent the Father, as Images duly Re­present those things, whose Images they are: And if he, the Living Image of his Father, duly Represents the Father, he must have in himself all the Perfections of his Father, and consequently must be infinite himself, else he could not in his own Per­son or Nature, Represent infinite Perfecti­ons; and that he doth so, is evident, not on­ly from his being Termed the Image of his Father, but also from those words of his once quoted already, Joh. 14. 8. he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. So far is this Text from proving, but one Person in the God-head, that it consequentially introdu­ces a second.

He cites, Deut. 6. 4, 5.—the Lord our God is One: the word isJehovah, whence the Letter saith,Jehovah is one, andthat the JewsMorning and Evening Repeated [Page 79] this Verse, to keep it in perpetual Memory, thatJehovahor God, is one only, not two or three.

Answ. The meaning is, there is but One God, which is spoke in opposition to Gen­tile Gods, which the Jews were so much in­clined to, not that there is but One Person in the God-head, which was never disputed among them. We say then, that Jehovah or God, is but One, viz. Nature or Sub­stance, that is, there is but one God, which is all this Text can pretend to, and all that our Socinian can prove: But we say like­wise, that Jehovah or God, is three Persons, viz. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That the Father is Jehovah or God, the Socinian grants us, and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah, or God, we will prove.

1. That the Son is Jehovah, or God will appear from hence. In Exod. 33, 1, 2, 3. the Lord, the word is Jehovah, said, I will send my Angel▪ but I will not go up into the midst of thee. Now as the Letter supposes, that Jehovah is God, so in this very place, it can signi­fie no other than God properly. Because,

[...]. Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel, as such, and therefore from eve­ry Angel, I will send my Angel, but I will not go.—and

[Page 80] 2. He declares his propriety in this An­gel, for it is [my] Angel: An Angel that is mine, that is, my Creature, and my Ser­vant: Which gloss I found upon this bot­tom, that we never find in all the Scripture, that one Angel speaks thus of another; for though there be different orders of Angels, yet they are all Servants of God, not the Servants one of another. Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in, and that Power over this Angel, which God has to, in, and over his Creatures.

Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah, appeared to Abraham, v. 2. expresses it by three Men; but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah, or Lord, the same is so cal­led again, v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two [Men] but this [Jehovah] This only was Dignified with these Titles, to this only did Abraham bow himself, and direct his Discourse. Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distin­guished from these Men, as he was before from that Angel; and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World; which nei­ther is true, nor was ever affirmed, [Page 81] of any created Spirit, it must needs be that this Jehovah is God. But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father, because

1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape, as, to Joshua, to Moses, so to Abraham, whence himself, and the two with him, are called Men, v. 2: but the Father never appeared in humane shape; and the Teaching that he did was anti­ently, as well as justly, condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie: and

2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2, because they were sent, as the Word imports; but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity, cannot be sent from any.

The Result then is, here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men, but the Father never did appear in this likeness, therefore this could not be Jeho­vah, or God the Father; but must be Je­hovah, or God the Son, whom the Fa­ther sent in Humane shape as an intimati­on of his future Incarnation. This is evi­dent from Joshua; for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword, and▪ asks, Who he was for? The Man answered, [Page 82] v. 14, As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come. Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord; and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man, this Captain, is him­self Jehovah the Lord; for after he had answered Joshua, and commanded him to put off his shooe, because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15, then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord, i. e. this Man, this Captain, said to Joshua—Therefore the former Je­hovah, or Lord, is the Father, whose Host this was; and the latter Jehovah, or Lord, is the Son, who was sent from the Father as Captain of it.

This was the Sense of all Antiquity; for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar. c. 6. and adv. Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were fol­lowed by Cyprian, Origen, and the rest.

Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord [Jehovah] rained down Fire from the Lord [Jeho­vah] in Heaven. The Series of this Hi­story shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch. 18; whence, the latter must be the Father, who was in Heaven: This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers, but also of [Page 83] the first Council of Sirmium. And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation, so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration, when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Je­hovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead: for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World, Gen. 18. 25.

We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius, who, de Nomine Jehovah, objects several things against us with a design to perswade that [Jehovah] is not a Name proper to God, but is sometimes given to Angels proper­ly taken; and consequently, that this Jehovah was not tht Son, but only an Angel of God.

Object. 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2.

Ans. They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me

1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God, as well as these three Men be Angels? And then,

2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels, but this he stiled [Page 84] Jehovah, whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels, unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all cre­ated Beings: and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Crea­tor, God blessed for ever?

Object, 2. He who is called Lord [Jeho­vah] in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord, v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God▪ but common to Created Spirits.

Ans. Angel doth note his Office, as being sent from the Father▪ and Jehovah notes his Nature, as being of the same Substance with the Father: for v. 6. this Jehovah saith, I am the God of Abraham; and v. 14. he stiles himself [...], I am; this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting, which is not competible to any Creature. Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31, 32. Have 'ye not read, not what God spake to you by his Angel, but that which is spoke to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham—Where our Saviour himself, who is the [Page 85] best Interpreter of Scripture, teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit, but even God himself. Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith, this is [...], our Christ. And Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum—Moysi—God, that is, the Son of God was seen by Mo­ses: the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv. Judae. 1. 2. &c.

Object. 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God, but yet is sometimes gi­ven to Angels, as they personate God, i. e. bear his Name and Authority.

Ans. Here was not only the Name and Authority of God, but also that Honor received which is due to God only; for Moses by special Command did worship him: but you have not one such Instance of an Angel that any way appeared to be a created Spirit, that bore the Name and Authority of God, and received the Ho­nor due to God. The Angel to the Blessed Virgin spoke otherwise, and that to S. John forbad him to Worship him, and that for a reason common to all created Angels, Revel. 19. 10. See thou do it not, for I am thy Fellow-Servant.

[Page 86] As we find no such thing, so neither can any such thing ever be; for God hath said, My Glory will I not give to another: but this gives a Creature his Name, his Au­thority, and his Honor; and these are his Glory. Therefore the matter of this Ob­jection is not only not found in the Scri­pture, but is even contrary to it.

Object. 4. The Law was given by the dis­position of Angels, Act. 7. 53. and was spo­ken by Angels, Heb. 2. 3. whence he pre­sumes that Jehovah, who gave the Law, was not the Son of God, but a created Angel.

Ans. This doth not follow: for as it was given by Angels, so it was Gal. 3. 19. in the hand of a Mediator, that is, of Christ; as Theophylact and others take it. But some say this Mediator was Moses: be it so, it is all one. For if Moses was Media­tor, it was only as a Type of Christ, and there must be an exact Agreement be­tween the Type and the Anti-type; there­fore if the Law was given by Moses a ty­pical Mediator, it must be given by Christ the true and proper Mediator. Whence the Result must be, that Moses gave it im­mediately [Page 87] to the People, but Christ gave it mediately by Moses, and by those An­gels, which are ministring Spirits. There­fore when S. John saith, c. 1. 17. the Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth, i. e. the Gospel, came by Jesus Christ, he respects the immediate Delivery of both; the Law was given immediately by Mo­ses, and the Gospel immediately by Christ: which excludes Christ from only an im­mediate, but not from a mediate Delive­ry of the Law.

But the Difficulty is from Heb. 2. 2, 3. If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast, and every Transgression and Disobedience re­ceived a just recompence of Reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salva­tion, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord? Upon which Crellius saith, the Gos­pel, which is the great Salvation, is preferred before the Law, because the Law was given by Angels, but the Gopel by the Lord: and consequently Jehovah, who gave the Law, was not the Lord, but an Angel.

[Page 88] Ans. This Text, which saith the Law was spoken by Angels, doth no more ex­clude the Son, than Joh. 1. 17. which saith the Law was given by Moses, doth exclude those Angels: for indeed it was given by all three. Therefore the Opposition lies not between Jehovah and the Son, who are the same, and gave both Law and Gospel too, but

1. Between his different manner of gi­ving each: for (as before) he gave the Law mediately by Angels; but he gave the Gospel immediately by himself, as the Eternal Word now made Flesh: Up­on which account Sin against the Gospel is a greater Affront to his Person and Au­thority, than Sin against the Law. And

2. Between the Nature of each consi­dered in themselves: this is a great Sal­vation in comparison of that. And be­cause Sin doth always arise proportionate to the means it is committed against, therefore upon this Account also Sin a­gainst the Gospel is greater than Sin a­gainst the Law.

Whence this toping Argument of Crel­lius, which (he saith) doth penitus ever­tere [Page 89] totally overthrow us, doth neither exclude Jehovah the Son from giving the Law, nor yet debase him to a created Spirit; and consequently doth not at all affect us.

In fine, we grant that Jehovah is some­times called an Angel, as he is sent from the Father; but we deny that an Angel, which is any way declared to be a crea­ted Spirit, is ever called Jehovah. Let the Socinian prove this, and then we will dismiss this Argument: else he faith no­thing to the purpose.

2. The Blessed Spirit is also called Je­hovah: for Exod. 17. 7. they tempted the Lord, the Word is [Jehovah]. This is re­peated Psal. 95. whence the Apostle Heb. 3. 7, 8, 9. thus, the Holy Ghost saith—When your Fathers tempted [me]. Therefore (according to the Apostles Application of these Seriptures) the Holy Ghost is this Jehovah.

The Result is, Jehovah is indeed but one God, but yet is three Persons; viz. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are in the Godhead, and therefore are this one God, which was the thing to be pro­ved. [Page 90] Whence his next Scripture, which is Isa. 45. 5. I am the Lord, the Word is [Je­hovah] there is no God before me, is easily answered. For here Jehovah excludes a Plurality of Gods, but not a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.

He adds (in his great Wisdom and Judgment) Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Where because [the Lord thy God] is singular, and that Word [only] excludes all others, he thinks he hath found a proof that the Father only is God.

Ans. This proves indeed that there is but one God, which we all grant; but it doth not prove there is but one Person in the Godhead; or that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God; which he un­dertakes.

But because Suppositions grant nothing, we will suppose that this Text proves that the Father only is God; but then it must be granted upon this Supposition, that it doth also prove, that the Father only is to be worshipped; for him only shalt thou serve. But the Socinians deny that the Son is God, and yet worship him as well [Page 91] as the Father. Whence it evidently fol­lows, that either their Religion must be an Heresie, or themselves Idolaters; for if the Son be God, they are Hereticks in denying it: if he is not, they are Idola­ters in worshipping him. And certainly these Men are put to an hard shift for Scripture▪Proofs, when all the Texts they cite, do either not affect us, or wound themselves.

He now proceeds to his singular Pro­nouns, thus;No Instance can be given in any Language of three Persons; who ever spoke of themselves, or were spoken to, by sin­gular Pronouns, as I, Thou, &c. Such speak­ing is contrary to Custom, Grammar, and Sense.

Ans. To this, that of the Learned Dean of St. Pauls, Dr. Sherlock, is the most ap­posite, viz. There is no other Example in Nature of three Persons, who are essentially one. Whence this is an Impropriety in re­ference to the Creatures, which is none in reference to God. For he may speak of himself, or be spoken to, singularly, because he is but one God; and plurally, because he is three Persons, without any ungrammatical Solecism. And sometimes [Page 92] he doth speak plurally, as Gen. 1. 26. Let us make Man: whence we conclude a Plurality in the Godhead. But this cannot be a Plurality of Essences, or Natures, for then there would be a Plurality of Gods, which is contrary to Scripture, for this declares there is but one; but a Plurality of Subsistences, which we call Persons, united in the same Nature. This Plurality other Scriptures, particularly Psal. 33. 6. do determine to three, viz. the Lord, the Word, and the Spirit, and 1 John 1. 7. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and this we call a Trinity, as the Church ever did from the Apostles time.

But to this he saith, God doth here speak of himself after the manner of Princes, p. 21. and therefore is but one Person, though he saith [Us].

Ans. 1. He could not speak this after the manner of Princes, for then there was no Prince, nor any Man in the World: nor can he prove any such Custom in the Mosaic Age. Therefore this is an ex­pounding the first Writings in the World after the Custom of later Ages, which we cannot allow.

[Page 93] 2. In time Princes spoke [of] but not [to] themselves plurally, which yet God doth do, if this Gloss be true. Therefore this Exposition, which he pretends is af­ter the manner of Princes, is indeed with­out all Example.

3. God himself expounds this Text our way, Psal. 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth; that is by the Lord, viz. the Father; by the Word or Son, and by the Spirit. Now St. John c. 1. 1, 3. teaches that by the Word, viz. that Word which was God, that Word, which v. 14. was made Flesh, were all things made. Which directs us to under­stand that [Word] in this Psalm, not of the Command, but of the Eternal, or Substantial Word, or Son of God: to whom together with that Spirit, who Gen. 1. 1. moved upon the Waters, pre­paring that indigested Matter for its seve­ral forms, the Father said, Let us make Man.

This was the Sense of all Antiquity. Just. Mart. Dial. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. he spoke to the Son, and the Holy Ghost, per quos, [Page 94] & in quibus omnia—fecit, by, and in whom, he made all things. Tertul. de Re­sur. carn. c. 6. and adv. Prax. v. 7. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. 6. and the Constitutions l. 5. c. 6. which pretend to give us nothing but what is Apostolical.

He proceeds to 2 Cor. 10. 2. Some, who think of [us]—which he saith S. Paul spoke of himself only.

Ans. It is not probable that S. Paul spoke of himself after the manner of Princes, when it is evident he lessened himself in almost every thing but Sin and Sufferings.

2. When a Prince speaks plurally, we know he must speak of himself, because he is but one: but the Apostles were ma­ny, and under the same Censures: there­fore when S. Paul speaks plurally [Us] we have no necessity of understanding it of himself only, bu [...] have reason to believe he spoke of himself and them together.

3. Suppose that S. Paul spoke plurally of himself, as Princes have done for many Ages, yet what Argument is there in ei­ther of these to prove that the Father is to be understood thus in Gen. 1, especially when the Scriptures so frequently ascribe [Page 95] the Creation to the Son, and Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father? There is there­fore nothing manly, or cogent in this Quotation. By this time (I think) his sin­gular Pronouns have done him as little service as his Scriptures.

Consid. 5. and 22.Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God, this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed, which (they say) p. 23.was purposely drawn up to repre­sent all the necessary Articles of Religion:but that the Divinity of each is omitted there he would sain perswade the World.

This very Argument had almost per­verted two of my Acquaintance; the one a very ingenious Merchant in this City. I shall therefore (according to their desire) give the fuller Answer to it: and shall prove

1. That this Creed under the Apostles name was never composed by the Apostles; and

2. Though it doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, yet it sufficiently teaches both.

1. This Creed was never composed by the Apostles. Some with more Presum­ption than Judgment think Irenaeus and [Page 96] Tertullian against us. But if you consult those famous Places, Iren. l. 1. c. 2 & 19. Tertul. de Virg. Veland. c. 1. de Praes. Haer. c. 2. and adv. Prax. c. 2. you will find these Fathers differ so much from one an­other, and each from himself, both as to the Order and Points of Faith they deli­ver; that they evidently seem to intend not any setled Form, but the Substance of Faith contain'd in the Scriptures, whence themselves might draw the Arti­cles they deliver.

Irenaeus saith indeed, that his Rule of Truth, i. e. the Articles there writ, came from the Apostles; which some have thought sufficient to prove it of Apostoli­cal Composure. But,

1. Its coming from the Apostles is no Argument for them; for that might be from their Writings in the N. Test. as well as from this Creed, had they composed it.

2. His calling it the Rule of Truth is a­gainst them; for it was not customary, so neither is it so proper to call a Creed the Rule of Faith, as the Scriptures from whence all Creeds are taken, and by which they must be proved. And

[Page 97] 3. There is not so much agreement be­tween the Articles in Iren. and this Creed called the Apostles, as between those Arti­cles, and some of those Creeds, which are well known to be the different Creeds of different Churches. Therefore there is nothing in this Father, that can prove the Socinian Assertion; but something, that may incline to the contrary.

As for Tertullian the Case is more clear; for he saith de Praes. Haer. c. 13. that his Rule of Faith, meaning the Articles there mentioned, were taught by Christ: but Christ composed no Symbol: and adv. Prax. c. 2. his Rule taught the Mission of the Holy Ghost: but this Creed teaches no such thing. Therefore from both he must intend the Scriptures, not a Creed; or if any, yet however not this.

Arius in Epiphanius adv. Haer. l. 2. to 2. Haer. 69. would fain have justified his He­resie against the Divinity of the Son from the Creed of Alexandria; which differs to much from this under the Apostles name, that none can pretend they are the same. But it must be granted, he would much rather have appealed to this, had it then [Page 98] been, or believed to be theirs, and also thought not to teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, because a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves would have been of much more force and Authority than one composed by any particular Church whatever. Therefore his Appeal to that, but not to this, is to me a Demonstration that this Creed was then not known, or else not believed ei­ther to be theirs, or to import any such Doctrine.

It could not come from the Apostles, at least as we now have it, which ought ve­ry much to take down Mens Presumpti­ons of its Antiquity, and must totally ru­ine that of Heylen, aud Ashwel in his F [...]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 [Page 99] 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 In­terpolat [...]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. [...]. 2. the Church [...] all the World over. We find the Word it self first in Cl [...]. Alex. Str [...]m. [...]. 7. but it is not in any of the Ea­stern Creeds, till that of Jerusalem. S. Gy­prian [Page 100] 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.

[Page 101] 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.

[Page 102] 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 [...]' 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 [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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,

[Page 106] 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 [Page 107] 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. [Page 108] 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 ert 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.

[Page 109] 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.

[Page 110] 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.


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 [Page 111] 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 the Church, but in his Epistle to Balcerovicius he allows the offering any force to the Sacred Scriptures, rather than to their own Sentiments; in which our present Socinians are his strict Disciples. And de Jesu Chris. Salvat. pa­rag. 3. c. 6. to. 2. he vents himself thus, if I find such things, non semel, sed saepè▪—not once, but often in the Scriptures, non id circo tamen it a re [...] pror [...]us se habere crede­rem: I will not for all that belive it. And if this be an accountable and a reasonable Faith, which is founded not on the Scrip­tures, but on the Wills of Men, then all Heresies must be accountable, and rea­sonable too. But on the contrary, this must be a most unaccountable, and a most unreasonable, nay a blasphemous, and most dangerous Faith, which makes the Writings of Socinus, as Ma [...]met did his Alcoran, the Peoples, Bible, and their Rule of Faith!

But that of the Trinitari [...]s (he saith) is [Page 112] absurd, and contrary both to Reason, and it self: And therefore is not only false, but im­possible. His Reason is, that we teach there are Three Almighty, and most Wise Persons, and yet but one God.

Answ. The Scriptures cannot teach any thing absurd or impossible, but the Scrip­tures doteach there are three, who are but one God; therefore this Doctrine of ours is not absurd and impossible. Now that there are three, who are but one God, is evident as from other Places, so likewise from 1 John 5. 7, 8▪ There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and those three are one▪ And there be three that bear▪ Witness in Earth; the Spirit, the Water▪ and the Bloud; and these three agree in one. Which Texts I will so clear from all their Cavils▪ that they shall sufficiently vindicate our Doctrine from being absurd and impossible.

Euiedinus, and the rest, would expunge the last Clause in the 7th Verse, these three are one. Because▪

1. Some Fathers, who wrote professed­ly on the Trinity, have i [...] not: Whence he makes them to be added by some Ene­my of the Arians.

[Page 113] Ans. 1 St. Cyprian in the middle of the Age before Arius hath this Text intire de Ʋnit Ecc [...]es and St. Jerom soon after Arius censures the Omission of this Clause. Now that of Eniedinus is im­possible, for these Words could not be added by some Enemy of the Arians, in the time of St. Cyprian, who flourished almost an Age before Arius himself was. But the careless, or designed Omission of 'em is necessarily true, because the 4th Age wanted them, after St Cyprian in the 3d Age had 'em. Nor do we find many that quarrell'd with St. Je­rome for censuring this Omission, which some would certainly have done, had he not had a ground for this Censure: which is an Argument that St. Cyprian himself had this Clause, and that it was not afterwards foysted in by some other hand.

2 They plead, that V. 7. is not in the Syriac, nor Arabick, whence some re­ject the whole.

Ans. We grant it; but V. 8. is in both; which is linked to V. 7. by a Con­junction Copulative [and]; beside which, the Sense, Coherence and Dependance of [Page 114] these with, and upon one another, speak this imperfect without that. Whence Beza (whom Letter 4, p. 152 quotes on his side) saith both must be expunged, or reteined together; and then concludes for the reteining both. And indeed this Case is so clear, that since the Socinians receive V. 8, they must receive V. 7. too, or renounce their own reason.

We proceed to confirm the whole Verse to be authentick.

1. These words [I and my Father are one] are allowed on all hands to be St. John's; therefore rhose Words [these Three are One] from the Likeness both of Stile and Matter, seem to be his too. For such a Likeness between Text and Text, is as good an Argument (accord­ing to the proportion of Matter) to prove that each have the same Author, as it is between that Gospel and his Epistle; But all Learned Men allow of this Argument, therefore the Socinian must allow of that, or differ from the World of the Learn­ed, as they do already from the World of Christians.

2. Our Learned Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Burnet, in his Letter from Zurie, observes [Page 115] that among Ten Copies he had seen a­broad, Nine had either the 7th V. or St. Jerome's Epistle, or Preface, which con­dems the Omission, while One only wanted both. Therefore among Ten Co­pies one only was purely Arian, or Soci­nian; because the Omissions in them that wanted, are condemned not only by that Epistle, or preface, but by them al­so who added that Epistle or Preface to those Copies.

3. Suppositions grant nothing; there­fore suppose we, that this Text it self is not authentick; yet the Matter of it is taught by all those Scriptures, which as­sert the Divinity of the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and the Existence of but one God; for they, taken toge­ther do assert that these Three are One; that is, One God, or One in Nature, there­fore was the Socinian a Man of that Rea­son he pretends, he could not think the expunging this Text out of the Sacred Canon, of so much moment, when di­vers others taken together speak the same thing. He is then imployed about a Work he can never effect; or if effected, yet can do him but little, if any service. [Page 116] For which reasons they betake themselves to other Methods.

For they farther plead,If this Text be Authentick yet it cannot intend one in Nature, but One in Testimony, because each verse speaks of each three as Witnesses.

Ans. True, each intend Testimony, as Beza Calvin, Erasmus and others ob­serve: But this doth not prove that v 7. intends no more; nor do these Au­thors Exclude an Unity of Nature. But the variation of the Phrase im­plies a restriction of the matter. For v. 7. saith, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are One; which is equally extendible to Nature, and Testimony: But v. 8. saith, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, agree in One: Which is appli­cable not to Nature, but to Testimony, especially where Testimony is menti­oned, or evidently intended; therefore we understand the former of One in Nature, and Testimony both: else we do not take the Phrase in its full lati­tude, nor make it comport with those other Texts, which declare the Di­vine Nature of Father, Son, and Ho­ly Ghost: And yet that these three are [Page 117] but One True, and Almighty God, because that Nature is numerically one, in which they all agree: But we un­derstand the latter of Testimony only, because the phrase designs no more, nor do any other Scriptures declare that the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, do agree in Nature, as the other do.

But they insist thus,The Expounding, v. 7.of Nature, doth lose the design of these Texts, which speak of Testimony.

Ans. The Expounding it of Nature only, exclusive of Testimony, would have gave some colour of Reason to his Objection: But we Expound it both of 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; [Page 118] 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 Ʋnity. They allow the Thing, it is only the Modus, or Manner, how Two, or Three, can be but One, in which [Page 119] 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 Ʋnion 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 areThree Persons, who are severally, and each of them the true, and most high God; andyet 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 [Page 120] 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 th [...] thing being matter of pure Re­velation we had known nothing of it, unless it had b [...]en Revealed; and there­fore now can know no more, than is [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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. [Page 123] 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; [Page 124] 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 hath revea­led so much as is fit for us to know; and ignorance is neither a Sin, nor a Reproach, where he hath not instru­cted us.

But we must declare it not absurd only, but blasphemous too, to deny what God hath told us, only because he hath not told us more; or not baf­fled our Cavils by a demonstration; as if, they dare not believe him any far­ther than they can see. A right Nico­demus temper, which stumbles at Di­vine Truths only with an—How can these things be?

Sect. 6.

From their Reasonable Faith he proceeds to complement its professors for Learned, and Reasonable Men: Which (he saith) is their Character among their worst Adversaries.

[Page 125] Ans. We do not envy what Lear­ning, and Reason they are thought to have: But we charge them with the abuse of both▪ Their Guilt this way will easily appear to any, that can but understand an Author; their Arguments being fallacious, and their Quotations false. But as for this Epi­stler (poor Man) though we cannot admire his Talents, yet we must de­clare he misimploys that little he hath. This will abundantly appear as from what he hath done, so likewise from his History of the Sorinians, which we now proceed to.

For p. 26▪ thus,those, whom we call Socinians,were by the Fathers, and first Ages of Christianity, called Nazarens,by which name St. Paulis accused before Felix,Acts 29. 5.

Ans. A Christian signifies a Disciple of Christ; and Nazaren in this place a Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth: And did then denote nor a Party, but the whole Body of Christians: So Epiphanius adv. Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 29 [...], all Chri­stians were then called Nazarens; and [Page 126] that by way of contempt from the Jews, as they afterwards were Galilaeans by the Apostate.

They are indeed branded for a Sect in the place quoted, but not as a par­ty broke off from the body of Christi­ans, but as the Church of Christ now separated from the Jews. I beseech you then what peculiar honour, and advantage can the Socinians claim to themselves from hence, was the thing they plead true, when, as Christians, they have this honour, but in com­mon with others; and, as Sorinians, can pretend to but one of the smallest shares of it?

The same Father, c. 7. tells us of a Sect of Nazarens, even before the Incarnati­on, tho indeed Petavius rejects the Ac­count; nor can I see any sufficient grounds for it; but however I mention it to pleasure our Socinians, who are seek­ing a Pedigree. Therefore take it thus, some of these (he saith) professed Christ, but denied his Divinity; in other things they were Jews still▪ for they observed Circumcision, the Sabbath, and other Ceremonies; and therefore stood distinct [Page 127] both from Jews and Christians. Whence Jerom▪ Epist. ad Aug. gives this Character of 'em; viz. they are called Minaeans, or Nazarens; sed dum Volunt & Judaei esse, & Christiani; nec Judaei sunt, nec Christi­ani; While they would pass both for Jews and Christians, they are neither. And if these Men will claim from hence, you have in them this Character of a Socini­an, That he is one who is neither▪ Jew nor Christian. Hence I suppose this Epistler is none of the Reasonable, or Learned a­mong them, since he hath mentioned this either to no purpose, or to his own disad­vantage.

He there saith, they were also called Ebionites.

Ans. These were of two sorts, Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 27. the one held, that Christ was born of Joseth and Mary; the other of the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin. But both observed Jewish Rites, and rejected St. Paul's Epistles, calling him an Apo­state. They received no Gospel but Sr. Matthew, and that mutilated too: Epiphan. adv. Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 30. which Pe­tavius observes was depraved by them, and was the same with the Gospel to the [Page 128] Hebrews, which was used by none but Hereticks. Orig. cont. Cels. l. 5. saith, they teach the Law, and reject the Epi­stles of St. Paul. And Optat▪ Mileu. l. 4. they held it was not the Son, but the Fa­ther that suffered.

They were these Men who troubled the Apostles, and drew their Disciples back to Mosaic Rites, under Menander, Cerinthus, and others, whose Heresy was substantially the same for divers Ages. Whence St. Paul brands them for False Brethren, Gal. 2. 4. elsewhere for corrupters of the Word; and such as he in wait to deceive. This was the Reason they reje­cted his Epistles, because he so constantly censures them. And Ebion himself was branded by all Antiquity for one of the Gnostic Hereticks, Tertul▪ de Praes. Haer. c. 33.

Yet our Socinian Author makes him­self, and Party, the same with these! No matter what poyson men suck in▪ so they deny the Divinity of Christ! This one Bleasphemy sanctifies all! By this Rule they are the same with Simon Magus, the Father of Hereticks; and with the Devil, the Father of Lies; for they both deni­ed [Page 129] the Divinity of the Son; the one in ma­king himself a Saviour, the other in tempting him; excepting this, that the Devil afterwards confessed this Truth, which the Socinian still denies. An hope­ful Brood indeed, that Glories in such Fa­thers.

He proceeds,the Socinians were also called, Artemonites, Theodotians, Symma­chians, Paulinists, Samosatenians, Photi­nians,andMonarchians.

Ans. Grant this, and it must be grant­ed too, that as these Men were always condemned for Hereticks, so the Socinians were always condemned in them. And strange it is they should always be in the right, and yet be always condemned for it?

They were called Artemonites, Photini­ans, &c. to signifie they were the Follow­ers, not of Christ, but of Artemon, Pho­tinus, &c. And did the Socinians seri­ously reflect upon their Blasphemies, and their palpable Corruptions both of the Let­ter and Sense of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as of all Antiquity; it nearly concerns them to consider how far this is applica­ble to themselves; that is, in plain Eng­lish, [Page 130] whether the Name [Socinian] doth not better suit them than that of [Chri­stian.]

The Monarchians boasted, that they held the World was governed by a Mo­narchy; that is, by One God, in oppositi­on to the Orthodox, who (they say) in­troduced Three Gods, by the Doctrine of a Trinity. Whence I grant, that these, and our Socinians are Men of the same Pride and Falshood.

In answer to whom the Orthodox al­ways declared (as we do) that they held no other than a Monarchy, and that the Doctrine of a Trinity is no way contra­dictory to this. For when some in Ter­tullian adv. Prax. c. 3. cried, Monarchi­an tenemus; We profess but One God. he proves, that the Orthodox, or (If he will) the Trinitarians, did hold but One God too: for Proof of which he argues, c. 4. that he deduces the Son from the Substance of the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both; which doth no way destroy, but (as he there pleads) confirms a Monar­chy; for being all Three but of One Sub­stance, or Nature, they can be all Three but One God.

[Page 131] Upon the same bottom the most stre­nuous asserters of a Trinity 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. N [...]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 Ʋnitarians, they had [Page 132] 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 [Page 133] 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. ForEusebius H. l. 7. c. 27. and[Page 134]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 iPhotinus ofSi [...]mium, who being deposed by the Council, his City [Page 135] 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 utro (que) 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.

[Page 136] He proceeds toEusebius, H. l. 5. c. 2 andTheodoret. Haer. Fab. c. Artem. And pretends, they say, that theseNa­zarens constantly affirmed, that they deriv­ed their Doctrine from the Apostles,—And that it was the genenal Doctrine of the Church, till the Popes,Victorand 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 tillVictor andZepherine. 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 thanVictor,contradict them; I mean Justin, Miltiades▪ Tatian, Clemensand many others▪ in all whose Books the Divinity of Christ is taught. For who knows not the Writings ofIrenaeus, Melito,&c in which Christ is set forth as both God and Man? [Page 137] 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 ofVictorcould 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, theLetter 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 194but with little success, till that which [Page 138] was afterwards the Doctrine of theArians,grew into general credit;—for Justin Martyr, Origen,and other principal Fa­thers, teaching (as theAriansafterwards 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 Eus [...]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 [Page 139] 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.

[Page 140] 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, [Page 141] 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 [Page 142] 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 appea [...]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▪ [Page 143] 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, [...]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 [Page 144] 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 [...] indivisible, removes not from place to place; but is in all places, but is contained in none. Again he is [...] all Mind, all Eye, beholding all things. This sufficiently proves Clemens no Arian, since he so manifestly declares the Divine nature of the Son.

Strom. l. 5. he Collects certain Noti­ons out of Plato, which (he saith) can signify nothing else, but [...]. the Holy Trinity. For he puts the Father as the cause of all things, then descends to [...], and to [...] a second, who is conversant about second things, and to a third, who is imployed about third things; he seems to understand by the former the Son, who continues; and by the latter the Holy Ghost, who finishes things. This (he saith) Plato had from the Hebrews; which Argu­ment he abounds in, pleading that the [Page 145] Gentiles had their choicest Notions from the Jews mediately, or immediately.

But whether this was the sense of Pla­to or not; is totally foraign from my Argument. It is enough to me that this Father is so far from being either Arian or Socinian, that he looked up­on the Doctrine of a Trinity as so plain a Truth, that he thought an Heathen could spell it out of the Old-Testament.

Tertullian wrote under Zepherine, if not under Vict r too; and yet adv. Prox. c. 2. satih, the Divinity of the Son was taught from the beginning: and what he understands by his Divinity, himself explains c. 3. where he declares that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father.

These are most undenyable Proofs of the shameless impudence of this Letter, which will have all the prin­ciple Fathers of those times to be Pa­trons of the Arian Herefy.

As for Origen, he not only lived in the Age after Victor, but also upon Revel. 1. 8. I am Alpha, and Omega,, the first, and the last,—the Almighty; [Page 146] doth declare that in these words St. John asserts the Divinity of the Son.

These things so totally ruine this part of the Letter, which would have Arianism the swaying Religion of those times, that I should perswade my self they would never more offer these fal­shoods to the World; did I not find, they have the Confidence to revive old rotten Heresies; and both to adorn, and support their own by them, who were the worst of Men, as well as the most erroneous of Christians.

However the Letter proceeds p. 28, 29this Doctrine being advanced by Justin, Origen, and others, became the more cur­rant Doctrine of the Church, till in the Council of Nice it was Condemned, and a­nother more popular (and so more taking) than that (as attributing to the Son Eter­nity, and Equality with the Father) did generally obtain.

Ans. As Justin, Origen, and others of Note in the Church (as the Letter speaks) never taught any such Do­ctrine; so the Council of Nice did E­stablish no other, but what had always been the Doctrine of the Church, ac­cording [Page 147] to that of Athanasius de Synod. Nicaen. decret. [...], [...] the Faith Established at Nice, is the Faith of the Catholick Church. What this Father saith, we may easily prove both as to the Doctrine it self, and also as to the terms, that express it.

1. The Doctrine Established at Nice is this, that the Son is of the same Substance, Essence, or nature with the Father; and therefore is properly God as the Father is; but that this was always the Doctrine of the Church, is sufficiently evident from what we have already cited from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. To whom I shall add Ignatius, who was cotemporary with the Apostles.

That his Epistles are Genuine, is ac­knowledged by their beloved Sandius; and is Proved by Doctor Peirson against Dailly, even to the shame of all future doubts, and opposition. These often stile the Son God, Epist. ad S nyr. be­gins thus, [...] I glorifie Jesus Christ, who is God. And [Page 148] p. 7. Vos. Edit. he asserts the Divinity a­gain. But I refer the Reader to one Place, which can never be evaded by a­ny Arian, or Socinian Artifice; and that in his Epist. ad Ephes. there is [...], [...], [...]. [...], [...]. [...], [...]. In which words the Author doth distinguish between the Humane and Divine Na­ture of Christ; for he Catnal and Spiritual; of Mary and of God; he is begotten and unbegotten; i. e. begotten as Man, and unbegotten as God: For his E­ternal Generation respects not his Nature, by which he is God, but his Person, by which he is the Son of God. Again, he is passible, and impassible; that is, pas­sible, as Man; so not only his Body was peirced▪ and crucified; but Mat. 26. 38. his Soul was [...], exceeding sor­rowful; or encompassed round with Sor­rows; whence proceeded his Agonies and Bloody Sweat: therefore he is Im­possible only as God. This (I think) considered together with the whole Quo­tation, [Page 149] demonstrates, that it is the De­sign of this Author to assert the Divine Nature of Christ, because nothing but that can be Ʋnbegotten, and Impassible.

2. The Terms in which this Council doth assert the Divine Nature of the Son, are, that the Son is [...], consubstantial, or of the same Sub­stance with the Father; but this was no invention of that Council. For Iren. l. 3. c. 26. but now quoted, saith▪ that his generation of the Virgin speaks him man; but his substance speaks him God: And if so, he must be God in substance; and if God in substance, he must be as the same substance with the Father; because there can be but one Divine Substance, Essence, or Nature; as there is but One God.

Tertullian is more large in this Point; for adv. P [...]ax. c. 2. and 3. he expresly saith, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are Three;—non substantia, not in Substance; that is, they are not substantially distinct; but they are Ʋni­us substantiae, of one, and therefore of the same Substance. Now, I pray, what is the difference between the Fa h r and the Son's being Ʋnius Substantiae, of [Page 150] our Substance; and between the Son's being (in the Phrase of Nice) [...] consubstantial with the Father? Even none. For he that is consubstan­tial with another, must be of the same substance with that other.

In the same place the same Father va­ries the Phrase, but keeps to the matter; saying, that he deduces the Son de Sub­stantia Patris, from the Substance of the Father; which implies what is imported by the two other Phrases. And this (he saith) was taught ab i [...]tio Evangelii, from the beginning of the Gospel. There­fore the Nicene Council did determine no more in this partscular, than what was taught by the Church, even from the beginning of the Church it self.

So plain is it, that the Nicene Fathers did neither invent any New Terms, nor impose any New Doctrine; but did on­ly declare and confirm that which was the Doctrine of the▪ hurch from the A­postles themselves. This gives Credit to not only what we have quoted from Athunasius already, but also to that Pas­sage in his Epistle ad Episc. in Afric. that the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria, did from an hundred and thirty years since con­demn [Page 151] those who denied that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father.

But the Arian Doctrine, which teach­es, that the Son was indeed before the World, but not from Eternity; and that there was a Time in which the Son was not, is no where found in the First Ages of the Church; but was condemned as a New Monster in Religion in the Fourth. So Athanas. cont. Art. Or a. 2. [...]—who hath heard such things as these? And [...], [...]. This is not from the Fathers, but is of Yesterday. And Hilar. Pict. E­pisc. ad Constant. August. l. it is novella lu [...]s, a New Pest; a Pest that hath no more of Antiquity, than of Trnth to sweeten it.

And indeed it was not any of the an­cient Fathers (as this Letter falsly pre­tends), but Arius, a Presbyter of Alex­andria, in the 4th Age of the Church, that invented that Heresie, from whom it took the Name of Arianism. As he was she first, who in this way sought to undermine, and subvert the Divinity of the Son, so he had somewhat a like Exit with Judas, who betrayed him. For as this Traytor burst asunder, and his Bow­els gushed out; so this Heretic, present­ly [Page 152] upon his Perjury, whereby he would seem to abjure, but still retain the Poyson of his Heresie, voided his bowels in a com­mon Jakes.

This was thought a Warning-Piece to the Arians then▪ and ought to be consi­dered by the Socinians now; since they have improved this Heresie, as the Pha­risees did their Proselytes, by making it sevenfold more the Child of Hell than it was; it being in some degrees more gross▪ daring, and anti-scriptural; and carried on by no less Falshood, Treachery, and Wickedness than the other; excepting the Formality of an Oath, and that Blood, and Tortures, which these Men have not the power of.

The Letter proceeds, p. 29.But did Superstition stop here [...] No. For there short­ly arose another Doctrine, that the Son and Holy Ghost, are the sa [...]e God with the Fa­ther, not only (as theNiceneFathers ex­plained the Matter) by Ʋnity of Wills, and specifick Identity, or sameness of Substance, but by numerical, or true Identity, and same­ness of Substance and Nature.

[Page 153] Ans. 1. This Council did intend a numerical Unity, or sameness of Sub­stance▪ that there might be no room left for any Cavils about three Gods.

2. The Church was so far from any new Doctrine, that that Age, as well as the next did celebrate this Creed as the standing Rule of Faith to all the Churches. Epiphan. adv. Haer. l 2. to c. Haer. 72. calls it [...] the Ecclesiastical Rule of Faith. Greg. Nys. to 2. cart. Eunom. l. 1. in our Creed there is [...] the word consubstantial, which must be the Creed of Nice▪ and yet this is Ours. Basil to 3 Epistle 6. recites this, and calls it the Creed [...], in use with you. Ambros. de fid. l. 1. c. 8, 9. quotes part of this Creed about the Consubstantiality, and then saith, this is the Doctrine of the Church, which anathematizes them▪ that teach other­wise. And Evag. H. l 3. c. 17. this was used in Baptism then, as the Creed called the Apostles is now with us; and was confirmed by the next General Council at Constantinople.

[Page 154] They all kept up to this Rule, and intended the same thing; though they did not all agree in the manner of ex­plaining, and proving it. What room then there could be here left for any new Doctrine soon after this Council at Nice, I am yet to learn.

Sect. 7.

Hence he proceds to some Eminent Authors, who (the Letter saith) are either Arian or Socinian.

1. Erasmus is thought an Arian, p. 31. to coulour which pretence, he quoates him upon Philip. 2. 6. and Ephes. 5. 5.

Ans. The former Text, he thinks, doth respect not his Nature, but the man­ner of his appearance and behaviour: But yet he grants us that Christ is God, though he thinks this Text doth not prove it. And on Ephes. 5. 5. the King­dom of God, and of Christ: he declares that these words do not deny the Divi­nity of the Son.

[Page 155] But had this Letter pursued Truth, and not the support of an Error, it would likewise have told the Reader, that upon John 1. 1. The Word was God; he asserts that there is Divinam Essentiam tribus personis Communem; a Divine Essence common to three Per­sons: Which is all we contend for; and which alone speaks Erasmus him­self as true a Trinitarian, as the Au­thor of the Athanasian Creed.

His Paraphrase upon this clause [in the beginning was the Word] saith, the Eternal Word was with the Eternal Father] yet by the Word he understands not the Command, Power or Wisdom of God, but a Person, as appears from the last quotation before this; and con­sequently he here asserts both the Per­sonality, and Eternity of the Word, which is the very Doctrine we teach.

John 8. 5, 8. before Abraham was, I am, he renders, Pri [...]squam nasceretur, before Abraham was born; to the end he might distinguish (as he saith him­self): the manner of Abrahams Ex­istence from Christ's. Abraham was in [Page 156] time, but [semper est Christus] Christ is always; which directly contradicts both the Socinian, who denies Christs Existence before his Incarnation; and also the Arian, who denies his Exist­ence from Eternity. Upon these words he quotes St. Austin, who glos­ses thus, Abraham was made, but Christ is; that denotes a Creature, this a be­ing Eternally existing.

It is plain then that Erasmus taught a Trinity. And certainly he would not think that the ignorant, and dull side of the question (as the Letter speaks) which he teaches for Orthodox Divi­nity. All the difference between him and our selves is this; that we agree in the same Doctrine, but differ only in some of those Mediums that should prove it. For which reason he ought to be read with caution and judgment.

The Letter saith that this Author in his Scholia on the third tome of St. Jerom's Epistles, denies that the Arians are Hereticks.

Ans. Had he told us upon what Epistle these Scholia are, we might have examined the place without [Page 157] much loss of time: But I presume, he thinks himself safe under so loose a Reference, hoping none will turn over a Volume to disprove him.

In his Epistle toBilibaldus thus,I (saithErasmas) could be of the Arian per­swasion, if the Church approved it.

Ans. The Author thus,cum Arianis, & Pelagianis sentire possim, si probasset ec­cesia quod illi docuerunt: Nec mihi non suf­ficiunt verba Christi, sed mirum videri non debet, si sequor interpretem Ecclesiam, cu­jus Authoritate persuasus credo Scripturis Canonicis. I could be of the same mind with theArians,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; [Page 156] [...] [Page 157] [...] [Page 158] 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. theSocinians, 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 [Page 159] 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.

[Page 160] 3. Inp. 32. he pretends, thatPetavi­usgrants,that the Fathers before the Ni­ceneCouncil, 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.)

[Page 161] 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 FriendSandius for aGentleman of Pro­digious Industry, and Reading: and no less ingenious than Learned.

[Page 162] Ans. Whatever his Industry, and Learning was, I m [...]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 [Page 163] (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.

[Page 164] 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, [Page 165] 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 [...]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, [Page 166] 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.


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 [Page] 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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.