A40444	----	A vindication of the Unitarians, against a late reverend author on the Trinity Freke, William, 1662-1744. 1687 Approx. 105 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 15 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A40444 Wing F2166 ESTC R15264 12158615 ocm 12158615 55225 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A40444) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 55225) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 815:11) A vindication of the Unitarians, against a late reverend author on the Trinity Freke, William, 1662-1744. 28 p. s.n., [London? : 1687?] Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Caption title. On the question of allegiance to William and Mary and on the doctrine of the Trinity, 1689-1693. Attributed to William Freke. Cf. Herbert McLachlan in his The story of a nonconformist library. 1923. p. 64. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Unitarians -- Great Britain -- Early works to 1800. Trinity -- Controversial literature. Great Britain -- History -- William and Mary, 1689-1702. 2006-12 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-01 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-02 Robyn Anspach Sampled and proofread 2007-02 Robyn Anspach Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A VINDICATION OF THE UNITARIANS , Against a Late Reverend Author On the TRINITY . ENTRANCE . SIR , I Dare not call you Adversary , indeed , I rather believe we may be Friends ; for tho' there may be a mistake between us , yet I hope we both agree in a sincere love , and search for Truth ; and in what we differ therefore , I shall rather seek to melt you with gentleness , than to subdue you with opposition . Page 150. you tell us , When we are ready , you hope to hear from us again : and you see you have your desire ; you seem to have a sincere good will to Truth your self , and therefore you will be the less surpriz'd to see it in others ; for when you have given so bold a Challenge to all Unitarians , you must expect , that we have but little respect for the Honour , and Glory of God , if we do not answer you . 'T is true , I come to dispute you , and am no Socinian , and as an Arrian my Hypothesis distorts your Argument a little ; but as we are both joyn'd in one Common Cause , and you attempt to deface the Truth of both , so you must think , we expect you provide your self to give us both satisfactions , for tho' you conquer either of us , your Work 's but half done . You must excuse me therefore , if I mind not your Socinian Quarrels , but leaving them to themselves , divert your Argument a little , and bring in a third Hypothesis ; you shall see I will deal fairly with you , state the Matter truly , and proceed sincerely , and clearly ; whether you shall think your self obliged to Reply to me , or not , upon it , is not my care , if I can but rescue the Honour of God , and his Unity by it , I am satisfied . METHOD . It cannot be expected therefore , but that I have alter'd your Method , but yet you shall see withal , that I have justly collected all your scattered Reasons together , and dealt faithfully with you ; and tho' the change of the Hypothesis necessitated this , yet in lieu of it , I shall present you with a Method both shorter and clearer , to recompence it . 'T is plain , large Volumes destroy the Edge of Reasoning , and the Vigour of Sence is lost in the multitude of Words ; I have chosen therefore , rather to be short and sinewy , than tedious and loose , if the Foundation Reasoning be bad , Corollaries fall of course ; and therefore my chief care shall be , whether your leading and ground-work Principles be strong , and to the purpose , or not . I thank God , I do not see my Cause so weak , as to fly to Colours , or that I should use undue Arts for a shelter ; and therefore if I have omitted any thing material , I protest before the Almighty , it has not been wilful ; and if I have any where reprov'd you , as God is my witness , 'thas been where Truth has necessitated and forc'd me ; and if I have wrong'd you , I as heartily beg your Pardon . In short , I have endeavour'd with the most serious Respect , and the greatest Christian Charity and Meekness , to shew you where you have err'd : Indeed , I have not spar'd to advise and reprove you where I ought ; but if I have run that liberty into an extream , or been faulty in any thing , 'thas been my frailty , and not my guilt . All that I know farther to add in this place , is , That perhaps you may wonder how I came to answer you so soon ; but not to offend you , Sir , the Reason is obvious , though Fallacies are difficult , and to be studied , yet Truth is natural , and they are easily answer'd . ADVICE . 1. Boasting . But before I proceed further , I see a necessity , Sir ▪ to advise you of two Faults , Boasting and Uncharitableness ; not that I can blame you over-much neither , nor may be acquit myself of their guilts , but I see a necessity to level these two Mountains in you , least by the Ignorant , these Fortresses of Imagination may be taken for those of Reality . First for Boasting : In your Preface , Sir , you say , You have said too much for us to answer : And it may be so ; but if you have not , we shall seek for Truth , and not to compare our selves with you . So p. 69 , you call our Reason Carnal : And pag. 73 , you tell us , We puzzle and confound our selves with gross and corporeal Idea's of Essence and Substance : when indeed , if such upbraiding Expressions were allowable , we might more justly reflect them upon the Eternal Generation you pretend to . So you conclude your Book , pag. 271. you say , It looks like a Judgment upon us , that while we talk of nothing less than the severest Reason , we impose upon our selves , or hope to impose upon the World , by the most childish Sophistry and Nonsence ; and so pag. 272 , your last words are , You will not envy us the Satisfaction of such Harangues , they being , you say , all the Comfort we have ; but you are pretty confident we shall never le able to reason to any purpose in this Cause again . And what , Sir , is not this Insolence ? Pray , Sir , what is it you mean by these Triumphs ? Is it that you think to storm and brave us out of our Cause ; or that you are sure you only are in the right ? or that if you had the worst Cause , you could defend it well ? Sir , my Charity shall speak the best for you , that you are sure you only are in the right ; but if you are , has not Modesty more Charms to recommend you by , than Insolence . — Excuse me , Sir , I dislike not your Zeal in your Preface , to stick to your Faith , I rather wish it more common ; for were it , Truth had scarce been such a Stranger among us ; nor do I question your Ingenuity , and in Charity I hope you are sincere too ; but these are Expressions that your Zeal has beguil'd you to , that want a Christian Modesty , and tho' such a Confidence with a little more Humanity , might become an Apostle , yet how well they do a meaner Christian , I leave to your self to judge , in cooler thoughts . 2. Uncharitableness . The second thing I have to charge you with , is Uncharitableness , that because we differ in Judgment from you , in this Speculation , you not only treat us like Dogs , and deny us all hopes of Salvation , but withal you manage your Arguments for Truth accordingly , and give us not so much as free Reasoning . Thus you not only abound with Reflections on us , as in your Preface you say of us , We are eminent for nothing but Blasphemy and Nonsence : And pag. 9. you reflect , It becomes the Wit and Vnderstanding of an Heretick : But pag. 24 , you write more freely of us , and tell us , You hope the Disputes of Hereticks against the Catholick Faith , shall not be be called Controversies in the Churches of God. Now , if thus in the very beginning of your Book , you shew we ought to be condemn'd before we are heard , to what purpose does your Infallibility hold a Controversie with us ; but I hope this is before you are aware ; indeed in a Papist these Expressions might be natural enough , but Protestants methinks should be more ingenious , than to take Errours and Hercsies for granted . Consider , Sir , Churches have err'd , and may err , yea , in Matters of Faith too ; if so , who is to be blam'd , he that by Reasoning seeks for Liberty , or he that unjustly with-holds it thro' Imposition ? Did we seek to impose our Hypothesis's on the World , we were as much to be blam'd as you ; but if we only set up ours , to confute the Uncharitableness of yours , wherein do we trespass ? You say , we are Hereticks , and have no Understanding : And whence come you to judge thus freely of us , and not we of you : So you say , we blaspheme ; but pray is not your Charge precarious , and if retorted , falls it not as heavy on your self ? If we err , indeed , we blaspheme the Son and Holy Ghost ; which we hope we do not ; but if you err , do not you both blaspheme and commit Idolatry , in worshipping them as coequal to the Father ? But , Sir , we desire to have a Charity for your Misconstructions , and will give it you where possible , if so pray at least return our love , you see we stoop to make the first offer ; charge us not therefore , that we are only eminent for Blasphemy and Nonsence , for surely you may add in the other scale , that we have a courageable good will to Truth , are some of us perverse , or do some of us revile ; and what , are such Men wanting quite on your side ? REFLECTIONS . If therefore you leave us but room to advise you , as much as the Great Moses left Jethro , let us beg you for Christ's sake to cut off all these Offences ; remember 't is not Generous , much less Christianly , to discountenance a weaker Brother : But what ? you believe not me ; yet at least believe my Truths ; for surely Christ's own Argument will hold you . Can you expect Peace in Christ's Church , whilst you thus allarum and startle Mens Consciences , by so great and grievous Impositions ; Or what , do you expect Men should have no Conscience or Resentment for Truth ? If you do not , do not fetter them thus ; you know 't is no Argument of Errour to be singular ; nay , I am sure , you know very well , that Truth is rarely popular , but rather suppressed and stifled through Mens Lusts . Let us learn therefore , to let Natural Religion lead our Revelation , else the Curse of the Holy Ghost will fall upon us , and tho' we have eyes we shall not be able to see , nor were we Turks should we be capable of being converted ; indeed , when we are bewitch'd to the fury of a prepossess'd Zeal , will not all Men say , we rather bafle , than love , or scearch for Truth when we argue ? Excuse me , Sir , that I am thus free with you , which I should not have been , had it not been in Justice to my Cause ; but I durst not let these prepossessions ensnare my Reader , and yet not that I think so heinously of you for them neither , for many that have wrote much worse then your self on the Subject , have been more confident ; and I could wish myself , as well as you , out of harms way of Error ; indeed , could I have had a fair Hearing without , I had been very easily otherwise satisfied . PRECOGNITA . I shall now only present you with a few Precognita , to state duly the true Idea of the Controversie , between the Trinitarians , and the Arrians , and I shall then proceed to a particular Answer ; and I hope you shall see too , to your satisfaction , and without the least needless Cavil or Objection whatever . The Trinitarian believes , That there is One God , but that he Exists in Three Persons , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and that these Three Persons are co-equal , and co-eternal , and by a Joynt Power created the Heavens and Earth , Men and Angels , and all things else , that any way exist . They believe , this Trin-unity even now continues to Rule the World by a Joynt Providence ; but that for Orders-sake , they have distributed their Dominions into several , and subordinate Personal Offices ; thus ▪ they make the Father alone to personate the True God , the Son to become Incarnate , to redeem us to his Mercy , and the Holy Ghost under the Son , to assist us through Grace in his Trials . The Arrian believes , That there is but One God , and that he Exists but in One Person ; that the Son and Holy Ghost are neither co-equal , nor coeternal with him ; that he first made the Son , and through him fram'd the Holy Ghost and Angels ; that some of the Angels falling with Lucifer , He through the Son , and by the Holy Ghost fram'd this World , and Man within it . They believe there is no co-equal Trinity to Rule the World through a Joint Providence ; but that their Dominions are subordinate , and adequate to their Powers ; thus that the Father alone is the True God , that the Son became Incarnate to satisfie God's Justice , to redeem his Creation , and to destroy the Devils Malice in Adam ; that the Son has deputed the Holy Ghost , to assist us through his Grace in our Trials . By this , Sir , I hope I have given you a fair Breviate of the two Hypothesis's , I shall only beg your Patience , whilst I add two or three Principles to illustrate the Controversie , and then after a few Reflections on them , I shall desist my Precognita , and proceed . PRINCIPLES . 1. Nothing is more manifest , than that the Jews in the Idea of their First Commandment , conceiv'd but One Person to be in their One God. 2. Could the Jews , or Judas have charg'd Christ , with pretending himself to be the Supream God , which the Gospel tells us the False Witnesses principally labour'd after , they would not only have made their Acclamation , We have no King but Caesar ; and their Inscription on his Cross , Jesus of Nazareth , the King of the Jews , John 19. but they would have added , No God , no False God , too . 3. Lastly , 'T was near 300 Years after Christ , e're Tradition and Scripture-Interpretation were so much as urg'd to explain and bring forth a Trinity . My Reflections upon these Principles , shall be only Two , and they are as follows : First , That the Doctrine of the Trinity has alter'd the first and greatest Commandment , as it were , by chance ; and whereas the Goodness of God in such a Case , would certainly allow us a solemn Repeal ; the Athanasian Creed is so far from such Mercy , that it makes this very catch poenal of Salvation ; and that very Trinity , that without doubt received their Honour jointly before , can now be admitted on no pretence , to receive it otherwise than severally . Secondly , You see hereby , this Great Mystery is not purposely requir'd , but accidentally enforc'd ; so that whether this inscrutable Mystery , and incomprehensible Hypothesis , be a Divine Truth or not , yet at least this is plain , the means of knowing it are Humane , and consequently the whole Mystery itsself disputable , and left to the Understanding of Man to examine . Now , whether the little grounds Men pretend to for the support of this Mystery , be sufficient or not , is what I have undertaken to disprove , in answer to you , by this following Treatise : And for my better Method , I shall distribute my Subject into Three Parts ; to wit , The Proof of the Trinity , from , 1. Reason . 2. Scripture . And 3. Tradition . And herein I shall pursue your Method , and begin with Reason first . REASON . KNow then Sir , to avoid all needless Arguments , I will grant you , that your Creed may in a Sence be rational , and very near agreeable to what you have wrote , in Sect. 2. thus I will agree with you , as you ingeniously alledge , pag. 49 , and 68. That Three Persons Self-conscious and Immaterial , may in a sence be called One : Nay , and not improperly give the first Commandment as One , as being inseperably united in Will and Wisdom ; indeed , Sir , to do you right , what you have in this alledg'd , is the only thing that ever I saw like rational for the Trinity yet . But then , as you say your self , As by Natural Religion there can be but One God , pag. 147. And tho' there be several Persons , yet they cannot act apart , but always with One Energy , pag. 136. So your own Argument destroys itself ; for surely , where there are mean and under Offices between Persons , the Energy is manifestly not One , nor the Act simple . Nor will your Arguments , pag. 118 , help you , for 't is manifest by the Descent of the Holy Ghost on Christ like a Dove , that the Three Divine Persons act separately , as well as think so ; so that if your own Arguments be consistent , pag. 124 , and God be a pure and simple Act ; as you alledge , pag. 129 , and 167 , And Alterity makes Duality ; as you likewise affirm ▪ pag. 122 , 't is plain , these Three Persons cannot make up such a Deity as you would imagine ; indeed they might be One in a Metaphor , and as in Scripture sence , but to be really One is a Jest . But you will say , 't is their Self-consciousness which makes them One , and that you apprehend consistent with this Personality : I answer , That is to run your self into as great Absurdities , to avoid the present ; Is it rational Self-conscious , and absolute Coequals , should take or impose servile and underling Offices of each other ? Besides , that the Son and Holy Ghost are conscious to the Father , is absolutely false , and groundless from Scripture , as I shall shew you in order . St. Austin's Explication . But I see , Sir , you are resolv'd not to be at a loss , you will rather have two Strings to your Bow , than fail of your Mark , and therefore now , we must prepare our selves for St. Austin's Self-consciousness : And in this you say , The Trinity are conscious to each other , as our Memory , Will , and Vnderstanding are , which know and feel whatever is in each other , v. pag. 50. Alas , Sir , I wonder how that you who live in the fuller Rays of Humane Learning , can brook the comparing of Faculties to Persons , or how you can repeat such Inconsistencies as they produce , before you acknowledg'd each Person compleat , and rational ; and now you make the Father impotent , and only a Speculation , pag. 132. and the reflex Wisdom , or the Son of God , only powerful to act and create : And again , by another turn , pag. 169 , you make him impotent too . In short , Sir , I shall forbear to offend you , with all those Comments I could make in this place , did I rather study Malice than Truth ; but this you force me to declare , that if you take such liberty to prove your Mystery , as to make Persons Faculties , and Faculties Persons , as you do , 't is impossible that any Reasoning should hold you ; For by the same liberty , what may you not say ? And what , Sir , do these Wiles look as from God ? And that the Reader may see , you have not treated of these Faculty-Gods by chance , pag. 135 , you attribute the Creation to them , pag. 182 , 183 , you make the Father to have no Mercy in himself ; indeed , pag. 135 , you would seem to palliate the matter , by saying , The essential Character of the Holy Ghost , in the like case , is Love. But , Sir , a running Eye shews this to be all Mystery indeed , and really such an one as confounds Personality , Trinity , and Deity all at a stroke , v. pag. 130. Besides , Sir , you make Love in the Father to be the Holy Ghost , a Person , and God , p. 133. And pray , Sir , why is not Hatred a Person in God , as well as Love ? The Reason you give why Love is a Person , is because there can be no Accident in God ; and therefore even an Affection in him is real , and makes a Person : But what , Sir , may not this Reason serve for Hatred , and an hundred Affections more ? REFLECTIONS . I shall add no more at present concerning the Reason of the two Hypothesis's , because it will fall more naturally in our way , as we examine the Scriptures ; and indeed , I have wrote nothing at all here of the Arrian Hypothesis , because the Reasoning of it is so obvious , that it were to fire Candles to enlighten the Day , to illustrate it . Give me leave therefore to advise you , Sir , that for the future you be wary to reason more perfectly , or not at all ; 't is no light Truth that you have oppos'd ; and I believe many a Reader would have had less Charity for what you have done , than I have ; and may be would condemn you for beguiling with the appearance of Reasoning ; but I neither think so of you , nor believe otherwise , than that your Paternal Zeal has misguided you . As for the Contradictions of this Doctrine , I shall speak of them in their proper place ; in the mean time , I shall pass on to Examine your Scripture-Interpretations : And by this time , I hope you are convinc'd , that you have jump'd out of the Frying-pan into the Fire , and instead of helping out an Absurdity by a Nicety , made it the more suspicious by defending it with a Fallacy . Scripture Interpretation . BEfore I descend into Particulars , I shall write a little of the Interpretation of Scriptures in general ; and methinks here it grieves me to see , how to make out this Mystery , Men have not stopt at any Arts , to force and wrest the Scriptures to this imaginary Truth . Page 153 , you say , We ought not to force the Scriptures to preconceiv'd Notions : But what ? is not this Mystery such ? Surely , were a Pagan to read the Scriptures , the first Commandment would keep him so much as from ever dreaming of a Trinity ; and I wonder really how it came into Mens Minds : I know the World would be apt enough to embrace it , when it once comes their , as their Superstition has always enclin'd them to a Polytheism ; but I should have thought there had been a sufficient Guard , against every colour of it in Christianity . But to maintain this Hypothesis , now once up , let me beseech you to consider your own evasive Constructions of Scripture ; I am perswaded , if you err , as I have said , `t is because you have continued in your first Faith with too little circumspection ; and that the Socinian Hypothesis has not appear'd natural to you ; for you seem to have much sincerity , to do otherwise , and therefore I presume this liberty with you . Of the SON . Consider then , I say , is it not strange that you should make the Son , know things as God , and not know them as Man. p. 177 , pray after what manner was the God head Incarnate , and what kind of Person was this , that by a kind of Ventriloquy you make to speak something as Divine , when the ordinary Person knows nothing of them himself i ▪ p. 270. So , what an Answer you have there , that the Son was tempted as to his Manhood , but not as to his Godhead ; And pray then where was the Godhead all the while , like Baal's asleep ; or was the Man Christ now and then as it were possessed by Fits ? Methinks I am asham'd to handle the Absurdities of this Hypothesis , they make me giddy when I consider them . So in the same Page , in Interpreting , Mark 13. 32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man , no not the angels that are in heaven , neither the Son but the Father : Do you not think you wrest and destroy the Scripture Sence , and in pretence of saying St. Matthew has not what St. Mark has , blemish the clearest Text ? You had better write down-right , St. Mark 's Gospel is not true ; or that Gradation , Man , Angel , or Son is impertinent , and then you would answer something-like , as if you defended a Mystery . But by the way , you must excuse me , Sir , if for Truth's-sake , I am forc'd thus to make such Reflections on your words which tho' they may seem hard , yet are necessary ; and yet not that they belong so much unto you , as your Cause , which I cannot otherwise set to a full light , which I believe you have hitherto embrac'd with too much inadvertency , and in following the corrupt Interpretations of the Church with too much Zeal : But to return to my purpose : Nor will your Evasion of Self-consciousness , make God and Man One Person here , as you would insinuate , pag. 262. for 't is plain , God and Man are thus two Persons , if they acted together , and God commanded the Reason regularly , as the Reason does the Sence ; as you urge , pag. 268 , 9. there might be some pretence for their being One Person , but you see plainly , the Godhead exerts itsself may be now and then as it lists , nay , ever and anon , as it did at Christ's Crucifixion and Acclamation , left the Man by himself , and crying out upon the Godhead , My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me . And what ? Can here be any pretence then that the Godhead suffer'd ? For shame , leave the Blasphemy ; and for his being conscious to the Man Christ Jesus , that that should make him Incarnate , is such a shuffle , that you had as good say , God is personally united to us all , because he is conscious to all our thoughts ; as suppose a Personal Incarnation of God himself in Christ , on that account . So that all that you alledge , of the Incomprehensibility of the Incarnation , will not salve your Sores , for all that you urge of that kind , pag. 264 , is but gratis dictum , and you ought to have more Truth in your Foundation , before you can justifie such profound Mysteries in the Building . Of the FATHER . So surely hereafter , Sir , you will be asham'd to see how groundlesly , you have made the Person of the Father , signifie the whole Trinity , as you have done ; I am perswaded , if God should mercifully open your eyes , once to a Conviction , your own wrested Allegations will settle and six you for ever from wavering . What you say , pag. 89 , and 193. That the Son calls the Father the only true God , Quatenus fons Deitatis ; and that not in opposition to the Persons in Vnion with him ▪ but the False Gods , pag. 185 , 186. is so groundless , and withal so perverting a Construction of Scripture , and meerly on the presumption of your Hypothesis , that I wonder how in fair Argument you can use it ; nay , and when in the very Text you cite , you have the Father called the only true God , in opposition to the Son himself . Sir , Give me leave to tell you , your Church and Self have by Time and Industry , given your selves such Methods to blind your selves , like the ancient Astronomers , with so many Epicicles , and blind and precarious Principles , in leading your interpreting Scriptures , that without singular Courage and Integrity lead you , I may say , the peculiar Grace of God do it , indeed 't is almost impossible to shew you Truth , you are so clouded and maz'd from it , by your own corrupt Subtleties in defending Error . But yet , why do I accuse you so far , you have already granted one half of what I desire , That so many leading Terms , as Hypostasis , &c. are to be blam'd , pag. 139. be pleas'd but to move one step further , clap Homo ousios among them , which you confess is not in Scripture , pag. 15 , and yield me , that our imposing Explanations must at least mud , if not corrupt the stream of Truth ; and you shall see after that , that you and I shall never disagree . I shall add no more in this place , but to shew you , how deep you are dipt by your Zeal in this Error , that pag. 150 , you can tell us , We ought not to interpret Scriptures by Reason , the Reason you assign us is , because we must observe the Propriety of Words and Phrases , and the Scope of the Text : And what then ▪ Sir , is not Reason to enquire and rule those ? You had as good say , she has no concern in Language ; And pray in what has she more ? But I shall forbear further Reflections . INCARNATION . I have hitherto shewn you , how much you have err'd in your general Interpretation of Scripture , I shall now proceed to rectifie your Errors in particulars , wherein I shall be the larger , that I may comprehend the Objections of the late Dr. S — , and others , on my Subject : I shall begin first with the Incarnation . Now that I may the better shew the Errors of the Incarnation , as in your Hypothesis , I shall state it , as it lies most natural in mine : Know then , that tho' I do not violently acknowledge the Son of God to be co-equal to the Father , yet I freely grant him to be as Great , and Eminent as God could possibly make him . Sir , I do not imagine a Prosopopeia Incarnate , as you suggest , p. 227. nor do I make the Godhead carry about , and now and then possess a Body , as I have shewn your Trinity Hypothesis will necessitate ; but I suppose the great God and Angel , who under the Father fram'd all things , to satisfie God's Justice , and destroy the Malice of Satan , and to redeem his own , willingly condescended , that through the Power of God , his Being might be reduc'd as to a first Semen , and so he might live with Purity , and suffer under that Trial , that no Creature but himself could be able , besides , to accomplish with any certainty , for our Redemption . This , Sir , I conceive , is the great Mystery of the Incarnation ; and this , methinks , carries some semblance of Rationality ; for if we from little Semens , may hereafter grow to the most considerable degrees of Glory , as the Scriptures assures us , surely there can be no impossibility , nor difficulty , that God should be able to reduce the most glorious of his Beings back again , and make them , as from the first Seed of a Soul , arrive to their Ancient Glory . But to this you say , pag. 244 , That there is no greater Nonsence in the World , than a Made God , and a Creature God : Sir , the Proposition is bold , but you have not stoop'd to a proof of it ; however ▪ I hope to shew you , 't is neither Nonsence nor Absurd ; I must confess , a Creature God to be imagin'd the Supream , were absurd ; but when I say a Creature-God , I only mean a Spirit of an ubiquitary Presence , and multitudinary Power ; or one that by a perfect Self-consciousness , can reason with infinite Beings at once . If then , Sir , you will not deny it to be in the Power of God to create such a Spirit , which I hope , Sir , you will not ; for I should be sorry to see my Words draw you to blaspheme the Power , which you can know no Limits of , but Vice , Error , and Weakness : if you 'll grant me , I say , that God can make such a Power , I will add , he has ; for surely , to make such more glorious Beings , is much more for his Honour , than all little , single , and weak Individuals , as You and I are . But you say , pag. 159 , 160. What shall a meer Man be exalted above Angels ? Yes surely , if he were first above them , and laid aside his Being only for a time , and in obedience to his God : And what say you ? Can any thing under infinite Wisdom Rule the World ? Yes , Sir , God's most glorious Son , that is wiser than all Men and Angels besides , and that is in the Bosome of the Father , and so has his assistance , may rationally do it . And pray , Sir , where are the Absurdities and Contradictions of these things ? Methinks , Sir , in this you should have been asham'd of your Reasoning : You can allow God's begetting a Son co-equal Rational , pag. 221. but 't is with an horrour , that you detest an Angel-God : But pray , Sir , if the Notion of God's begetting a Son be not carnal , tell me why he has not more Sons than One ? You dare not blaspheme him sure , to say he is not more fruitful ; or are you so niggardly , to think , he can multiply his Glorious Issue too fast . But to return to my Subject : Hence it was , if you would know , That the Son says he could do nothing of himself , pag. 169. and hence it was , That whilst Incarnate he had need of the help of the Holy Ghost : but the Reasons that you have given in these things , are so shuffling , pag. 187 , 270 , that I blush to read them . Platonicism objected . So that all the Objections I know against this Hypothesis , is but , that 't is the Platonick Philosophy made Christian ; and as to that , I shall only say this : Is Truth the worse , because Plato hapned to Idea it ; or is Christianity to be dis-esteem'd , because a Philosopher chanc'd to be in some of her Roads ? But least any one should think , that the Doctrine of Plato should have the least influence , in wresting the Scriptures to this Hypothesis , I do hereby in the presence of God declare , what it was that first mov'd my Judgment , and turn'd me to be an Arrian ; and if it did me , it should move us in Charity to think it did others . An Acquaintance of mine , speaking by chance of the Trinity , told me , Some thought it a breach of the first Commandment ; and to convince me , 't was not reveal'd in the New Testament , shew'd me that most notable Chapter of the First of the Hebrews : Now he little thought what he had done , when he did this ; for tho' my Zeal boyl'd against his Blasphemy , as I thought it for a time , yet when I reflected again with myself , I thought at least , his Discourse had rais'd such Scruples in my Mind , that the very Considerableness of the first Commandment would necessitate me to enquire of . Now this was not only all the Discourse I had with him , but I remember to this day , that I could never understand by his Discourse , whether he were Arrian or Socinian , nor indeed what either Hypothesis was ; tho' lately , I must confess , I have perceiv'd him rather enclin'd to the Socinians . But thus it was , that shortly after going for London , where my Doubt continuing upon me , I resolv'd to give myself satisfaction : I saught for Books , but found none ; indeed I did not know what to enquire for ; whereupon resolving to know that by myself , which I could not by others , without either knowing of Arrianism , Socinianism , or Platonism , I took this following course : I took the New Testament , where I conceiv'd this Truth was to be found reveal'd , if any where , and reading it with attention , I collected every Text relating to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , into an Imperial Sheet of Paper ; for neither liking giddy Tradition , nor the tricks of wresting single Texts , I thought that this could be the only way to find the Truth by , if any . Now God is my witness , that when I I did thus , I could not but fall into Arrianism ; not that I then knew what Name my Opinion had ; but some time after meeting with Books , I saw the difference of Arrianism and Socinianism , and found that I was not singular in my Sentiments , but that the World had thought the same before me . Nor was this all , but before I knew that my Hypothesis had been known to the World , thinking that I was singular in the Truth , I resolv'd in Charity to Mankind to publish my discovery , till some Friends hearing of it , advis'd me to consider first , that I might be as much blinded by my own Pride of S●earch , as the World was by their Corruption and Traditions . Upon this resolving to be resign'd to Truth , and fearing lest my presumption might ruine me , I not only took all my Papers and burnt them , but resolv'd to read all Books for the Trinity , and converse all Persons , and if possible , satisfie myself to believe , and acquiesce in so great a Mystery . But alas , Sir , after all this care , you see I am forc'd to differ from you ; so that tho' I could willingly lay by my Sentiments , the better to examine Truth for a-while , yet when on s●earch I could still do no otherwise , than think my Old Opinion the best ; I durst not leave Truth for ever ; and I hope the necessity of my Case will at last induce you to a Charity for me . Of Spirits , Gods , &c. But that I may return from this digression , and the better evidence to you , that these God-Angels are no Novelties in Scripture , let me add hereto an Idea of the Nature of Spirits , as I have taken it even from the Scriptures themselves ; and thus there are Gods , 1 Cor. 8. 5 , 6. 2 Cor. 4. 4. Potentates , Principalities , Rulers , and Dominions , Col. 1. 16. Eph. 6. 12 — 1. 20 , 21. and Angels , &c. God , signifies a Spirit of Universal Po●●…er , so that tho' there be but One Supream God , the Father , yet he has constituted the Son and Holy Ghost , two Deputies a under him , calling the Son an Angel in this deputation , in the Old Testament b . And on this Foundation stand those Expressions , Let us make Man , &c. c And thus , through the Son it is that we are said to have Access , by one Spirit to the Father d ; and thus it is , that the Holy Ghost , and S●tan the E●●l God e ; are in us like two contrary prompting and ruling powers f . Thus it is , that the Son , as Governour under the Father of these two lesser Gods , administers the Gifts of the One , g and restrains the temptations of the other , h whilst they are in a perpetual War in us ; that is , all Mankind at once , i one helping us , the other tempting us , one comforting us , and the other accusing us , one having seven the Number of Perfection attributed to him , k as likewise has the other . And thus you are to understand the Texts of a universal good Angel , l and a universal evil one , m and tho' some have thought both Satan and the Holy Ghost rather Names of Orders of Spirits , than God-Angels , citing n for it ; yet 't is plain by the whole course of Scripture , that those places more rationally ought to be understood , that those Gods have Principalities , and Angels , &c. which are sometimes employ'd by them in Offices under them . If you desire to see this Matter more amply argued , you must read Mr. Bidell's Twelve Arguments of the Holy Ghost , who when he had made the Holy Ghost so considerable as he did , I wonder how he could continue a Socinian longer ; for the Scriptures so plainly set the Son above the Holy Ghost , and tell us , That all Power is given to the Son both in Heaven and Earth , which he cannot possibly otherwise manage , that I admire he did not turn Arrian through-out . But to return , this Order of God's Administration through the Son , and by the Holy Ghost , appears more plainly , when we consider , their gradative Stiles in Scripture , and the Apostles Creed ; thus the Father only is called God in our Creed , as only being so ; the Son called Lord , as he only really is so under him , 1 Cor. 8. 5 , 6. and the Holy Ghost , or Spirit , only stiled Holy , in opposition to the Evil One. And thus , the Divine Benefits we receive , as from the Father , are called Love and Operation , from the Son Grace and Administration ; but from the Holy Ghost and lesser Power , only Gift and Fellowship , 1 Cor. 12. 4 , 5 , 6. 2 Cor. 13. 14. and hence it was , that all Communication between the Father and Holy Ghost , being through the Son , Prophecies ceas'd while the Son was Incarnate . Next unto these , as I have said , succeed Principalities , Powers , and Dominions : Now these , by their very Names shew themselves to be as lesser Deputies ; that is , as Governours of Provinces , and Kingdoms , under the Gods of the World , the Holy Ghost and Satan ; and for these and their Offices you may see , Dan. 10. 12 , 13 , 20 , 21 — 12. 1. Acts 16. 9. Lastly , As for Angels , I need say nothing of them , seeing their Names declare their Offices , and the Scriptures abound with Examples of their performing them ; thus an Angel came to the Virgin Mary , to Cornelius , and several others ; so that of this enough : And if any thing remain , it must be to explain the reasonableness of there Hierarchy . REFLECTIONS . I say therefore , when we think to reason of Spirits ; we must freely allow our selves an open and generous source of Thought ; for as the Air , and much more they are too fine for the gross Casements of our Eyes ; so if we design duly to examine their Nature , we must be able to walk without Sence a little , and not think to grope grosly after them , as if we would feel them . First then , I lay it down as a Rule , That Spirits are Immortal , and have no need of any nourishment , nor do , nor need we doubt this , when we consider even how the Sun has subsisted , how his unwearied Rays impair him not , and how so many Thousand Years has not exhausted his Source of glowing Fuel . 2 ly , To this I must add , that I cannot but believe , that like unto Clouds in the Air , they gradually subsist in each other , by the proportional Purity of each others Substances ; nor need this be strange to us , for this is evident , that God at least exists in all of them , and rules them as easily as they by his permission can us ; and if so , what hinders but that he may have Deputy-Gods to do the like under him . Nor can it well be otherwise , than that they should rule one another thus , through their gradual Purity , and Inexistency ; for when we consider , that Devils are entirely wicked , and are not to be ruled otherwise than through a real force , there remains no doubt , but that as they are in subjection to one another , so it is through such a real force as this , that neither Art , nor Conspiracy can destroy . But yet , after all this , methinks I hear hear you object , that this is difficult to conceive , that any Creature should be of so extensive a Power ; And yet why so ? Does not the Sun do the same thing in the Sensible , and Vegetable World ? And shall we think as general a power in a Spirit , that as easily pierce the thickest Bodies , as he does the Air , impossible ; nay , or so much as difficult , in the rational World : But what ? We know not how it is done , no more we know not how God , and our own Spirit exist within us . To conclude , I shall only add , that this being once granted , there remains no difficulty to imagine , how all our Spiritual Actions are perform'd , and how we are tempted ; thus only the Supream God , and his Son , possibly may see our Thoughts , the lesser Gods , the Holy Ghost and Satan , may only have power of Imagery , and prompting us , while Potentates and Angels , may only have power to rule and converse us . But of this enough , and I shall now proceed to handle those particular Texts , that you , and others have cited against us . Particular TEXTS . [ John 1. 1. ] Page 216 , you tell us , In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God : And what , Sir , can be more agreeable to an Hypothesis than this to ours ? May I tell you more agreeable , than the Trinitarian , for here is no mention of a Union of these two , but that in the beginning of all Things there was a God , which we beheld as the Word on the Earth , that Existed with the Supream God , that as his Instrument made all things , and that coming to his own to redeem them , they knew him not : And here , Sir , your Charges against the Socinians , not only vanish to Air , but turn against you , when us'd by the Arrians . Now , that you may not take our Idea of the Son to be groundless , I shall give it you thus , from Scripture itsself : He is the beginning of the Creation of God , a for Righteousness exalted to be God's Son , b and yet as so wholly dependant on the Father c . So he is likewise made our Universal Lord and Ruler , d nay , even Lord of All , with express Eminence , e and Judge , f who before his Incarnation , was that Word , by whom God made the Worlds , and fram'd all Things , g whether visible or invisible , h but yet so as an Instrument only i : Which Texts I must agree with you , Sir , I think the Socinians wrongfully wrest to a new Creature . Further , tho' the Son be often called God in Scripture , as a ; yet that can give us no ground to equal him to the Father , the Supream God , because God is not only a Title , as I have said often , bestow'd on Creatures b , but is particularly intended to the Son as such , as you may see c , where he is only declared to be Lord by it , which is a Title inferiour and subordinate to God. [ Prov. 8. 30. ] Your next Text I shall shall speak to , is , Prov. 8. 30. Then I was by him , as one brought up with him , and I was daily his delight , rejoicing always before him . And what , Sir , does this look , as if there was a coequality to be represented ? No , surely , the Text aggrandizes the Person of the Father too much ; and when you consider it , I doubt not , but you will grant me so . Nor need I give you other Answer here , since you know I grant Christ in his pre-existent state d , to be a Spirit of a Universal Power e , who laying aside his blessed State f , was deputed into Incarnation g , and rewarded for it h , being made our Mediatour g , the Lord of our Temple and Sabbath , and King and Spouse to the Universal Church i . [ Exod. 23. 20. ] Page 299. you say , That there are many Texts in the Old Testament , even by Christ and his Apostles , applied to himself , as then in being ; and I grant it you , thus Zech. 12. 10. They shall look on me whom they have pierced , page 208 , and in Malacby , Behold I will send my Messenger , and he shall prepare the way before me , page 235 , answering to Mat. 3. 3. But what benefit will these Texts do you ? Nothing really , but confound your Hypothesis . 'T is true , Christ did appear in-being in the Old Testament , but as but an Angel , bearing the Name of God k , once in Eminence called , The Angel of the Presence l , and as he is sometimes called in the New Testament too , m Who taking flesh upon him , shew'd as much by the Agonies he was in n . But to pretend , that there could be the Union of two Rationals , a God and a Soul in a Body , to make a Person ; or that the Godhead could possibly divest itself of Power and Knowledge , to possess the Body of an Infant ; or that it was otherwise in Christ , who like others was a Child , and grew in Knowledge by degrees ; are such Principles , that without Men lay by their Reason with their Religion beyond retrieve , I wonder they are not asham'd of . Besides , even the satisfaction of Christ as God , seems irrational ; What must we make our Creatour suffer for us , e're he can pardon us , and imaginarily manage the Machine of a humane Body , to attone to himself , and by himself ? What looks more impertinent and absurd ? But that Christ the Lord of all Creatures , should attone their God for them , nothing seems more rational or just , if he design'd to satisfie God's Justice , to destroy the Works of the Devil in Adam , and bring us to Glory , Heb. 2. 9 , 10. And upon this account it was , that for all Christ's Prayer , That if it were possible this Cup should pass from him : God's Justice would not let it , indeed he is too impartial even to spare his own Son. [ Heb. 1. ] Next , I should speak of the Text , Heb. 1. quoted from Psal . 102. 25 , 26 , 27. and mention'd in your Book , pag. 200. How Christ fram'd the World , which you know I deny not , however , give me leave to tell you , that that Context utterly destroys your Hypothesis , tho' it does not mine ; for how you will reconcile these words , Being made so much better then the Angels , v. 4. And thou hast lov'd Righteousness , and hated Iniquity , and therefore God , even thy God , has anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows , viz. Angels in the Context , I know not ; and yet you see Christ is called God , that it is mentioned in his highest degree , in the same Context , v. 8. 9. So that I hope , Sir , if our Brother Socinus cannot please you , as wresting too much the Scriptures in his Interpretations , as you complain , pag. 229 , 230 , yet the Arrian may give you satisfaction , and shew you there is an Hypothesis more apt , may I say , almost infinitely than the Trinity . John 3. 16 , Page 238 , you tell us , The Fundamental Mystery of Christianity is , that God so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting Life : And I agree with you , Sir , provided you will but take away your additional stretch of an Eternal Generation to the Words , and let the Scripture interpret them . Now the ground upon which the Scriptures say Christ is called God's Son , you may see plainly ; a and so for his Resurrection , which God accomplish'd for him , b But where is it we are to find , he is his Son through an Eternal Generation ? Not surely because he is called God's Son ; for that he was not , unless prophetically , before his Incarnation , nor only begotten , for that might be only as he was God's eminentest , and only peculiar Creature , indeed the Texts before-cited , take away all other Mystery from the Word whatever . So , for his being without Sin in the Flesh , it might be , because , as I said , he was immediately God's Creation , whereas all things else were made by him , and through him , and consequently more imperfect ; and for that cause too , he may properly be called his only begotten Son , and his express Image , as no one besides has , or is capable of managing an entire Deputation under him . And upon this account indeed it was too , that he alone was able to bear the weight of the Prophecies , and Tryals incident to our Redemption ; for if I may so say , not only the Tryals were too hazardous to be ventur'd at by an ordinary Angel , but no One , except the Great Lord of the Creation , would be like to shew so great a Love to it , in its Redemption . Heb. 2. 9 , 10. Besides , as God's Justice is most impartial , so even tho' the Son undertook the Office , he was not favour'd in it ; thus when he became Incarnate , he had no Power of his own a , nor was he called to his Office , till he had first sought to God with tears b , and when he was too , he was often left to the sharpest Tryals alone , or else he could never have cry'd out , My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me , when he was upon the Cross , as he did . Indeed , had he not then been wholly dependant on the Father c , and directed by the Holy Ghost d , and as so dependant on God's Grace d , he had been no apt Pattern for us e , as he is now , when subject to like Infirmities f , and yet not but that I grant , that after he was once rais'd again from the Dead by God g , after his Ascention he receiv'd his Power again . Mat. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 6. Another Text you urge against us is , That 't is said of Christ , Phil. 2. 6. That he thought it not robbery to be equal to God , v. pag. 240 , 244. But whatever you surmize , this Text will do you but little benefit ; for what is this , but to require what I have granted , that Jesus Christ is absolute Lord to all the Glory of the Father ; and indeed , Sir , if you would have but look'd a little further , to v. 9. and 10 , you would have seen the Apostle himself , apply this my Interpretation according to , 1 Cor. 15. 27 , 28. So pag. 239 , you tell us , He took upon him the form of a Servant . And pag. 242. you say , That that proves his Pre-existence : And I grant it you : And what , Sir , is not this agreeable to my Hypothesis ? But you add , pag. 242 , That it was matter of free choice : And have I not said the same ? Indeed , you have added , pag. 244 , That there is not greater Nonsence , than a Creature-God : But , Sir , then you should have prov'd it . John 2. 19. 21. Page 233 , you tell us , The Temple was a Type of Christ : as you urge it more strongly , pag. 234 , 235. And indeed , Sir , you are in the right ; but I hope you weild this Sword against the Socinians , and not the Arrians . So pag. 237 , you tell us , of the Types of Sacrifice ; but in all these things we agree with you , Sir ; and our Cause ought to lose no Reputation , by your Imputations ; and therefore excuse me , if I put in thus a Caveat here and there , least another Reader , if not your self , may be misled by them . John 10. 30. But now I am come to your great Charge , Sir ; I and my Father are One : And here you prepar'd your self before , with your Self-consciousness , p. 57. but as to that , I think , I have answer'd you sufficiently already ; so that I hope , even your self will judge , that the Text , John 17. 20 , 21. alledg'd by you , p. 62 , will be a sufficient Answer to you , for all your sine-spun Evasions , p. 61 , 62 , 63. 1 John 5. 7. The same Answer , I shall return you to the Text : There are Three that bear Record in Heaven , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , and those Three are One : and indeed , Sir , without questioning the Authority of this place , what can we rationally mean by this Text ; unless One in bearing Record , according as , 1 Cor. 3. 8. and the Context directs ? So pag. 51. you alledge , that because Christ said , The Father is in me , and I in him , that therefore they are essentially One ; as likewise , because Christ is said to be in the Bosome of the Father : But alas , Sir , your Inference is so weak , and these Expressions so much better suit my Hypothesis than yours , that they deserve not an Answer ; For pray , Sir , let me ask you , Who is to be cherish'd in the Bosom ? What , a Coequal ? And is not the other Expression adequate to both Hypothesis alike ? So pag. 50 , you say , The Son perfectly knows the Father . And pag. 59 , you alledge a Scripture to prove it , which denies it , indeed , which shews you he knows but what the Father sees good to tell him : Besides , Sir , in this matter you have us'd such a shuffling Method of answering , as I shew'd you before , in treating about the Hour of Judgment , that Christ knows not something as Man , and yet all things on occasion as God , in the same Person , that really till your Hypothesis let you write better , you deserve no Answer . John 2. 25. But as a strengthning to this , may be alledg'd , what you have wrote , pag. 245. that Christ tells us , He knew what was in man : And no doubt of it , Sir , he needed not that any Man should testifie of Man ; but does this therefore argue , he had not this knowledge from the Father , by the Holy Ghost . Besides , Sir , if you mean ▪ that in his pre-existent state he sees our Thoughts , as you seem to alledge , pag. 248 , and 252 , I answer you , I never denied it ; but if you think , he knew what was in Man whilst Incarnate , otherwise than by Revelation , I must confess you make me dissent from you ; for if he had , he could never have ask'd Men occasionally so many Questions as he did : as when he ask'd his Disciples , What John thought of him ? And what Men said of him ? Mat. 28. 18. Page 247 , you tell us , That Christ had all power both in heaven and earth given him : But I wonder you will cite a Text so much against you ; for if it was given him , was there not a time then , that he had it not ; that is , during his Incarnation , according to John 17. And if so , what good will all your little Arguings , p. 248 , 250 , and 251. do you . You know , Sir , whatever the Socinians do , our Hypothesis supposes him eminently the Son of God a , and the Universal Lord b , nor do we deny him properly to be called a God , provided it be expressed as in the Scripture , in subordination to the Father , Heb. 1. 8 , 9. for there in his highest Glory and Exaltation , he is always put under the Father c . Mat. 9. 6. But you say , pag. 249. That the son of man hath power on earth , to forgive sins : But what then ? That it was not his own Power , appears by his Answer to the Sons of Zebbedee ▪ Mat. 20. 23. which he would not have given , had he been a Supream and Coequal God ; nay more , to confirm this , he declares he knows not the Hour of Judgment , Mark 13. 32. 1 Tim. 6. 15. Indeed , after his Resurrection he tells us , The Father hath put all Times and Seasons in his own Power , Acts 1. 7. And tells us , That God gave him even the Revelations to shew unto his Servants , Rev. 1. 1. John 5. 23. The last Text I shall write of in general of the Son , is , That all Men should honour the Son , as they honour the Father : and this p. 173 , you say , Ought to be equal to the honour we pay the Father : and I prettily observe , that you put off , that God appointed that Honour , on pretence , that 't is natural for the Son to receive Honour by the Father . So pag. 253 , 254 , 255 , you are upon a continuation of the same Argument : But alas , how woodenly : No Reader can peruse you , and not see . Page 62 , you can grant your self , that ( as ) signifies a likeness , and not always sameness in degree ; And if so , why cannot our Brother Socinian's Answer serve you ? But however , that we may put this matter out of all doubt ; Pray , Sir , consider a little , is there no difference , between the great Son of God our Mediator , and every little Creature , and is not there a difference , between a Mediator appointed by God , and one set up meerly by the whimsie of Man ? If these are not good Reasons , for our giving to Christ Honour as a Mediatour , I know not what are , I am sure they are better , than to make God stoop to such a petty Honour , as to be absurdly Mediator to himself . But you have a further Argument , pag. 205 , from 2 Phil. 9. 10 , 11. That at the Name of Jesus , every knee shall bow — and that every tongue shall confess , ( But what ? ) that Jesus Christ is Lord , to the glory of the Father . And who shall deny you this Honour ? Not I : no , I will grant it you in confusion to your own Hypothesis ; for 't is such a Lord , and not a God , that I would have you think him to be . Now , that we might the better understand what Honour is due to the Son , the Scripture hath expresly called it , and appointed it to be Mediation a , but yet not so as that we should pray to him for our Mediation , no more than we are to pray to him for any thing else . Nor ought any other Worship to be paid him , unless personally present , and then as the only Son of God , and Lord of the World , he requires it , and such Worship is what is given him , Heb. 1. 6. where the following verses , 7 , 8 , 9. plainly shew it not to be intended of the Supream Worship , but as is mentioned , Rev. 5. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. because God for his excellency and worthiness has appointed him that Honour . Lastly , To account 2 Cor. 13. 14. for a a Supream Adoration , were to make Gen. 48. 16. so too ; and as for the Worship of the Holy Ghost , as you your self can as good as confess , pag. 194 , there is no mention made of it in the whole Scriptures : so that you may see on what a rotten Foundation your Faith stands ; and indeed , were not the Truth I write for now , near as clear as the Sun at Noon , I should not be so zealous for it . Mediatory Kingdom . I proceed now to write of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom , and here I cannot but observe , how the Trinitarian Hypothesis distorts the whole frame of Truth , makes God a Mediator to himself , and a Coequal take as an Honour an underling Office , whereas Christ in the Arrian Idea , as the great Son of God , is fit to be our Mediator between God and his Handiwork , and may be deservedly honour'd with the Title , that he alone can prevail with God for mercy for us . And here I cannot but let you see , Sir , with what false colours you would magnifie this Office , to make it rational for a Coequal to accept of it ; thus , pag. 159 , you make it nothing , That God exalted him to it : And so pag. 163 , That he was forc'd first to suffer for it , and then receive it as a Gift ; whereas indeed , if he were a Coequal , it were both servile and degrading to him , even to accept it , tho' on any Terms , and tho' with a Reward . So pag. 173. I cannot but admire , to see how you [ glorious ] out this Kingdom , how you would fain seem to make it command the Father ; when alas , Sir , you know your self , all the Power of this Kingdom , is but an humble Intercession , p. 179. Indeed your Argument , p. 176 , and 243. That no One but a God can administer it ; is somewhat forcible against the Socinians , but can be of no force for you against the Arrians . But why do I use more words , That all Power in Heaven and Earth were given him after his death , Mat. 28. 18. If a God coequal before , were Nonsence , and as a Creature-God , your self says he cannot exercise it ; so that Prophecies should cease , as they did while he was Incarnate , John 7. 39 — 16. 7. 13 , 14 , 15. were absurd ; otherwise , indeed , you might as justly frame a Mediatory Kingdom , to interpret that great Text of the Holy Ghost , John 16. 13 , 14 , 15 , as build such a groundless one as this for Christ . Of the Three Persons together . Having premised thus much in general of the Son , and indeed on whom almost depends the whole hinge of the Controversie , I shall now proceed , to shew you how the whole Three Persons are treated , when they are named together in Scripture , that you may see even there our Hypothesis prevails also . Know then , that in such places , the Father is represented as our God distinct and solely , the Son our Lord distinct and wholly , and the Holy Ghost only as our aiding Spirit or Comforter , Eph. 4. 4 , 5 , 6. 1 Cor. 8. 5 , 6. So in the Revelations likewise , St. John makes the Son and Holy Ghost , but as Attendants on the Throne of the Father , Rev. 5. 7. 8 , 9 , &c. whilst he only sits on the Throne ; and the greatest Honour even of the Son is , that he has redeem'd us , and so is become worthy to open the Book . But yet as I have formerly shewn you , as the Father impowers the Holy Ghost through the Son , in all Acts of Grace , so are their Records One , 1 John 5. 7. And yet not but that this Record receives a stile agreeable to the Excellency of the Person giving it , where 't is distinguish'd , thus in the Father 't is call'd Operation , the Son Administration , and in the Holy Ghost Gifts , 1 Cor. 12. 4 , 5 , 6. And the manner of Gift in the Father is called Love , in the Son Grace , and the Holy Ghost Fellowship ▪ 2 Cor. 13. 14. Rom. 15. 16. So likewise , as all Three being engaged in our Salvation , they are put in as Articles to our Apostles Creed , but yet with subordinate Titles , as God , Lord , and Holy , to shew their distinction , and inferiority ; so that your Argument you see , Sir , that their being there , makes them Coequal and God , is very weak , pag. 197. for by the same Reason you might make every body , or the Catholick Church , God likewise . Hence likewise , the ancient Doxology before it was alter'd , was , Glory be to the Father , through the Son , and by the Holy Ghost ; ( see Sparks on the Liturgy ) which shew'd plainly their Subordination : Indeed since , upon the prevailing of the Doctrine of the Trinity , it has been alter'd : But with what Scripture-Authority ? Now I hope you see plainly . But I shall not dissent from you , that the Socinians absurdly baptize in the Name of the Holy Ghost , if there were none ; and they do worse than those Disciples who never heard of him , for they acknowledg'd him when they did , which these , even now , do not : But what , are not they our Brethren ? And are we not bound to have a Charity for their Errour ? And who shall condemn them in it , that they are wilfully blind . However , to return : This makes not but that we are baptiz'd in their Names as our Spiritual Governours , Mat. 28. 19. for so even the Scripture plainly express themselves , 1 Cor. 12. 13 , 27 — 10. 2. where we are told , That we are baptiz'd by one Spirit into one body , which is Christ ; that is , into the Church , by his Minister , whereof he is the Head , to the Worship , Honour , and Glory of God : And what , Sir , will you interpret against Scripture ? And this consider'd , where stands any room for your Calumnies , page 27 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214. Is not the whole Foundation of your Argument rotten ? Does Baptism shew Worship ? And if not , how can it be an open and barefac'd Idolatry ? What may not there be a Ceremony in it , to shew us , who under God , are our Spiritual Governour , as well as by Water to imitate the cleansing of Regeneration ? If so , why may not my Construction of it , agreeable to Scripture-Interpretation , be as good as yours ? I protest before God , did not my Hypothesis not only want Absurdity , but suit most rationally , yea most naturally to Truth and the Scriptures , I would sooner dye than adhere to it . Lastly , Sir , to put your Union in your Hypothesis beyond all doubt , the Scriptures have plainly shewn us , that these Three Persons have various and distinct Intellectual Powers , John 16. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16. Mark 13. 32. John 12. 49. And indeed , we might rationally have collected as much , from their being given and sent , did not our Mysteries quite shut our Eyes against Reason . The FATHER . Nor do the Scriptures cited of the Son , and Three Persons , only agree to strengthen our Hypothesis , and destroy yours , but even those that relate to the Father and Holy Ghost likewise ; I shall give you short Specimens of both , beginning with the first first , and then proceeding to the other , and after that , I shall conclude my Scripture-proofs in this , and proceed . Know then , that the Scriptures plainly tell us , that the Father is the One a , only true God b , only Good c , only wise d , greater than the Son e , only sitting on the Throne , the Son and Holy Ghost being as his Attendants f , and his Name is , I am g , in opposition to α and ω , the First and the Last , One signifying a pure and infinite Being , the other the first and great Creature , Rev. 3. 14. Further the Scriptures shew us , it is not agreeable with a due reverence , that we should confound the Titles of the Father with others ; thus Christ gives us a particular charge , to remember not only that there is but One God , but that we have but one Father , and one Master , Mat. 23. 8 , 9. and St. Paul , 1 Cor. 8. 4 , 5 , 6. tells us , That in truth there is but One God , and One Lord ; to wit , the Father , and his Son Christ Jesus , according to Phil. 2. 11. So they say , the Father is the Supream Lord of all h , and greater than the Son i , and really his God too k , and that he is the Fountain of Grace l , and only invisible m , whereas the Son and Holy Ghost have been often seen , so he is only reveal'd by the Son n . But what need I repeat more of these proofs ? The Scriptures are full of them , and were not Men blinded as they are , with the Epicicles of their Two Natures in Christ , and Mediatory Offices , &c. whereby they beg the thing in dispute , and anticipate all Proofs , they would see the Sun is not clearer than the Proofs I have given them ; hereafter , I believe , Men will admire at our blindness , as much as we do at the Papists now ; but I see the Hand of God is upon us , we are cursed to it , and only Prayers can remove it . Of the Holy Ghost . I come now to speak of the Holy Ghost , to shew you how much in every Point your Hypothesis straggles , and how you dissent from Scripture , in every step you have made in your Mystery ; while the Arrian answers it , may I say to the most exact Truth , and keeps a due mean between your coequal Gods , and the Socinians no less absurd meer Man , and power of God. Know then , the Holy Ghost , the Spirit of Truth a , called so in opposition to Satan the lying Spirit , is a great God or Principally , and Christ's Universal Deputy b , and as so the Giver of all good Gifts c . Yet so , as he is subject to the Son , and receives his Authority from him d , and thence , I believe it peremptory to blaspheme his Evidence e , for to lie to him , is to lie to God f , that is , through him , though he be but in reality an Angel , Rev. 2. 1. 2. 11. compar'd to Acts 22 , 34. Luke 3. 21 , 22. where he made the like Visions ; and indeed Blasphemy against him otherwise were absurd ; it should rather be against the Father and Son , especially the Father , as Fons Deitatis , and whom the Jews reverenc'd when they knew not the Holy Ghost . Further , as God made the Son his Instrument in the Angelical Creation , so he sub-deputed the Holy Ghost in the Formation of Man g , and of the Earth h , and upon this account , the Spirit is called Eminenter , the Spirit of God ; that is , the greatest next to God the Father , and the Lord Christ , and the most extraordinary Gift of God in his assistance i . But yet he is absolutely Christ's Deputy , and sent by the Son , from the Father k , that till Christ went , he could not come l , and yet 't is he that under Christ bestows all variety of Spiritual Gists m , that dwells in us n , that spake by the Prophets o , that helps our Prayers p , and indeed , that assists our ordinary Discourse q , by his Grace , or holy anointing r . But to shut up all , he is in no place of the whole Scripture , either dire●tly called God , or order'd to be worship'd ; which last thing you are so modest as to grant , page 194 , 195 ; so that upon the whole matter , to Idea him in coequality to the Father , as you see were so plain a violence to the Scripture , he not having so much Honour allow'd him , as even the Son has , that I declare , I admire it . And by this time , I hope , Sir , you see plainly , that your reasoning about the Holy Ghost , page 179 , 193 ▪ are meer shuffles , and that your Texts , 1 Cor. 2. 10. quoted by you , page 53. That the Spirit searcheth all things , yea the deep things of God : has no other sence ▪ than that the Holy Ghost co-operating with our Spirit , reveals us the greatest knowledge we attain , and that is what agrees with the Context , and the Text you cite in the next Page ; but if it does with your Hypothesis , I am mistaken . As for your other Reasons , page 54 , 55. and 64 , 65. brought to prove the self-consciousness of the Father and Holy Ghost , they are as groundless as the rest of your Mystery , and therefore I shall only shew you I take notice of them ; indeed , if the Holy Ghost knew all things thus of himself , what need the Son shew them him . REFLECTION . Sir , I hope by this time , I have given you as ample satisfaction in your Scripture-proof , as you can desire , you cannot but be so ingenious as to grant , that you have had all the advantages that a Succession of Commentators can give you ; whereas , I , you see , for all that , can heap you up the whole course of Scripture against you , that have not so much as one Arrian Author to assist me . I have already inform'd you , what turn'd me to be an Arrian , and now I shall add , that when I had once resolv'd nothing should be dearer to me than Truth , and bethought me the Corruption even of Primitive Tradition , and saw a necessity of sticking wholly to the Scripture , the Sun was not clearer to me than the Doctrine which you call Heretical , and Arrianism . And give me leave to tell you , tho' you have Popularity , and the Temporal Sword on your side , yet blaspheme it more , if you dare , if there be such a thing as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost , as we have Christ's word there is ; to your peril be it , Sir : I tell you , 't is to blaspheme the known Evidences of his Truth : and if these be such , I dare venture my Truths with the Sword of the Spirit , against all your carnal Weapons . Remember , Sir , there is a Sin unto Death , we may not so much as pray for , 1 John 5. 16. and all our pretences and good Works will be of none effect , while we blaspheme the most great and sincere Truths of God ; beware , Sir , of this great and fiery Tryal ; I mean perversly to blaspheme God's Truths , especially when so considerable as this , this is that that will make the Tree good , and the Fruit good , and the Tree evil , or its Fruit evil ; indeed , can you expect to be call'd or receiv'd as a Son , when you openly and malitiously proclaim'd your self a Rebel to the only and great means of Government of the Holy Ghost . TRADITION . HAving now done with the two first Heads of my Discourse , the proof of the Trinity by Reason and Scripture , I proceed to the last , viz. Tradition , wherein would Men but be content to believe as they pray , I should be satisfied ; for that they do almost wholly to the Father ; and therein may I say , they give all their pretences to Tradition , the greatest Lye even the Cause is capable of bearing ; but alas , the World is made too giddy by this Mystery , to bear such , or any other Reasoning . I know , Sir , you are very confident that she is of your side , as you say , page 31. but your Proofs and Suggestions for it , are as few and inconsiderable as even I can wish for , pag. 40. Thus , you would fain wheedle us , that Men were Arrians , and not Arrians . And what , Sir , was it out of Charity that they forbore to call the Trinitarians Hereticks ? If it was , 't was a sign they were the better Christians for it , not that their Cause was the worse . So you asperse the Great Council of Arminium , of 550 Bishops , of so seeming or wou'd-be an Imputation , pag. 43 , that I am asham'd to see 't : What , Sir , do you think they would have called the greatest Council that ever was , if they had design'd a tricking ? Or are you resolv'd to trust more to the Council of Nice , because not so many ? Methinks , Sir , you should think it enough at least , that your Tradition was disputable then , that you had such Numbers against you , and not repose in forging Rome for blemishing Councils . You tell us , Mr. Bull has answer'd this matter throughly ▪ page 24. But I tell you Sir , I have perus'd him , and he has not ; and were it worth my while , I would shew it you too : besides , Sir , would you expect a fair and strict Combat , after so many Years , while Rome has held the stakes ? What wont you make us no allowances in your Thoughts ? Not that we beg it neither : But is it generous , first to fetter a Man , and then challenge him ? What shall I say ? Is this the way to defend your Catholick Faith ! That Faith which you say requires both Forehead , and Forgery to deny it , page 44 , when you should say to maintain it ? REFLECTION . Give me leave to advise you a little , Sir , if you are resolv'd to follow Tradition : Be not partial in it : Why should you act by halves ? you would be a good Papist , were you sincere , and follow'd it throughout : Or if as a Protestant you hate this course , why do you not pursue it more home , and to the root ? Tradition was only of use till the Scriptures were deliver'd ; and indeed 't is well if 't was contain'd pure till then ; as we may most justly censure , by St. John's Advice to the Churches , in the Revelations . But to continue Tradition further , what is it , but like the Jews , to make the Law of God of none effect , by our Traditions . You must excuse me therefore , if I think Tradition to be too much a Nose of Wax , to be alledg'd against Scripture ; especially such express apparent and self-evident Texts , as Heb. 1. and John 16 , I shall therefore leave you to jangle out your quoted Inconsistencies , page 107 , 108 , 113 , 114 , 119 , 120 , 121. And tell you withal , such Variances are no Miracle in a Traditionary Mystery . In short , Sir , if ever you design for Truth , you must learn a new bravery , to be able to dare to be singular , think you that Men that geld , suppress , and sorge Books , are in the right , or they that persecute all that oppose them ? Surely , I hope , you think better , that these are the Engines of weaker Error ; and yet this is even the present Case ; and who dares even at this day , and in sull Protestancy , to write or speak freely ; He is sure of being suppressed , at best . Damnatory Sentence . But before I leave this Subject , there is another part of your Discourse that deserves to be consider'd ; and that is , your Damnatory Sentence , wherein I wish I could spare you ; but your love for your Mystery , has so inspir'd you , with such a furious and unchristian Zeal , that 't would be an Offence to the World , should I leave it unanswer'd under so great a Name . Thus , P. 22 , you say , this Faith is necessary to Salvation : and p. 23. That no Jew , Turk or Pagan can be sav'd without it . And that , whether he has us'd reasonable diligence , or not : Or , whether it has been perplext with never so great Controversies . The same you add , page 271 , only you add this merciful Apology , That Men may understand it , if they will. And further , that I may give your Argument the greatest force , you add , page 25. That to say , Men can be sav'd by good Works alone , without Faith , is Popery : And page 26. That if Salvation were so common , Christianity were but a better Sect of Philosophy ; and there would be too great a scope for Infidelity , page 23. ANSWER . Alas , Sir , I pity you ; had you regarded Natural Religion more , and your Mystery less , you would not have abounded with such an Envy and Monopoly of Salvation : What must we have no Faith , but be sav'd by Works , because we have not just this Mystery ? And what is it nothing to Christianity , that we have several degrees of Glory as an Encouragement , set in our prospect and search above the Heathen ? Or what , Sir , is your Eye evil , because God is good ? Would you have God a Devil , create Men meerly for Damnation ? Or would you have him damn them to support your Hypothesis ? See how your Mystery has misled you , Sir , that Men should be sav'd , only by parrotting over a few unintelligible words : I might have expected this from some ignorant Sectarist , but I never thought a a skilful Doctor , should make God so hard a Task-master , as to require Men to believe so penally , what 't is plain , not One in a Million understands : Alas , Sir ! you mistake the Redemption of Christ ! 't was to purchase us a new Covenant , and not only teach us a new Faith ! On Adam's Fall we chang'd our State , our Tryal by a single Precept for the Law of Nature , but had not the Seed of the Woman begun even then to have broke the Serpent's Head , at least through a Covenant to be fulfill'd : Can you blaspheme God , so as to say , he would let him be fruitful ? Will not a Prophet be able to vindicate his Justice , that has declar'd long since , every Man , and he alone should bear his own iniquity . I say , then Christ has purchased us a new Covenant , and since he is come , there is some reason for us to honour him , with the necessity of our Faith through him , to lead us to Salvation , and to obey his excellent Precepts , to conduct us through the Second Covenant , the Law of Nature , to Perfection : But where could be the necessity 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 I see , Sir , your Virtues have no Extreams , you have Faith , but allow no Credulity ; if you did , you could never swallow these things ; you confirm the old Sentence , Credo quia impossibile est : But alas , Sir , do you think to make your Doctrine prevail by these means , by a dead anathematizing implicite Faith , fitter for Paganism than Christianity . No , your uncharitableness cannot but blemish you , even among your own Friends ; indeed the Predestinarian does not exceed this ; and may be , Men seeing thus , how one Errour leads you into another so black , will be brought by it to see the Truth they consider'd not before . Besides , Sir , had you consulted Scripture in this , the Apostle tells you plainly , that Christ died for the Sins of the whole World , 1 John 2. 1 , 2. And if not , think you God's Mercy would have detain'd him till the latter Ages of the World ; besides , Sir , are we not charg'd not to judge them that are without , and are we not told , that where there is no Law , there is no Sin , John 9. 41. James 4. 17. and that they that have not been able to receive a Law , or Revelation , are to be tried by Natural Religion , and their Conscience , as a Law within themselves , Rom. cap. 1. & 2. Acts 24. 13. And indeed , which is the Law improv'd by Christ himself , and which is written in our Heart , according to the Apostle to the Hebrews . Alas , Sir , had you judg'd of the wilfully ignorant , and perverse , you had left some colour for your Censure to be true , and yet even then , were I in your case , I should be very unwilling to fling the first Stone , especially since Christ has told us , as we judge , we shall be judg'd ; I had rather let Men be guilty , and God condemn them , then condemn my self by judging them . Faith Necessary . But methinks I hear you object to me , What Faith is necessary then , if this be not ? I say , the Faith of Enoch , Abraham , and Moses , that God is a Rewarder of the just in tender Consciences , is enough , and that without Idolizing Works , as you reflect , page 25. I add also , that a particular Faith of Mercy through Christ is necessary , where offer'd with Conviction ; but whatever you do or say , God will never require Consent , where he has not given Evidence enough ; and what is it to me , if it can be had in a Cause , if I cannot come at it . To these may be also added by consent the Apostles Creed , or any other , so it be not enforc'd ; but for your nice and speculative Creeds , they are unnecessary , or else you accuse Christ and his Apostles , of a cowardly lukewarmness for omitting them , for all you insinuate , page 29. that we would be at Creed-making too , Sir ; but we beg your Pardon , and have more Charity ; for if we explain our Hypothesis , 't is only to confute yours . Consider therefore , Sir , by your own Reasoning , 't is Popery , to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitude , page 36. So remember 't is our heat magnifies our Zeal in this Hypothesis above others ; for any other explain'd as nicely , would have as bad effects ; and give me leave to retort your Argument : Tho' I am modest , yet you have given me occasion to oppose you as Popular ; and tho' I am cautious , yet Truth bids me not fear , whether your Mystery prove true , but warn you , that under Protection of a Mystery , you do not oppugn Truth , v. page 44. To conclude , in Charity I shall give you one Advice more ; and that is , that you do not at every turn , like the Papists , Cap Hereticks , and repeat Catalogues of Heresies , as you are apt to do , page 107. You are a Protestant , Sir , and you should rather lament , that Church-Impositions so long took away an innocent liberty of Opinion from the World , and by an immoderate Self-love of impos'd Opinions and Disciplines , rent the Bond of Peace and Unity in sunder . CONCLVSION . I Hope , Sir , by this time you see , that we Unitarians do understand what we write of ; for all what you charge us with , p. 4. Nay , and more , I 'll add : We do it without mazing Metaphysicks to help us ; indeed , we have not your Breath of the Populace , to encourage us into large and fair Volumes ; but I hope we have Truth , far better to recommend us to the sincere . I hope , Sir , too , you see , we do not arrogate infinite Knowledge , as you asperse us , page 5. but vindicate a Truth , clear as the day : Indeed , 't is plain , the First Commandment , except to exclude Persons is Nonsence ; and who in this Case must bear the Reflection , you , or God ; surely we must acquit God ; and if we do , our Faith must fling you into all the Absurdities and Contradictions of Transubstantion . The Case is not , whether in Idea there may not be Three self-conscious , coequal Beings , but whether an Interpreter of the First Commandment can justifie such a thing : and that I am sure he cannot , for all your struggles after Vindications , without Absurdity and Nonsence . But you 'll say , here is some colour for the Trinity : And what , is there not then as much sor Transubstantiation ? This is plain , our Bodies are not Two Years together the same , and tho' differing thus Twenty times in our Lives , we call it still the same Body : May not we on this , as justly salve Transubstantiation , that the Spirit of Christ is able to dwell in infinite Bodies at once ; and will not this make as properly the same Body , as my Body at Twenty , is my Body at Thirty ; but you answer , you have Scripture of your side ; and pray shew me half so strong a Chapter for the Trinity , as John the 6th is for Transubstantiation . Alas , Sir , you see your Fallacies do but divert your Causes being expos'd for a time , till a nice Refutation makes it look the blacker for its Sophistry : And now you may see who 't is , that brings down the plain Scriptures , to be wrested by the absurd Reason of a Mystery , page 141. And now Men and Angels may see , who are those absurd and senceless Insidels , that reject what they have evidence for , v. page 6. In short , I dare appeal to all the World , tho' against me , whether suppression of Books be not your best Argument . You tell us , page 148 , That our Business is , to prove Three Persons Three Gods : And we do it by this , That if God be more than One Person , when not particularly reveal'd , and contrary to his first Commandment , his Commandment is of no effect : But shall we grant that ? No , we 'll turn the havock of the first Commandment justly , in Contradictions upon you ; we need not ask with Nicodemus , How can these things be ? page 150. but we 'll tell you , with the same reason , we may make three thousand Gods , that you believe a Lye , Thess . 2. 11. And you had as good make all Mankind One Man , and destroy all Plurality and Numbers , &c. But for Peace-sake , I shall forbear further Reflections , page 109. Hence , should you invent a thousand Metaphysick strains more , this one plain Truth would ruine them all ; indeed , did not Mystery , the Authority of the Whore , Rev. 17. and the great support of Popery , bear up your Hypothesis , her Epitaph might have been wrote , I doubt not , many hundred Years ago . Mystery do I say , Mystery and Persecution are the Devil's Twins , and stand and fall both together ; Persecution without Mystery were too cruel , and Mystery without Blood too much Nonsence to be born ; 't is these two are Popery , and the worst of Popery , Transubstantiation without these were an innocent Error : And what , are not Protestants asham'd to weild the Sword of Antichrist ? Yes surely ; But if they are , why do they stille us , and our Books , is it not that they fear our Truths ? Are you not asham'd to rail at us for Blasphemers and Hereticks as you do , if I am not mistaken , we mean as sincerely , and Interpret the Scripture as well as you , for all your boasts , pag. 141. and you shall sind , God in the Great Day will shew which is the Heretick : What , have we not as much reason to complain of the blemishes of the first and great Commandment , as you have ; and cannot the Controversie of Elisha and Baal , remember you , that 't is not Numbers , but Minds that God seeks . But you say , This is a Mystery : And pray who has authoris'd it for one ? You be-ly God in his Scriptures , if you say that he has ; no , 't is Man's own invention , and that 't is that makes him idolize the uncharitable Imposition so much : What , shall God bid us publish what none understand ? Pray who can agree in this Mystery ? Or were the Copy of it lost , who would be able exactly to hammer it out ? Is this clear like a heavenly Truth ? Are we not asham'd to cast this stumbling-block in Christianity , that has so justly offended all Jews , Turks , and Pagans it ever came neer ; indeed , does not Mahomet support his division by this very thing , and does he not complain above an hundred times against the abuse of the Unity in his Alchoran ? What shall I say , if we repent not this Error , shall we not justly stand branded to all Posterity , a Race of pretended Protestants , but really a Philosophick Sect of Christian Atheists : Besides , what but the corruption of this Unity in the Godhead , can have so long prosper'd the Mahometan above the Christian , and the Papists above the Protestants . I shall add no more at present , but that were this Mystery the greatest Truth , yet considering Mens weakness , 't were both hateful and seditious , to impose it on one another , in pain of Salvation , to subscribe it only as an Article of Peace , in some cases might be tolerable , but to force their Consciences to they know not what themselves , is in plain terms Antichristian , Uncharitable , and Devilish . And alass ! now we see wherein our Reformation is imperfect , that it has not preserv'd our eternal liberty of Opinion , in things not expresly reveal'd , this is the Root of all Controversie , and this must be cur'd , if ever we hope for Peace ; indeed , in a free Remonstrancy , where all Impositions are cut off , Heresies of course pine and die with their Authors , for want of room to be regarded . EXHORTATION . And now , Sir , I shall more particularly address my stile to yourself : And in the first place I beg you to pardon all my Reprehensions , and if they are any where bitterer than they ought , reckon it my frailty , not my injustice , and at least you ought to thank me for my good intention ; but if you approve what I have wrote , return God the Glory for your information , and I am satisfied . I assure you , Sir , in myself I am griev'd to write against a good Man ; nor would I , but that my love to God and Truth commands me , nor do I write this , that I think you want either Piety or Ability , indeed you shine for both in your Church ; but I would advise you , that you have mistook the Truth ; nor wonder at it , for the greatest Fathers in the Church have done it before you . You have ventur'd to be singular once in Conscience already , and your Treatise of Death shews you sincere ; dare once a deeper Resignation , and a more singular Truth , if you fall not back , you know not what Service God may have for you to do . Remember , Sir , 't is Constancy to follow Truth in all changes of Notions , and but obstinacy to remain stiff after conviction . Besides , 't will be as much your Glory as St. Austin's , that you recant ; and if you are a Christian indeed , you cannot hate your Friend , or Glass for shewing you your wrinkles , nor will your singularity be worse , if you see them ; unless in Piety , that others are as bad , or worse than your self , and dare not see it . What tho' I am singular and contemptible , my Truths if sincere are Divine , and St. Paul as well as you , had both Zeal and Popularity , and yet was in an Error ; if you are in an Error , pray God open your eyes ; and if I am , I beg him to grant me to be rectified by your Instruction ; 't will be hard if a Miracle be necessary to instruct and reconcile us . I cannot perswade myself , that you will continue to pervert this grand Truth , and by Reflections and Niceties endeavour further to obscure and cloud it ; what you have hitherto done , I hope , nay believe you have done ignorantly , and because the Socinian Hypothesis was not sincere enough , you oppos'd it , but for the Arrian , I almost dare promise myself more Charity from you , if not Conviction . At first I declin'd this Book , as not thinking it proper to be wrote by an Arrian , and as fearing least my own Resentments might soyl the Honour of God ; and I had done it still , had not I had more than humane motives to the contrary ; but whatever they were , they were to my self ; and my Reader 's business is to mind my Truths , and not my Pretences . To conclude , if Men are sincere , I think I have wrote enough to convince them , and if perverse to condemn them ; and Charity engages me no further : But alas ! what avails it , if God will not vindicate his own Honour , the Attempts of his Servants are otherwise in vain ; and yet at least I shall be content , tho' at any hazard , when I have done my Duty . All Glory to whom only due , to the One and Only God , through his great and beloved Son Christ Jesus . ☞ Whoever Answers this , is desir'd , to make his Answer short , that he run not the World into Labyrinths ; and that he repeat the whole Body of the Discourse Verbatim , that he may not juggle the World out of Substance , by snarling at Trifles : These two Conditions answer'd , I shall think I have a Reply worth Reading ; if not , I accuse it before-hand to the World for a Cheat , and a Deceit not worth taking Notice of . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A40444-e10 a 1 Co● . 12. 4. ● . 6. R●● . ●● . 12 , 2● . J●● . 16. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15. b E●●● . 23. 20 , 21. E●●● . 5 6. ●ai 63. 9. c Gen. 1. 26 Gen. 3. 22. Gen. 11. 6 , 7. d E●h . 2. 1● . R●v . 1 4 , 5. e 2 Cor. 4. ● . John 1● . 〈◊〉 ●●h . 2. 2. R●● . 12. ●● . 8. 〈◊〉 25. 〈…〉 44. f 1 John. 6. 1 ●am . 1● . ● . 1 Cor. ● . 12. g Rom. 8. 26 , 27. 1 Cor. 12. 3. 4 , 5 ▪ Joh. 16. 13. h 1 Cor. 10. 13. i 1 John 4. 6. 1 ●or . 2. 12. ●●o . 14. 26 — 8 , 38 — 16. 7. Zech. 13. 2. N●h●m . ● . 20. Rev 2. 13 — 12. 9 , 10 ▪ 20 ▪ 23. 1 Kin. 22. 21 , 22. R●● . 8. 26. Mark 4. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 26. k Rev. 5. 6 . -12 . 3. l E●●l . 5 6. P●●l . 3● . ● . ●a . 6● . ● . Mat. 1● . 2● . Ep● 4. 10. m Z●●● . 13. 2. R●v . 12. 9. n Rev. 1. 4 — 3. 1 . -4 . 5 . -5 , 6. T●●it 12. 15. Ze●● . 3. ● — 4. 10. a Rev. 3. 14. Col. 1. 15. Eccl●s . 1. 4 , 9 — 24. 9. b H●b . 1. 2 P●t . 1. 17. c John 5. 26. — 10. 29 - 14 28. d 1 Cor. 15. 24 , 25 , 27 , 28. Phila. 11. Dan 7. 13 , 14. Eph. 1. 17 , 20 , 21. 22 , 23. e Acts 2. 36 — 10. 36. Phil. 2. 11. Luke 2. 11. John 13. 3 , 13 , 16 — 3. 35. Mat. 22. 43 , 44. f John 5. 22. 30. Mat. 24. 30 , 31. Mat. 16. 27. g John 1. Heb. 1. 2 , 10 — 2. 10. Eph. 3. 9. 1 Cor. 8. 6. h Col. 1. 16 , 17. i Eph. 3. 9. Heb. 1. 2 , 10. 2 Cor. 8. 6 — 15. 27 , 28. a John 20. 28. Acts 20 28. Rom 9. 5. b Exod. 7 1 — 22. 28. Isalm 97. 7. 2. Cor. 4. 4. c John 10. 35 , 36. 1 Cor. 8. 5 , 6. d John 17. 5 , 24 . -13 . 3. Phil. 2. 6 , 7. 1 Cor. 10. 4 , 5 , 9. Luke 13. 34 , 35. e 2 Cor. 13. 5. Mat. 23. 37 — 28. 18. — 18 , 20. Eph. 4. 10. f John 17. 5. Heb. 2. 7 , 8 , 9 10. Eph. 4. 10. John 6. 62. g John 17. 3 , 18. Heb. 5. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. h Heb. 12. 2. Phil. 2. 6. 10 11. Eph. 1. 20. 21 , 22 , 23. 1 Pe● . 1. 21. g John 17. 3 , 18. Heb. 5. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. i Mat. 12. 6. 8. M●rk 2. 28. k Gen. 16. 10 — 18. 1 , 2 , 22 — 19 1 — 48. 16. I●ai . 6. 1. Eze● . 1. 26. 28. 2 Esd . 2. 42 , to 48. Eccl. 5. 6. Num. 20. 16. Exod. 23. 20 , 21 , 22. refer'd to 1 Cor. 10. 4 , 5 9. l Isai . 63 9. m Heb. 1. 7 , 8 9. Rev. 8. 3. n M●t. 26. 39 — 27. 46. Luk● 22. 43. a Acts 13. 32 , 33. Heb. 1. 4 , &c. ●uk● 1. 35. R m ▪ 1. 4. 2 〈◊〉 1. 17. b Acts 2. 31 , 32-13 . 33 , 35. a M●● . ●6 . 53. J hn 11. 41 , 44. b Heb. 5 7 , 8. c John. 5. 10. to 30. Heb. 2. 4. M●● . 12. 18 , ●8 . John 3. 31. Acts 10. 38 ▪ ●● . 2● . 31. 32 ●3 . 15. 〈◊〉 3. 22. 4. 18. John 6. 57 8. 28 29 ▪ 10. ●9 . 11 ▪ 42 ▪ 12. 49 , 50 ▪ 14. 28. 2 〈◊〉 4. 14 ▪ 13. 4. d M●● . 14. 2● ▪ d M●● . 14. 2● ▪ e R●● . 8 29 L●k 6 1● . John 15. 9 , 1● . f M●● . 27. 46 ▪ 26 38 , 39. ●●k 2● . 43. M●●k 15. 34 — 14. 35. 36. g A●●s 2. 24 32 — 3 15. 26 ▪ 13. 32 , 3● . a John 19 7 ▪ 2● . 31. b Acts 2. 36 ▪ 10. 36. c 1 Cor. 15. 27 , 28. Rev. 3. 22. Phil. 2. 11. J hn 20. 17. Ep● . 1. 17 , 20 , 21 , 22. a Acts 4. 10 11 , 12. John 14. 13. Eph. 3. 20 , 21. Phil. 2. 9. Rom. 1. 8 ▪ 5. 11. Col. 3. 16 , 17. John 16 ▪ 23 26. a Exod 20. 2 , 3. D●ut . 6. 4. Mark 12. 29. to 34. b John 8. 54. 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 4 , 5 , 6. John 17. 3. c Luke 18. 19. Mat. 19. 17. d Rom. 16. 27. 1 Tim. 1. 17. e John 14. 28 — 10. 29. f Rev. 4. 2 — 5 , 6 , 7. Esdr . 2. 42. usque 48. g Exod. 3. 14. h 1 Cor. 3. 22 , 23. i John 10. 19-14 . 28-17 . 24. k Eph. 1. 11 , 17. Rev. 3. 12. John 20. 17. 2 Cor. 11. 13. l John 6. 44 , 65. m John 1. 18. 1 Tim. 1 ▪ 17-6 . 16. Acts 2. 2 , 3. n John 1. 18-3 . 35. Ma● . 11. 27. Luke 10. 22. a John 14. 17 — 15. 26. 1 John 4. 6. b Acts 1. 2. — 2. 33. Luke 24. 49. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Eph. 4. 11. c 1 Cor. 12. Isai . 11. 2. Rom. 5. 5. — 15. 13. Acts 1. 8. — 20. 28. Luke 12. 12. 1 Cor. 2. 10 , 12. d John 16. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 — 15. 26. Rev. 5. 6. Mat. 3. 11. Mark 2. 8. e Mat. 12. 31. Mark 3. 28. Luke 12. 10. f Acts 5. 3 , 4. g Job 33. 4. h Gen. 1. 2. Job 26. 3. Psal . 104. 30. i Nehem. 9. 20. Rom. 8. 26 , 27. k John 14. 16 , 17 , 26 — 15. 26. Eph. 1. 13 ▪ l John 16. 7 , 13 , 14 — 7. ●9-14 . 12. m 1 Cor. 12 ▪ n 1 Cor 6. 19. 2 Cor. 1. 22. o Acts 28. 25. Luke 2. 25 , 26 p Rom. 8. 26 , 27. 1 Th●ss . 5. 19 ▪ q Mark 13. 11. Luke 12. 12. r 1 John 2 ▪ 27. 
A26746	----	An answer to the Brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians by William Basset ... Basset, William, 1644-1695. 1693 Approx. 209 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 90 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A26746 Wing B1048 ESTC R1596 12306118 ocm 12306118 59259 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A26746) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59259) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 199:11) An answer to the Brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians by William Basset ... Basset, William, 1644-1695. [7], 166, [2] p. Printed and sold by Randal Taylor ..., London : 1693. Advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end. Reproduction of original in British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. -- Brief history of the Unitarians. Unitarians. Socinianism. 2006-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-05 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-04 Robyn Anspach Sampled and proofread 2007-04 Robyn Anspach Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Imprimatur , Geo. Royse , RRmo . in Christo Patri , ac Dom. Dom Johanni , Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest . Novemb. 21. 1692. 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. 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 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 well-governing 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 . TO THE READER . 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 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 [ Vnitarian ] is put as a distinction between them and us : take it as it signifies him , who believes one only God , exclusive of all others ; 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 quotes Act. 17. 11. They searched the Scriptures daily , whether these things were so . Answ . St. Basil saith of Eunomius , 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 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 the Socinians . Their Doctrine concerning God ( in which only they differ from other Christians ) the Remonstrants professedly 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 Vnitarians , 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 . 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 . According to this beginning you must expect but little , if any truth , and honesty in this Letter , which we shall now consider . SECT . II. 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 , Argum. 1. P. 5. If Christ were himself God , there could be no Person greater than him : But himself saith , Joh. 14. 28. my Father is greater than I. Answ . I deny the Consequence : Because though the Son is less than the Father in some respects , yet he is equal to the Father in others . None of the former do destroy his Divinity , but the letter do prove it . For , 1. The Son is less than the Father , in regard of his Humane Nature , and Offices : But these ( we shall prove ) are not inconsistent with his Divinity . And , 2. In regard of his Sonship . For the Father is of himself , but the Son is of the Father . Whence Episcopius infers a Subordination of Persons , but yet establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity . So the Nicene Fathers taught , That the Son is God of God , that is , God of , and from the Father ; but yet withall asserted , That he is of the same Substance with the Father ; and consequently is God , as the Father is . And indeed this Subordination cannot destroy his Divinity , because it doth not destroy his Nature : For the Inequality arises not from the Essence , but from the order , and manner of subsistence . But , 3. In other respects the Son is equal to the Father ; this the Apostle asserts , Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with God , viz. the Father . Now if he thought it no robbery , it could be no robbery ; and if no robbery , he must be equal ; and if equal , he must be God by Nature , as the Father is . This leads to the true sence of those words [ Being in the Form of God ] for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of it self strictly signifies not Substance , so much as Accidents ; not so much the Nature , as the Appearance of things ; whence Erasmus , and the Socinians , would have these words to signifie , not that he is God , but that he was like to God. yet however the Apostle must here intend it Substantially : that is , his being in the Form of God , must signifie that he is God ; as his being in the Form of a Servant , signifies , that he was a Servant : And the Reason is , because his equality with God is here inferred from his being in the Form of God ; but there cannot be an equality between a thing , and the mere likeness of it ; between a real Nature , and a bare similitude . Whence Erasmus understood the force of the Word , but not the reach of the Apostle's Argument . Though Erasmus doth not deny the Divinity of the Son , yet because he thinks this Text doth not respect his Nature ; I shall therefore oppose to his sence the Judgment of the Ancients ; as Arnob. & Serap . conflic . l. 2. Novat . de Trin. c. 17. Hilar. Pict . Epist . de Trin. l. 8. & 10. Greg. Nys . tom . 2 cont . Eunom . Ora. 7. &c. Which Judgment of theirs I shall confirm by these Arguments ; viz. 1. By the matter of the Apostle's Argument , he was in the Form of God , and in the Form of a Servant . If this Text speaks him not God , but like to God ; it must also speak him not a Servant , but like to a Servant : But that he was a Servant he saith himself , Mat. 20. 28. I came to minister ; and therefore he must be God ; because the same Phrase , and Sense applyed to each Nature , must import the reality of the one , as well as of the other . 2. The order of the parts speaks our sense : For being in the form of God , i. e. While he was in the form of God , he took upon him the form of a Servant : therefore that form was before this . But there was no such difference in the parts of his Life , or Condition upon Earth , that one should merit to be called the form of God , the other the form of a Servant : Therefore his being in the form of God must be antecedent to his humane Life . 3. This was his choice , and voluntary Act , for he took upon him the form of a Servant : But he had no liberty of choice in this world ; because his condition here was determined and foretold ; whence himself saith , Luke 24. 44. That all things must be fulfilled , which were written in the Law of Moses , and in the Prophets , and in the Psalms , concerning me ; therefore this choice was before this life ; and consequently must be the Act of the Divine , not of the Humane Nature . So evidently doth this Text respect the Nature of Christ ; and therefore declare him to be equal to God the Father , as being God by Nature , as the Father is . This Equality our Saviour himself doth prove , Joh ▪ 5. 17. My Father works hitherto , and I work : whence the Jews concluded v. 18. that he made himself equal to God : Upon which he doth not explain himself , as if they mis-understood him ; which he did in the case of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood : But v. 19. he proves this equality , what things soever the Father doth , these [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] the very same , the Son doth likewise . Whence he must be equal to the Father in Operation , and consequently in Power . So Ambrose de fid . l. 1. c. 13. and Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. Hence he requires v. 23. That all men should honour the Son , even as they honour the Father ; which imports an equality of Honour flowing from an equality of Operation ; for the reason of the duty instructs us in the nature of the duty it self . This Honour is owing from their works , but they both do the same works , therefore they must both have the same Honour . Hence Joh. 10. 30. I , and my Father are one ; that is , not in concord only , as the Socinian pretends , but in power : Because the context speaks not of Wills and Affections , but of keeping his sheep : none shall pluck them out of my hands ; because none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hands ; for which he gives this reason , I , and my Father are one : which must be one in power . And if they be one in power , they must be one in Nature ; unless you make an Almighty Creature , which is not only an absolute contradiction , but also confounds the essential properties of God , and the Creature ; which is a much viler Absurdity , than they can with any shadows of Reason pretend against our Doctrine . That gloss then of Athanasius cont . Ari. Orat. 4. must be admitted , viz. This shows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the sameness of the God-head , and the Unity of Power . For indeed the abscribing to the Son the same Infinite Perfections , and the same Honour , but not the same Nature with the Father , as the Socinian doth , proclaims not only the perverseness of the Disputant , but the Idolatry of the Professors too . In that case of his being the Messias , he sends Men to his works , whose Nature , and agreeableness to ancient Prophecies , do sufficiently declare the point . So here he first asserts his equality with the Father , then improves it to an Unity in Power , and Honour ; and then leaves men to conclude from thence an Unity of Nature . This is the most rational way of teaching ; for positive affirmations tell us things are so ; but Natural , and necessary consequences , such as these are , prove they must be so . Therefore though the Father is greater than the Son , as the Father is of himself , and is God only ; while the Son is of the Father , and is both God and Man ; yet the Son is equal to , nay , One with the Father in Operation ; and if in Operation , then in Power ; and if in Power , then in Nature : and therefore must be God. He proceeds p. 5. to manage this Argument from Joh. 20. 17. I ascend to my God , and your God : whence he fancies , the Son is not God , because another is his God. Answ . As Christ is Man , and we his Brethren , so our God is his God : This proves that he is Man , but cannot prove , he is not himself God , which is the design of this Letter . Nay , as the Son is God of God , i. e. God the Son of , and from God the Father , so the Father may be his God , as well as his Father ; without weakning the Doctrine of his Divinity . So far is this Text from concluding his Point , that it makes nothing against us . He adds , Joh. 12. 49. The Father , which sent me , he gave me a Commandment : The Argument is , the Son is not God , because the Father commands , and sends him . Answ . This hath been answered already . For in what respects the Father is greater than the Son , in the same respects the Father may command , and send the Son : But as the Father's being greater than the Son , doth not destroy the Divinity of the Son , because ( as before ) it doth not destroy his Nature ; so neither can his commanding and sending him ; because this Power flows as a right , or consequence from his Superiority , And if the Father's Superiority it self cannot destroy the Son's Divinity ; that Power , which is implyed , or wrapt up in the very Nature of that Superiority , can never do it . Arg. 2. P. 5 , 6. If Christ were God , he could not be the Creature of God : But that he is the Creature of God , he would sain prove from two Scriptures ; the former is Heb. 3. 1 , 2. The High-Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ , who was faithful to him , that appointed him : In the Greek , and in the Margin it is , faithful to him that made him . Answ . The meaning is , that appointed , or made him High-Priest , respects not his Being , but the Designation of him to that Office. In this sence we use the Phrase of making a Bishop . Yet this ( it seems ) is a Socinian Creation . His other Text is , Colos . 1. 15. which calls him the First-born of every Creature : whence he would have him to be but a Creature . Answ . He is the First-born of every Creature not in kind as one of them , but in regard of an Existence prior to them : Whence V. 17. He was before all things . To this agrees that of St. John Ch. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word , i. e. when all things first began , then this Word , this first-born [ was ] or did exist . And both this Apostle and the Evangelist with one consent declare him not a Creature himself , but the Maker of all Creatures , for Colos . 1. 16. By him were all things created : And Joh. 1. 3. By him were all things made . This drives the Socinian to three most palpable falshoods , viz. 1. These words [ By him were all things created , Colos . 1. 16. ] are spoke ( say they ) not of Christ , but of God , Let. 4. P. 131. Answ . They grant us , P. 130. that V. 15. which runs thus ; the Image of the Invisible God , and the First-Born of every Creature , is spoke of Christ : And consequently , V. 16. must be spoke of him too ; because that word [ him ] by him were all things created , cannot possibly have any other Antecedent , than the Image of the Invisible God , and the First-born of every Creature ; whence immediately follows this , 16 V. For by him , i. e. by this First-born were all things created . They would have indeed the [ Invisible God ] to be the Antecedent , that by him , viz. the Father , were all things created . But Sence , Coherence , Grammatical Construction , and other parallel Texts , can never allow this . Because , 1. The subject of that 15th . Verse , is Christ ; who is called the Image , and the First-born ; but those words [ the Invisible God ] are but an adjunct , designed only to show us whose Image he is : But now the Relative must respect the Subiect , not that , which is but a dependent upon it . 2. These words [ the first-born of every creature ] do follow those words [ the invisible God ] for the Text runs thus ; The Image of the invisible God , the first-born of every creature : Therefore to these , viz. the first born — the Relative [ him ] must immediately refer : that by him , viz. Christ , who is this Image , this first-born , were all things created . Sometimes indeed a Relative may refer to not the next , but a remoter Antecedent : But this is only in two cases : As either for the sake of sence , or for the avoiding that interpretation , which may contradict some other text : but neither of these can be pretended in the case before us . For the sence is as compleat , and natural , as well as the construction more easie , if the Relative refer to the first-born , as if it refer to the invisible God ; and the referring it to this first-born , doth not contradict any text ▪ but concurs with all them , that ascribe creation to the Son. Therefore the Socinian can have no other reason for his construction , but only the support of an Heresy . 2. They say , That all things were made not [ by ] but [ for ] him . Answ . This is totally over thrown by St. John ch . 1. 3. By him were all things made ; and without him was not any thing made , that was made . Where observe that the Evangelist doth industriously secure thetitle of Creator to the Son. 1. By an Universal Affirmative , which includes all things made , in the number of his Creatures , for by him were all things made . And , 2. By an Universal Negative , which denys there ever was any creature , which was not created by him ; for without him was not any thing made , that was made . No Text saith so much in reference to the Father ; therefore they may at least as fairly deny the Father to be Creator , as the Son ; and doubtless the design of the Holy Writer is to obviate and expose all Cavils against this Doctrine . 3. They fly to a Metaphorical Creation , that he did not make , but renew all things after they were made . Answ . This is impossible : for Colos . 1. 16. By him were all things created , that are in Heaven ▪ — whether they be Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers . — By which the Socinian , Let. 4. P. 133. understands Angelick Orders ; but the Holy Angels were not renewed , for they kept their Stations , and therefore did not want it . And the fallen Angels were denyed it . The same Letter P. 132. saith , That all things were modelled , not created by him ; and P. 133. explains it thus , Christ is said to modell and order all things upon carth , because of the great change he introduced . For which sence he quotes Camero , Piscator , Diodate , Dallee , Vorstius , Davenant , and Grotius . Answ . I can find nothing in Camero , Dallee , and Vorstius , upon this Text : Had they spoke to his purpose , I doubt not but be would have given us particular References . Piscator saith , all things were per eum condita , made , or created by him ; as the word usually signifies . But for Argument sake , suppose it may in a remoter , and looser sence signifie also to modell and order : Yet let the Socinian tell me , what reason he hath to tye Piscator's sence to these , exclusive of that : Since that is the common import of the Word , and is agreeable to the mind of this Author , who , upon all occasions , asserts the Divinity of the Son , and ascribes to him the creation of the world . For upon these words John 1. 3. By him were all things made ; Piscator saith , the Evangelist doth here assert the Deity of the Son from the effects , or things , that he hath done , videlicet ex omnium rerum conditarum creatione , from his creating all things made : where himself applies this word [ condita ] to the creation of the World by the Son. Therefore the Socinian is false , and unjust in pretending that this Author understands it not of creation , but of modelling , and ordering things . Diodat is so far from the Socinian sence , that upon these words he asserts the Eternal Generation of the Son , and speaks him with the Father an equal , and co-operating cause of all things . Davenant upon this Text thus , Christus non est creatura , sed creaturis omnibus prior ; quia per ipsum conditae sunt : Christ is no creature , but is before all creatures , because they were all made by him . Where this Author by this word [ conditae ] must necessarily mean a creation properly , because he gives this asareason , why Christ is no creature , but is before all creatures , viz. because he made them all : But he cannot possibly understand by it to [ model ] or [ order ] because he might model , or order , and yet notwithstanding be a creature , and after those creatures too . Therefore the Socinian doth here pervert the sence of this Author , and also totally ruines that Argument , by which he proves that sence : Which is a crime so salse ▪ and malicious , that it can admit no Palliation . As for Grotius , he shows indeed , that the word here rendred to create , doth not always signifie properly to create , but is sometimes applyed to the new creature . We grant it : But by the leave of so great a man , and of this little Socinian too ; this doth not prove it doth not signifie properly to create , in this text . That it is taken improperly in some places is no Argument that it ought to be improperly in this . Though I shall prove in it's place that Grotius was neither Arian nor Socinian ; yet I must say , that he hath not in all places done that justice to this Cause , which he might and ought to have done it . It is worth our while to observe , that to prove that Christ is a creature , these men will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( which signifies to create , in as large , and loose a sence , as the English word [ make ] doth ; as to make the World , to make a Verse , &c. ) to signifie properly to create in Heb. 3. 2. contrary ( as we have shown ) to the evident sence , and design of that place : But to prove he did not make the World , they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Colos . 1. 16. to signifie not to create , but to model and order : Though it doth most properly signify to create , and V. 17. by ascribing to him an Existence prior to all things , ought to lead and determine us to this sence . This is plain shuffling : And indeed where men will take words of a various signification in such a sense as is agreeable to their own Hypothesis , but not to the scope , and design of the place , that uses 'em , they may perplex any truth , and colour over the foulest Heresy in the World ; and in fine , turn ▪ the whole Scriptures into contradictions , and non-sense . That Christ was no creature , I shall further prove against this Letter , and the Arian both , by these two steps ; 1. That he was before all creatures , and 2. That he was from eternity . 1. He asserts his own Existence before the world : for John 17. 5. He had Glory with the Father before the world ; and therefore he must exist before it : for non entis nulla sunt praedicata . They say indeed , this Glory was in decree only , as the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world in decree only : But these are not parallel cases ; for then that Lamb could be slain no otherwise . But the Scriptures do abundantly declare that Christ did actually exist before the world ; and therefore might be actually glorified before it . Necessity requires that interpretation as to the Lamb ; but there is no such necessity in this case ; and therefore no such interpretation is to be admitted : for we must never leave the common , proper , and literal sence of a Scripture ; unless it be for the sake of a concurrence with , or non-contradiction of some other Scripture , which is not in this case ; because no Scripture saith , he did not exist before the world . This is a fallacy à bene conjunctis ad male divisa : when Men put such odd constructions upon a Text taken by it self , which it abhors , when taken together with others . For , in this case , was there no Text but this , which ascribes to him a Being before the World , their gloss might [ perhaps ] seem to have a little colour of probability in it ; and that is the most it could then pretend to : But take this Scripture together with those , that declare he did exist , when all things began , Joh. 1. 1. That he was before all things , Coloss . 1. 17. That he made and created all things Joh. 1. 3. Col. 1. 16. The case is so plain from the light , which one text gives to another , that a Man would think that none , but the wilfully blind , could mistake it . If in this manner we follow this , or some other point in controversy between the Socinian and our selves from one text to another , till we have laid all those together , which speak to the same point ; one would think that either the Scripture is so worded , that it is extreamly apt to lead all plain honest minds into error : or else that the Socinian sence is but mere shuffles , and evasions of the truth . One of these must be ; Judge , & choose , but consider it is on the part of God , and Socinus , who stand here opposed each to other . Upon this Scripture Irenaeus in the next age after the Apostles l. 4. c. 28. Thus , ante omnem conditionem glorificabat Verbum Patrem suum , & glorificabatur ab eo : Before every Creature the Word , i. e. the Son , did glorifie his Father , and was glorified by him . By which this Father doth speak , 1. His Existence before all Creatures : For every thing did glorifie it's maker so soon as it did exist ; but the Son did glorifie his Father before all Creatures , and consequently did exist before them . And , 2. His Divinity . For had Irenaeus numbred the Son with the Creatures , as the first of them in the Arian sence ; or as the last of them in the Socinian ; he must have worded it with some respect to them , as thus , before all [ other ] Creatures : or the first of all Creatures ; the Son did glorifie , &c. but this form distinguishes him from all Creatures , not as one of them , but as being already distinct from , as well as before them all . The Son then was before the World , i.e. before the Creation , and consequently before all creatures , which was the thing to be proved ; whence it follows , that there is no necessity of taking those Texts , which ascribe Creation to him in an improper sense ; and if no necessity , they must be taken in a proper one ; because all Scriptures must be taken properly ; unless that sense doth contradict some other Scripture ; which is not in the case before us , because no Text saith the Son did not , or that the Father only did create the World. 2. Since the Son was before the world , he must be from Eternity ; because the Scriptures no where suggest a creation between Eternity and Time : But on the contrary , Moses declares that the creation of the World was the beginning , viz. of the creature , and consequently there could be no creature before it . Whence in the Scripture-Phrase to be in the beginning , that is , before the world ; and to be from Eternity , are the same thing . For wisdom doth thus express her Eternal Existence , Prov. 8. 22 , 23. He possessed me in the beginning of his ways , before his works of old . I was set up from everlasting , from the beginning , or ever the earth was : and v. 24 , 25. when there were no depths , I was brought forth ; when there were no Fountains abounding with water : before the mountains were setled , before the Hills was I brought forth . Thus to be in the beginning , and to be before the world , are Phrases , which the Spirit uses to express the Eternal existence of wisdom : but the Son was in the beginning , Joh. 1. 1. he was before all things , Colos . 1. 17. and before the world , Joh. 17. 5. therefore the same Phrases must as well express the Eternal existence of the Son too . If the Son then was any where called a creature , it must be restrained to his man-hood , as his descent from Abraham is , Rom. 9. 5. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the flesh : which restriction must imply that there is something excepted , as to which he is no creature ; and as to which he did not descend from Abraham ; which can be no other than the Divine Nature : whence the next words say , he is over all God blessed for ever . Irenaeus l. 3 c. 18. reads it thus , Exquibus Christus secundum carnem , qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula . Of whom Christ was according to the Flesh , who is God over all blessed for ever : and Tert. adv . Prax. c. 13. thus , — who is Deussuper omnia benedictus in aevum omne : God over all blessed for ever : which Reading is farther from the Socinian Conceit of its being a thanksgiving for Christ , Thus , who is over all God be blessed for ever , than our Translation is . From this Text , which the Socinians have so miserably disguised , not these Fathers only , but the first Ages of Christianity too , have always pleaded the Divinity of the Son. He continues his Argument from 1. Cor. 3. 32. Christ is God's : that is ( saith he ) God's Subject ; and this he fansies must be God's creature . Answ . Why not God's Son , since the Scriptures so often call him so ? but if it must be [ God's Subject ] yet it can do him no Service : For he is his Subject in regard of his Humane Nature , and Offices : Nay , his Subordination to the Father , as Son ; the Apostle ( as we shall show ) calls a Subjection : which will appear to be so far from affecting his Divinity , that it gives light , and strength , to this Doctrine . He cites Mat. 12. 17 , 18. behold my Servant . His Argument lyes thus , p. 5. If Christ were God , it could not without blasphemy be ( absolutely , and without restriction ) affirmed of him , that he is the servant of God. Answ . It is not affirmed of him absolutely , and without restriction , but in reference to his Humane Nature , and Offices : and till the Socinian doth prove that it is absolutely affirmed of him , i. e. that Christ is in all respects a Servant , and not in some only ; it hath not so much as the face of an Argument . His next Scripture is Phil. 2. 8 , 9. he humbled himself , and became obedient to death , therefore God hath highly exalted him . Answ . His obedience to death , doth indeed prove that he is man , for else he could not dye : this we all grant : but neither this , nor his Exaltation can ever prove he is not God , which is the thing in controversie . The truth of this will appear from our explication of his next Scripture , which is , 1 Cor. 15. 28. Then shall the son also be subject to him , who put all things under him . Which subjection he conceits destroys his Divinity . Ans . [ Then ] shall the Son be subject ; that is , at the end of the world , v. 24. which implies that till then he is in some respect not subject ; which is a demonstration of his Divinity . For all creatures are in all points his Subjects ; therefore if there is any one respect , in which the Son is not subject , then the Son must be God. Now his non-subjection is this , that now he hath a Kingdom , viz. The Church given by the Father , in which he reigns himself as Mediator , whence V. 25. He must reign . This Kingdom the Church is separate from the Dominion of the Father , which is the World : Therefore so far as he reigns in this Kingdom , so far he reigns separate from the Father , and that is not subject to him . Hence he saith , Matt. 28. 18. All Power is given me : Phil 2. 9. God hath highly exalted him ; and again Psal . 2. 9. I have set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion . But at the end of the World , He shall deliver up this Kingdom to the Father , V. 24. And then he shall reign no otherwise than as subordinate to the Father , as Son ; which the Text expresses by [ subject to the Father ] . Whence it must be granted , that when he saith , the Father commands and sends me , &c. These were spoken , and ought to be understood , antecedent to this exaltation . To close this Argument . On the one hand this exaltation proves no more than this , That the Son hath now a Kingdom , which he had not before ; but it doth not prove that he did not reign before with the Father in the Government of the World : And on the other hand , 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 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 . 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 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 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 . 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 Vxor . 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. 4 p. 7 , 8. God doth all things in his own Name , and by his own Authority ; 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's Name : 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 . He proceeds ; God declares himself to be the prime object of Faith and Worship ; but the Son doth not so , for John 12. 44. He that believes on me , believes not on me , but on him that sent me . Answ . Christ doth in this very Text propose himself as the object of Faith and Worship ; for he saith , He that believes on me , which asserts that men did believe on him , and implys that they ought to do so ; what follows is but a qualification of the thing suitable to his subordination to his Father ; for such an one believes not on me , that is , solely , or ultimately : but on him that sent me , i. e. on him , as well as me ; by which he doth not exclude , but include himself with the Father , as the object of Faith and Worship . This sense must be allowed , else you run into these two absurdities , viz. 1. You make the first clause assert , what the second denyes ; and the second deny what the first asserts , viz. That men do believe on him , and yet do not believe on him : thev do not believe , and yet they believe still . 2. These Scriptures , which make Faith in Christ a condition of Salvation , such as John 3. 36. He that believes on the Son , hath Everlasting Life ; must be razed out of our Bibles . But perhaps he may trifle upon that word [ prime ] object , which hath nothing in it . For if the Father be the prime object as he is the first Person in the Trinity ; yet the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are the One , and only object in regard of Nature . But as the Texts , he here quotes , cannot serve his Hypothesis , so there is One among them , that totally destroys it , viz. John 8. 42. I proceeded forth , and came from God : that is , I am not from the Earth , but from Heaven : this is the Apostles sense , Ephes . 4. 9. That he ascended , what is it , but that he descended first ? Whence he did not first ascend to receive his Doctrine and Authority from God , as Socinus dreams ; but he first descended from God , with whom he was in the beginning , John 1. 1. and with whom he was glorified before the World , John 17. 5. Our sense falls in with variety of Scriptures , which on every side confirm and support it : but theirs labours with endless difficulties in wresting and perverting them ; that is an Argument of truth , but this os falshood . Argum. 5. pa. 9. God was always most wise , but Christ increased in Wisdom , Luke 2. 52. Answ . The Text saith , he increased in Wisdom and Stature , which word [ Stature ] suits not a Divine Nature , but an Human Body , which shews that the Text speaks of him , not simply , as if in his whole Capacity , without any exception , he increased in Wisdom , but only as Man , and consequently this Text proves he is Man ; but doth not prove he is not God , which is the design of this Argument . This is a demonstration of a studied corruption of the truth ; for ( like the Devil ) he quotes but one part of the Text , to the end he may pervert the whole . He proceeds , God was never ignorant of any thing ; but he makes it that Christ was ignorant of two : 1. Of the place where Lazarus was buried , John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him ? Answ . This no more proves that he knew not the place , than Gods asking Cain , Gen. 4. 9. Where is Abel thy Brother , doth prove that God knew not what was become of him ? How can we presume he was ignorant of this , who of himself knew both his death , and the time of it too . That he would not in every thing give demonstrations of his Divinity , is no argument against it . 2. He pleads that Christ knew not the day of Judgment , for Mark 13. 32. Of that day knows no Man ( in the Greek 't is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] none knows ) no not the Angels — neither the Son , but the Father ; St. Matthew , ch . 24. 36. adds , but the Father only . Answ . He knew it not as Man ; but this doth not prove , he is not God , and did not know it as such . For John 21. 17. He knew all things , and therefore must know this , or this must be nothing . In 1 King 8. 39. God only knows the Hearts of Men ; but Joh. 2. 25. Christ knew what is in Man : But to know the Hearts of Men , and to know what is in Man , are the same in Sense ; therefore Christ knows what God only knows ; and consequently Christ must be God , and for that cause Omniscient . Revel . 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart . This Let. 4. p. 154. doth acknowledge that Christ spoke of himself . But this ( as we know ) is proper to God , who alone can search the Heart : Therefore our Savior's Application of it to himself , is a Manifest Assertion of his own Divinity , and consequently of his Omniscience , which is inseparable from the Divine Nature . Whence it must be that he knew it not as Man only , but yet at the same time must know it as God. But here the Socinian pleads , that he knew many things not of himself ; but by Communication from the Father , as the Prophets did , 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil thou wilt do to the Children of Israel : Therefore some extraordinary Knowledges in Christ , do speak his knowledg no more Omniscient and Inherent , than that of the Prophets . So to this purpose p. 155. Answ . These are very unlike Cases . For , 1. This Prophet knew this Man so far as concerned his future Dealing towards this People : But this doth not prove , that he knew this Man any farther , or any other Man at all . Whereas Joh. 2. 24. Christ knew all Men , and v. 25. He knew what was in Man ; and therefore all that is in Man : Which never was affirmed of any of the Prophets . From which alone it appears , that his Knowledge was much more extensive than any of the Prophets . 2. He knew all things Joh. 21. 17. which imports an infinite Knowledge ; But an infinite Knowledge can never be Communicated to a finite Understanding : Because there is an infinite Disproportion between the faculty and the object : Therefore the Knowledge which Christ had , speaks him infinite , and that is God. 3. This Hypothesis , viz. that such a Knowledge can be Communicated to a Creature , doth confound the Essential 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 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 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 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 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 , 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 cites Luke 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 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 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 from him . He Prayed for others , as Priest , Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever , whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh — he offered up Prayers : Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God , that is to say , his Praying must hinder the Human Nature from being united to the Divine ; for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason . Nay , as Man he dyed , yet notwithstanding this was United to the Divinity : And if his Death could not hinder this Union , much less can his Praying . But to shew the weakness of this Argument , we will add , though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God ; for so there is nothing above him , yet he may Pray considered personally , as the Son of God , viz. the Father ; for as Son , he is subordinate to the Father , and consequently as Son may Pray the Father . This is an Argument then no more to his purpose , than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Travels , or Noah's Planting a Vinyard . He urges farther , Christ Dyed , and the Father raised him from the Dead , Ephes . 1. 19 , 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God. He that dyed , and was raised , must be Man ; but his Argument implies , that he who raised him , must be God , which is enough to our purpose : For he raised himself , John 2. 19. destroy this Temple , and in three days I will raise it up ; which v. 21. saith , he spake of the Temple of his Body . Therefore ( according to his own Hypothesis ) the Son must be God , as well as Man ▪ But the Socinian pretends , Let. 3. p. 89. That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father ; and accordingly his being raised is always attributed to the Father , not to himself . Answ . This is false ; for that Text doth attribute it to himself , I will raise it up . Therefore either the Son must be the Father ; or else his Resurrection is not always attributed to the Father . 2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father , then he must be raised by the Father : for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised ; and consequently he could not say , I will raise it . 3. This notion makes the Raiser , and the raised , to be the same : which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker , and the thing made to be the same . Therefore when he saith , I will raise it up , he speaks not as Man , for as such he was to be raised : but as God , who alone is the raiser of the dead . And , 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son : as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father ; for then those Texts , of which some ascribe it to the Father , others to the Son , must be contradictory . But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both , because now both must be God , or else they could not raise the dead . His next Scripture , which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me ; is already answered in Arg. 2. For this Power here given him respects only the Government of the Church , to which he was now exalted ; which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion : but this doth not prove that he had not , antecedent to this , a Power with the Father in the Government of the World. This proves he had now a new Government , but doth not prove that therefore he was not God : because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World , but yet was God. Such additionals prove an alteration in the things added , but not in those Divine Persons , to whom they are added . All the difference is , this Power was given the Son. True , but this ( as before ) speaks the Son subordinate to the Father , but doth not destroy his Nature , by which he is God. Argum. 7. p. 11. Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God : and is described to be the Son of God , and the Image of God. Answ . He is personally distinct , and therefore is not God the Father : but he is not essentially distinct , and therefore must be God the Son. If the Socinian then would gain his point , he must prove not only [ a ] distinction , which we grant ▪ but [ such ] a distinction , which we deny . But he hath said that Christ is the Son of God , and the Image of God ; whence he concludes , p. 12. thus , it is as impossible that the Son , or Image of the one true God , should himself be that One true God ; as that the Son should be the Father , and the Image be the very thing , whose Image it is . Answ . Profoundly argued , and like a a Socinian ! For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God : when Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are together the one true God. Therefore take the One true God , and the invisible God , personally for the Father only ; and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be that One true God , because the Son cannot be the Father : and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God , because ( as he saith ) the Image cannot be that very thing , whose Image it is . But take the One true God , and the invisible God , essentially for Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and then the Son with the Father , and Holy Spirit , is that One true God : and the Image of the invisible God , with the Father and Holy Ghost , is that invisible God ; because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God. Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God , because as an Image represents that very thing , whose Image it is , so the Son represents the Father , as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both . Whence he saith , John 14. 8. He that hath seen me , hath seen the Father ; because as Hilar. Pict . Epist . de Trin. l. 9. glosses , the Father is seen in the Perfections of the Son ; and consequently the Son must be of the same Nature with the Father ▪ Our Doctrine then is not simply impossible , and contradictory to common sense , as the Letter pretends : but theirs is palpably false and absurd ; for all these Arguments ( as he calls them ) run upon these two false suppositions ; viz. 1. That there is but one Nature in Christ : for he proves that Christ is Man , and thence concludes he cannot be God ; when the Scriptures abundantly declare that he is both . 2. That there is but one Person in the God-head : for he often proves that Christ is not God , viz. the Father , as many of his quotations must be understood ; and thence concludes he is not God ; though the Scriptures prove that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are God. Thus he supposes what we deny , that there is but one Nature in Christ , and but one Person in the God-head ; but proves only what we grant , viz. that Christ is Man , and that the Son is not the Father . But let him prove first that there is but one Nature in Christ , and then that Christ is Man : and again , first that there is but one Person , viz. the Father in the God-head ; and then that the Son is not the Father ; from each of which it will follow that the Son cannot be God ; nothing less can conclude his point : but this method of his proves nothing against us , but only betrays the Socinians want either of Honesty or Judgment . However , he concludes his Arguments ( as he calls them ) with a Socinian Confidence ; asserting , p. 13. that there is in Scripture no real foundation for the Divinity of the Son. For proof of which he now flyes above common Argument , and can stoop to nothing below Demonstration . § . Demonst . 1. par . 8. p. 13. — So many Scriptures expresly declare , that only the Father is God. For proof of this he quotes , John 17. 1 , 3. Father — this is Eternal Life , that they might know thee , the only true God , and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent . Answ . The Letter saith , that Only the Father is God , which denyes the Son , and Holy Ghost is God : but this Text saith , the Father is the only true God : this excludes the Gentile Gods , but not the Son , and the Holy Ghost , who with the Father are the only true God. He here removes the exclusive particle [ only ] from the praediciate , the [ true God ] to the subject [ thee ] for ( pardon the repetition ) the Apostle saith — thee the only true God ; but the Socinian saith , only thee the true God ; which is such a corruption of the Text contrary to all antient and authentick reading , that utterly perverts the very sense and design of it . You have then a Demonstration indeed , not that only the Father is God , but that the Scriptures and Socinianism are at odds ▪ and that the one or the other must be Reformed . The next words [ and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent ] do Distinguish the Son from the Father as to Office , so doth 1 ▪ Cor. 8. 6. there is but one God — and One Lord ; but they do not Distinguish him as to Nature . The same is true of other Quotations under this Head ; and consequently none of 'em prove what he undertakes , viz. that only the Father is God. Demonst . 2. parag . 9. p. 14. If Christ were God as well as Man , it had been altogether Superfluous to give the Holy Ghost to his said Human Nature as a Director , and a Guide : For what other help could that Nature need , which was one Person with ( as they speak ) God the Son , and in which God the Son did personally dwell ? His Quotations are Luke 4. 1. Act. 1. 2 and Ch. 10. 38. Which prove only this , that the Holy Ghost was given to the Human Nature of Christ : Which the poor Man thinks a Demonstrative proof , that Christ was not United to the Eternal Word , or Son of God ; and Consequently was not God. 1. This Demonstration ( as he calls it ) is founded not upon Scripture , but upon a Socinian Presumption . For no Scripture saith , that if the Son was God , he should not have had the Presence and Conduct of the Spirit of God. And certainly it is a Monstrous way of Arguing , that this or that is necessary for God to have done , or not to have done , and then to conclude , he hath , or hath not done it : For this is no better , than to limit the Almighty , to give Rules to Infinite Wisdom , and to make not the Scripture , but our own blind Conceits , the Rule of our Faith. In this way the Romanists Demonstrate an Universal Head of the Church : Some the Divine Right of this , or that Form of Church-Government ; and after the same Methods , others may as well Demonstrate away all Religion , and introduce what they please of their own . 2. His Foundation is utterly false . For the Church is the Body of Christ , which Ephes . 4. 15 , 16. is said to be fitly joyned to him our Head , to intimate that he doth actuate , and guide it ; and yet notwithstanding standing this , the Spirit is sent to lead her into all Truth . Where let the Socinian tell me , why both the Son of God , and the Holy Spirit , may not guide the Human Nature , as well as Myslical Body of Christ . 3. It follows , that the same works of God are ascribed now to one Person , then to another : Thus we find it in this of Conduct , in that of Creation , &c. but this doth not destroy , but rather declare and confirm the Doctrine of a Trinity : Because it proclaims those Powers and Operations , which the Socinian would Limit to one Person , to be common to all three ; whence it follows , that all three must be God. Demonst . 3. parag . 10. p. 15. We have an Instance of this in the Demonstration now before us . For he would not have the Son to be God , because he Ascribes his Miracles to the Holy Spirit , Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. Now this doth not prove the Son is not God , any more than the Ascribing Creation to the Son , doth prove that the Father did not Create . But it is a good step toward the proving that the Holy Ghost is God ; For Miracles cannot be wrought but by a Divine Power , therefore if the Holy Ghost hath such a Power of Miracles , that they are wrought by him , if he be a Person which we shall easily prove , he must be a Divine Person , and that is God. Demonst . 4. parag . 11. p. 15. Had our Lord been more than a Man , the Prophecies of the Old Testament — would not Describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman . — Answ . They Describe him as such , but not barely as such ; for they Describe him also as God. Thus Isa . 40. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord , make strait in the Desert an High way for our God. This is evidently spoke of the Messias , and the Evangelists with one consent , apply it to Christ , Mat. 3. 3. Mark 1 , 2 , 3. Luk. 3 , 4. and Joh. 1. 23. Where they all agree , that the Voice in the Wilderness , was the Baptist ; and that the way he was to prepare , was the way of the Messias ; therefore according to their Application of Scripture , the Prophet doth Stile the Son , the Lord our God. Observe farther , that this Text calls the Messias Lord , in the Hebrew , it is Jehovah , which ( we shall prove ) is an Incommunicable Name of God , which therefore Asserts the Divinity of him , to whom it is applyed : And consequently the Prophet in this place declares him to be God in a proper Sense . Compare Psal . 46. 6 , 7. with Heb. 1. 8. and Psal . 102. 25. with Heb. 1. 10. and you will find , that according to the Apostle's Application of those Texts , the Psalmist Ascribes to the Son , an Everlasting Throne , and the Creation of the World ; and certainly this Describes him not as the Seed of the Woman , but as God. § . 4. This Pen having thus attack'd the Divinity of the Son , now turns it self against that of the Holy Ghost ; affirming p. 16. that the Holy Ghost — is only the Power and Inspiration of God , at least is not himself God , which they bold is ascertain'd by these Considerations . Consid . 1. The Holy Ghost or Spirit , and the Power of God , are spoken of as one and the same thing , 1 Cor. 2. 4 , 5. Luke 1. 35. Ch. 11. 2c . Mat. 12. 28. Luk. 24. 49. Compared with Act. 1. 4 , 5. Answ . He is here to prove , that the Holy Ghost is only the Power and Inspiration of God , but is not himself God , but these Texts say no such thing , and consequently do not ascertain this Position . 2. The Blessed Spirit is not properly the Inspiration of God , but something distinct from it . For 1 Cor. 12. 8 , 9 , 10. Wisdom , Faith , &c. are given by the Spirit : Whence Heb. 2. 4. they are called the Gifts of the Holy Ghost . Hence each Text Distinguishes between the Spirit , and these Gifts : But neither of them are the Inspiration of God. For Inspiration is the Act , whereby the Holy Ghost Conveighs these Gifts to Men , which v. 11. is called a dividing them . This is clear from 2 Tim. 3. 16. all Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspired , or given by the Inspiration of God. Here Scripture is the gift or thing inspired , God is the giver or inspirer ; therefore Inspiration can be but the Act , whereby it is given or Inspired . Therefore as the Graces before mentioned , viz. Wisdom , Faith , &c. are the Gifts of the Holy Ghost , so the Holy Ghost , must give them by way of Inspiration . The Socinian then doth here confound the Agent and the Act , making the Giver and the Giving , the same thing ; which is as false and absurd , as to say my Act of Donation is my Person . 3. He Asserts , that the Holy Ghost is only the Power of God , that is , as he often explains himself , is neither God , nor a Person . But this is neither proved , nor ever can be ; because such Power can know no more of God , than a Grace or Vertue can do , which are qualities , not persons : But 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things , even the deep things of God : Whence the Spirit must be not a simple Power , but a Person endowed with an Infinite knowledge , and that can be no other than God. What the Letter opposes , the Scriptures are clear in ; for Act. 5. Ananias did lye to the Holy Ghost , whence v. 4. saith , he lyed not to Man , but to God. Therefore the Holy Ghost must be God. Eniedinus , who is much more Manly in his performances , than this Epistler Parallels this of Ananias , lying to the Holy Ghost , and to God , with the Jews Rejecting Samuel and God : Thus , the Jews Rejected Samuel immediately , who was set over them ; but they Rejected God mediately , who did set Samuel over them : So Ananias lyed to the Holy Ghost immediately , who was given to the Apostles : But he lyed to God mediately , who gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles ; whence as the Jews did Sin differently against Samuel and God , viz. immediately , and mediately , so did Ananias against the Holy Ghost and God , whence he would have the Holy Ghost and God , as much distinct , as Samuel and God ; and that is essentially . Answ . That place as put by the Objector , is not parallel with this : For that saith ▪ they Rejected not Samuel , but God ; but this doth not say , that Ananias lyed not to the Holy Ghost , but to God. Therefore this Text doth not distinguish between the Holy Ghost , and God , as that doth between Samuel and God : And consequently the Holy Ghost and God , are not here made so distinct , as Samuel and God. But take these Texts right , and we may allow a Parallel . But then it must lye between Samuel and Peter ; and again between God and the Holy Ghost ; thus the Jews thought they Rejected Samuel only , as Ananias thought he lyed to Peter only ; but saith God to Samuel , they Reject not thee , but me : And saith Peter to Ananias , thou hast lyed to the Holy Ghost ; that is , not to Men , but to God. Therefore while that Text distinguishes between Samuel and God , as different , this Unites the Holy Ghost , and God as the same . Consid . 2. p. 17. A Manifest Distinction is made , as between God and Christ , so also between God and the Holy Ghost : So that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself . His Quotations are , Rom. 5. 5. — the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts , by the Holy Ghost , 1 Cor. 3. 36. — ye are the Temple of God , and the Spirit of God dwells in you , and Rom. 8. 27. He ( the Spirit ) v. 26. makes intercession for the Saints , according to the Will of God. Answ . He knows we grant there is a personal Distinction , that as the Son , so the Holy Ghost is not God the Father . This is all these Texts do prove , without which there could not be a Trinity . But none of 'em prove that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God , which is the design of this Consideration . But because Rom. 8. 27. here quoted , Ascribes Personal Acts to the Holy Ghost — he makes Intercession : Therefore , that he may at once destroy his Divinity , and Personality both , he pleads , that the Holy Ghost is spoke of as a Person by the same Figure , that Charity is described as a Person , 1 Cor. 13. 4 , 5. The Argument lyes thus , Personal Acts cannot prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person , because they cannot prove that Charity is a Person . Answ . This doth as effectually destroy the Personality of the Father and the Son , as of the Holy Ghost : For ( according to this Argument ) Personal Acts do not prove the Father or the Son to be Persons ; because they do not prove , that Charity is a Person ; but that Argument which proves too much , proves nothing at all . 2. The Scriptures do Ascribe to the Holy Ghost , not only those Personal Acts which they do not to 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 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 Vnitarians 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 . 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 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 , 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 the Trinitarian supposition ) 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 2 Cor. 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 . 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 , 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 whom they prayed , which is one part of Worship . But you will say , what is the reason then , we are not commanded to pray expresly and particularly to the Holy Ghost , as we are to God ? Answ . 1. In divers Scriptures [ God ] is put essentially for Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; therefore in those Scriptures all Commands , and Examples of praying to God , are to be understood inclusively of all three Persons , who are essentially one , and the same God. 2. The Father is the first Person in the Trinity ▪ of and from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost are ▪ therefore as for this reason the Son refers things principally to the Father , but not exclusive of himself ▪ so for the same reasons Prayers are directed principally to the Father , but yet are to be understood inclusive of the Son , and Holy Ghost , but not exclusive of them . 3. The Father is principal Agent in the Government of the World ; and the first mover in all Divine Operations , saying to the Son , and the Holy Ghost , let us make Man : whence the Son saith , John 5. 17. my Father works hitherto , and I works by which he speaks the Father principle Operator , but himself a Co-operator with him . Again , the Son from the Father hath the Government of the Church , whence it is called the Kingdom of Christ , to which the Father Exalted him , and from the Father and the Son , the Holy Ghost is in the Ministration of it . Upon which Accounts , Prayers are directed primarily , and expresly to the Father , but yet are intended as extensive to the Son and Holy Ghost . They are directed most particularly to him from his Priority of Order and Operation ; but yet they belong to all three in regard of the sameness of their Nature . These things are suited to the Rules and Methods of the Divine Oeconomy , and may seem difficulties ; but had our Considerer considered well , he had never made them supports of an Heresie . Consid . 4. p. 19. If the Holy Spirit , and our Lord Christ are — God , no less than the Father , then God is a Trinity of Persons , or three Persons ; but this is contrary to the whole Scripture , which speaks of God as but one Person ; and speaks of him , and to him by singular Pronouns , such as I , Thou , We , Him , &c. Answ . We deny that any one Text of Scripture , doth prove that God is but One Person . He quotes , Job . 13. 7 , 8. Will ye speak wickedly for God ? — Will ye accept his Person ? — Whence he thinks , there can be but one Person , viz. the Father in the God-head . To which we Answer thus . 1. The letter of these Texts doth not say , that God is but One Person : Or that there is but one Person in the Godhead , which is the thing to be proved . 2. The Reason and Design of 'em , cannot possibly import any such thing . For these expressions are used to signifie only the doing unjustly for God , as Men do for others , when said to accept their Persons . For Job hereby accuses his Friends of Injustice and Partiality , in that they justified God's Visitations upon , by Condemning him of Hypocrisie . Therefore these Texts are not suited to the Nature of God , nor designed to Determine , whether there be only one , or more Persons in the God head , but to signifie unjust Censures ; and therefore must import not a Singularity or Plurality of Persons , but only Partiality in their Judgment , between God and himself . Will ye speak wickedly for God ? and talk deceitfully for him ? Will ye accept his Person ? 3. Phrases that are taken from the common ufuages of Men , or as common forms of Speech , are not to be used in an Argument , in which the Holy Pen-man did not intend them to the Contradiction of those Texts , which professedly speak of that point , this all Men of Reason and Judgment , must grant me ; because in expounding Scripture , we are to consider not only Words , but Phrases , together with the Scope and design of the place , and if so , it must be granted in this Case before us , that these Texts in Jobe , which concern not the Nature of God , ought not to be brought to prove , there is but one person in the God-head , when so many Texts on set purpose , declare the Divine Nature of three . He quotes also , Heb. 1. 1. 2 , 3 ▪ God — hath spoken to us by his Son , who being — the express Image of his Person . Answ . 1. God here must signifie the Father , because he speaks to us by his Son , whence the Son is the Image of his Father's Person . But however this doth not reach his Case ; for it proves indeed , that God the Father is but one Person , which we all grant : But it doth not prove there is no other Person in the God-head , which is the thing in controversie . Nay , 2. This Text is not only , not for , but is really against , him . For if the Son be the express Image of his Father , he must duly Represent the Father , as Images duly Represent those things , whose Images they are : And if he , the Living Image of his Father , duly Represents the Father , he must have in himself all the Perfections of his Father , and consequently must be infinite himself , else he could not in his own Person or Nature , Represent infinite Perfections ; and that he doth so , is evident , not only from his being Termed the Image of his Father , but also from those words of his once quoted already , Joh. 14. 8. he that hath seen me , hath seen the Father . So far is this Text from proving , but one Person in the God-head , that it consequentially introduces a second . He cites , Deut. 6. 4 , 5. — the Lord our God is One : the word is Jehovah , whence the Letter saith , Jehovah is one , and that the Jews Morning and Evening Repeated this Verse , to keep it in perpetual Memory , that Jehovah or God , is one only , not two or three . Answ . The meaning is , there is but One God , which is spoke in opposition to Gentile Gods , which the Jews were so much inclined to , not that there is but One Person in the God-head , which was never disputed among them . We say then , that Jehovah or God , is but One , viz. Nature or Substance , that is , there is but one God , which is all this Text can pretend to , and all that our Socinian can prove : But we say likewise , that Jehovah or God , is three Persons , viz. Father , Son and Holy Ghost . That the Father is Jehovah or God , the Socinian grants us , and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah , or God , we will prove . 1. That the Son is Jehovah , or God will appear from hence . In Exod. 33 , 1 , 2 , 3. the Lord , the word is Jehovah , said , I will send my Angel ▪ but I will not go up into the midst of thee . Now as the Letter supposes , that Jehovah is God , so in this very place , it can signifie no other than God properly . Because , ● . Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel , as such , and therefore from every Angel , I will send my Angel , but I will not go . — and 2. He declares his propriety in this Angel , for it is [ my ] Angel : An Angel that is mine , that is , my Creature , and my Servant : Which gloss I found upon this bottom , that we never find in all the Scripture , that one Angel speaks thus of another ; for though there be different orders of Angels , yet they are all Servants of God , not the Servants one of another . Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in , and that Power over this Angel , which God has to , in , and over his Creatures . Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah , appeared to Abraham , v. 2. expresses it by three Men ; but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah , or Lord , the same is so called again , v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two [ Men ] but this [ Jehovah ] This only was Dignified with these Titles , to this only did Abraham bow himself , and direct his Discourse . Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distinguished from these Men , as he was before from that Angel ; and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World ; which neither is true , nor was ever affirmed , of any created Spirit , it must needs be that this Jehovah is God. But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father , because 1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape , as , to Joshua , to Moses , so to Abraham , whence himself , and the two with him , are called Men , v. 2 : but the Father never appeared in humane shape ; and the Teaching that he did was antiently , as well as justly , condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie : and 2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2 , because they were sent , as the Word imports ; but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity , cannot be sent from any . The Result then is , here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men , but the Father never did appear in this likeness , therefore this could not be Jehovah , or God the Father ; but must be Jehovah , or God the Son , whom the Father sent in Humane shape as an intimation of his future Incarnation . This is evident from Joshua ; for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword , and ▪ asks , Who he was for ? The Man answered , v. 14 , As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come . Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord ; and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man , this Captain , is himself Jehovah the Lord ; for after he had answered Joshua , and commanded him to put off his shooe , because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15 , then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord , i. e. this Man , this Captain , said to Joshua — Therefore the former Jehovah , or Lord , is the Father , whose Host this was ; and the latter Jehovah , or Lord , is the Son , who was sent from the Father as Captain of it . This was the Sense of all Antiquity ; for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar . c. 6. and adv . Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were followed by Cyprian , Origen , and the rest . Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord [ Jehovah ] rained down Fire from the Lord [ Jehovah ] in Heaven . The Series of this History shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch . 18 ; whence , the latter must be the Father , who was in Heaven : This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers , but also of the first Council of Sirmium . And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation , so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration , when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Jehovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead : for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World , Gen. 18. 25. We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius , who , de Nomine Jehovah , objects several things against us with a design to perswade that [ Jehovah ] is not a Name proper to God , but is sometimes given to Angels properly taken ; and consequently , that this Jehovah was not tht Son , but only an Angel of God. Object . 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2. Ans . They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me 1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God , as well as these three Men be Angels ? And then , 2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels , but this he stiled Jehovah , whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels , unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all created Beings : and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Creator , God blessed for ever ? Object , 2. He who is called Lord [ Jehovah ] in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord , v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God ▪ but common to Created Spirits . Ans . Angel doth note his Office , as being sent from the Father ▪ and Jehovah notes his Nature , as being of the same Substance with the Father : for v. 6. this Jehovah saith , I am the God of Abraham ; and v. 14. he stiles himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am ; this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting , which is not competible to any Creature . Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31 , 32. Have ' ye not read , not what God spake to you by his Angel , but that which is spoke to you by God , saying , I am the God of Abraham — Where our Saviour himself , who is the best Interpreter of Scripture , teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit , but even God himself . Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith , this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , our Christ . And Tertul. adv . Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum — Moysi — God , that is , the Son of God was seen by Moses : the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv . Judae . 1. 2. &c. Object . 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God , but yet is sometimes given to Angels , as they personate God , i. e. bear his Name and Authority . Ans . Here was not only the Name and Authority of God , but also that Honor received which is due to God only ; for Moses by special Command did worship him : but you have not one such Instance of an Angel that any way appeared to be a created Spirit , that bore the Name and Authority of God , and received the Honor due to God. The Angel to the Blessed Virgin spoke otherwise , and that to S. John forbad him to Worship him , and that for a reason common to all created Angels , Revel . 19. 10. See thou do it not , for I am thy Fellow-Servant . As we find no such thing , so neither can any such thing ever be ; for God hath said , My Glory will I not give to another : but this gives a Creature his Name , his Authority , and his Honor ; and these are his Glory . Therefore the matter of this Objection is not only not found in the Scripture , but is even contrary to it . Object . 4. The Law was given by the disposition of Angels , Act. 7. 53. and was spoken by Angels , Heb. 2. 3. whence he presumes that Jehovah , who gave the Law , was not the Son of God , but a created Angel. Ans . This doth not follow : for as it was given by Angels , so it was Gal. 3. 19. in the hand of a Mediator , that is , of Christ ; as Theophylact and others take it . But some say this Mediator was Moses : be it so , it is all one . For if Moses was Mediator , it was only as a Type of Christ , and there must be an exact Agreement between the Type and the Anti-type ; therefore if the Law was given by Moses a typical Mediator , it must be given by Christ the true and proper Mediator . Whence the Result must be , that Moses gave it immediately to the People , but Christ gave it mediately by Moses , and by those Angels , which are ministring Spirits . Therefore when S. John saith , c. 1. 17. the Law was given by Moses , but Grace and Truth , i. e. the Gospel , came by Jesus Christ , he respects the immediate Delivery of both ; the Law was given immediately by Moses , and the Gospel immediately by Christ : which excludes Christ from only an immediate , but not from a mediate Delivery of the Law. But the Difficulty is from Heb. 2. 2 , 3. If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast , and every Transgression and Disobedience received a just recompence of Reward ; how shall we escape , if we neglect so great Salvation , which at first began to be spoken by the Lord ? Upon which Crellius saith , the Gospel , which is the great Salvation , is preferred before the Law , because the Law was given by Angels , but the Gopel by the Lord : and consequently Jehovah , who gave the Law , was not the Lord , but an Angel. Ans . This Text , which saith the Law was spoken by Angels , doth no more exclude the Son , than Joh. 1. 17. which saith the Law was given by Moses , doth exclude those Angels : for indeed it was given by all three . Therefore the Opposition lies not between Jehovah and the Son , who are the same , and gave both Law and Gospel too , but 1. Between his different manner of giving each : for ( as before ) he gave the Law mediately by Angels ; but he gave the Gospel immediately by himself , as the Eternal Word now made Flesh : Upon which account Sin against the Gospel is a greater Affront to his Person and Authority , than Sin against the Law. And 2. Between the Nature of each considered in themselves : this is a great Salvation in comparison of that . And because Sin doth always arise proportionate to the means it is committed against , therefore upon this Account also Sin against the Gospel is greater than Sin against the Law. Whence this toping Argument of Crellius , which ( he saith ) doth penitus evertere totally overthrow us , doth neither exclude Jehovah the Son from giving the Law , nor yet debase him to a created Spirit ; and consequently doth not at all affect us . In fine , we grant that Jehovah is sometimes called an Angel , as he is sent from the Father ; but we deny that an Angel , which is any way declared to be a created Spirit , is ever called Jehovah . Let the Socinian prove this , and then we will dismiss this Argument : else he faith nothing to the purpose . 2. The Blessed Spirit is also called Jehovah : for Exod. 17. 7. they tempted the Lord , the Word is [ Jehovah ] . This is repeated Psal . 95. whence the Apostle Heb. 3. 7 , 8 , 9. thus , the Holy Ghost saith — When your Fathers tempted [ me ] . Therefore ( according to the Apostles Application of these Seriptures ) the Holy Ghost is this Jehovah . The Result is , Jehovah is indeed but one God , but yet is three Persons ; viz. Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , who are in the Godhead , and therefore are this one God , which was the thing to be proved . Whence his next Scripture , which is Isa . 45. 5. I am the Lord , the Word is [ Jehovah ] there is no God before me , is easily answered . For here Jehovah excludes a Plurality of Gods , but not a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead . He adds ( in his great Wisdom and Judgment ) Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . Where because [ the Lord thy God ] is singular , and that Word [ only ] excludes all others , he thinks he hath found a proof that the Father only is God. Ans . This proves indeed that there is but one God , which we all grant ; but it doth not prove there is but one Person in the Godhead ; or that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God ; which he undertakes . But because Suppositions grant nothing , we will suppose that this Text proves that the Father only is God ; but then it must be granted upon this Supposition , that it doth also prove , that the Father only is to be worshipped ; for him only shalt thou serve . But the Socinians deny that the Son is God , and yet worship him as well as the Father . Whence it evidently follows , that either their Religion must be an Heresie , or themselves Idolaters ; for if the Son be God , they are Hereticks in denying it : if he is not , they are Idolaters in worshipping him . And certainly these Men are put to an hard shift for Scripture ▪ Proofs , when all the Texts they cite , do either not affect us , or wound themselves . He now proceeds to his singular Pronouns , thus ; No Instance can be given in any Language of three Persons ; who ever spoke of themselves , or were spoken to , by singular Pronouns , as I , Thou , &c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom , Grammar , and Sense . Ans . To this , that of the Learned Dean of St. Pauls , Dr. Sherlock , is the most apposite , viz. There is no other Example in Nature of three Persons , who are essentially one . Whence this is an Impropriety in reference to the Creatures , which is none in reference to God. For he may speak of himself , or be spoken to , singularly , because he is but one God ; and plurally , because he is three Persons , without any ungrammatical Solecism . And sometimes he doth speak plurally , as Gen. 1. 26. Let us make Man : whence we conclude a Plurality in the Godhead . But this cannot be a Plurality of Essences , or Natures , for then there would be a Plurality of Gods , which is contrary to Scripture , for this declares there is but one ; but a Plurality of Subsistences , which we call Persons , united in the same Nature . This Plurality other Scriptures , particularly Psal . 33. 6. do determine to three , viz. the Lord , the Word , and the Spirit , and 1 John 1. 7. the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost : and this we call a Trinity , as the Church ever did from the Apostles time . But to this he saith , God doth here speak of himself after the manner of Princes , p. 21. and therefore is but one Person , though he saith [ Us ] . Ans . 1. He could not speak this after the manner of Princes , for then there was no Prince , nor any Man in the World : nor can he prove any such Custom in the Mosaic Age. Therefore this is an expounding the first Writings in the World after the Custom of later Ages , which we cannot allow . 2. In time Princes spoke [ of ] but not [ to ] themselves plurally , which yet God doth do , if this Gloss be true . Therefore this Exposition , which he pretends is after the manner of Princes , is indeed without all Example . 3. God himself expounds this Text our way , Psal . 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made , and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth ; that is by the Lord , viz. the Father ; by the Word or Son , and by the Spirit . Now St. John c. 1. 1 , 3. teaches that by the Word , viz. that Word which was God , that Word , which v. 14. was made Flesh , were all things made . Which directs us to understand that [ Word ] in this Psalm , not of the Command , but of the Eternal , or Substantial Word , or Son of God : to whom together with that Spirit , who Gen. 1. 1. moved upon the Waters , preparing that indigested Matter for its several forms , the Father said , Let us make Man. This was the Sense of all Antiquity . Just . Mart. Dial. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. he spoke to the Son , and the Holy Ghost , per quos , & in quibus omnia — fecit , by , and in whom , he made all things . Tertul. de Resur . carn . c. 6. and adv . Prax. v. 7. Orig. cont . Cels . 1. 6. and the Constitutions l. 5. c. 6. which pretend to give us nothing but what is Apostolical . He proceeds to 2 Cor. 10. 2. Some , who think of [ us ] — which he saith S. Paul spoke of himself only . Ans . It is not probable that S. Paul spoke of himself after the manner of Princes , when it is evident he lessened himself in almost every thing but Sin and Sufferings . 2. When a Prince speaks plurally , we know he must speak of himself , because he is but one : but the Apostles were many , and under the same Censures : therefore when S. Paul speaks plurally [ Us ] we have no necessity of understanding it of himself only , 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 the Creation to the Son , and Holy Ghost , as well as to the Father ? There is therefore nothing manly , or cogent in this Quotation . By this time ( I think ) his singular Pronouns have done him as little service as his Scriptures . Consid . 5. and 22. Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God , this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed , which ( they say ) p. 23. was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion : but that the Divinity of each is omitted there he would sain perswade the World. This very Argument had almost perverted two of my Acquaintance ; the one a very ingenious Merchant in this City . I shall therefore ( according to their desire ) give the fuller Answer to it : and shall prove 1. That this Creed under the Apostles name was never composed by the Apostles ; and 2. Though it doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost , yet it sufficiently teaches both . 1. This Creed was never composed by the Apostles . Some with more Presumption than Judgment think Irenaeus and Tertullian against us . But if you consult those famous Places , Iren. l. 1. c. 2 & 19. Tertul. de Virg. Veland . c. 1. de Praes . Haer. c. 2. and adv . Prax. c. 2. you will find these Fathers differ so much from one another , and each from himself , both as to the Order and Points of Faith they deliver ; that they evidently seem to intend not any setled Form , but the Substance of Faith contain'd in the Scriptures , whence themselves might draw the Articles they deliver . Irenaeus saith indeed , that his Rule of Truth , i. e. the Articles there writ , came from the Apostles ; which some have thought sufficient to prove it of Apostolical Composure . But , 1. It s coming from the Apostles is no Argument for them ; for that might be from their Writings in the N. Test . as well as from this Creed , had they composed it . 2. His calling it the Rule of Truth is against them ; for it was not customary , so neither is it so proper to call a Creed the Rule of Faith , as the Scriptures from whence all Creeds are taken , and by which they must be proved . And 3. There is not so much agreement between the Articles in Iren. and this Creed called the Apostles , as between those Articles , and some of those Creeds , which are well known to be the different Creeds of different Churches . Therefore there is nothing in this Father , that can prove the Socinian Assertion ; but something , that may incline to the contrary . As for Tertullian the Case is more clear ; for he saith de Praes . Haer. c. 13. that his Rule of Faith , meaning the Articles there mentioned , were taught by Christ : but Christ composed no Symbol : and adv . Prax. c. 2. his Rule taught the Mission of the Holy Ghost : but this Creed teaches no such thing . Therefore from both he must intend the Scriptures , not a Creed ; or if any , yet however not this . Arius in Epiphanius adv . Haer. l. 2. to 2. Haer. 69. would fain have justified his Heresie against the Divinity of the Son from the Creed of Alexandria ; which differs to much from this under the Apostles name , that none can pretend they are the same . But it must be granted , he would much rather have appealed to this , had it then been , or believed to be theirs , and also thought not to teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost , because a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves would have been of much more force and Authority than one composed by any particular Church whatever . Therefore his Appeal to that , but not to this , is to me a Demonstration that this Creed was then not known , or else not believed either to be theirs , or to import any such Doctrine . It could not come from the Apostles , at least as we now have it , which ought very much to take down Mens Presumptions of its Antiquity , and must totally ruine that of Heylen , aud Ashwel in his 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 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 likewise hath the Word ; but it is in none of the Latin Creeds , till the fourth Age. The Epistles of James , Peter , John and Jude , must therefore be intituled Catholick , not by the Pen-men , but by some later hand . The first time I observe them cited under this Title , is by Cyrd of Jerusalem , who Carech . 6 ▪ wrote seventy years after Manes , who broach'd his Heresie under Probus the Emperor about the year 277. How then to bring Haylen out of the Wood , who places the Apostles with every one an Article of this Creed in his mouth as a Frontispiece to his Book upon this Subject , ascribing the Descent into Hell to S. Thomas , and the [ Catholick ] Church to S. James , I know not . Or whence S. Austin should have that Story of the Apostles bringing every one his Article to the composing it , when the four Ages before him knew nothing of the matter : or why any should quote that Tract under his name as his own , which all learned Men ( unless some Romish Writers ) do now reject as spurious , I can as little imagine . To conclude this Argument ; Had the Apostles composed this Creed , it would have been found first in the Hebrew or Greek Tongues , in which they wrote : it would have been part of the Sacred Scriptures , or at least have been mentioned in the History of the Acts , and have been known to all the Churches founded by the Apostles , it being pretended to be wrote before their Dispersion from Jerusalem . But on the contrary we find it not till the fourth Century , and then known only to the Latin Church , which did obtrude it on the World under the Name of the Apostles ; witness Preuotius , Feu ardentius , Baronius , the Paris Doctors in their Censures of Erasmus , and others , who take up the Cudgels from their old Pope Leo in the fifth Age , as he did from Ruffinus , and Ruffinus from the spurious Clemens in his Epistle to S. James ; which was ever rejected by all considering Men , because it appeared not in the Apostolick Ages ; and also mentions the death of St. Peter , who out lived this James , to whom it is directed . From Rome the Reformed Churches received this Doctrine , and that Rubrick of ours which calls it the Apostles Creed , is taken out of the Roman Breviary ; which our Reformers ( not fore-seeing the advantages the Socinians make of it ) thought of no such moment as to call for an Alteration . But when our Church composed the Articles of our Religion , she expresses her self thus , Article 8. that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed : which doth not only not affirm that it is theirs , but suggests that it is not . Du Pin , who is more judicious and impartial than his Predecessors , grants that it is the Apostles as to the Doctrine it contains , but denies it to be of their composure ; for he faith they ● ' avoient poynt comopsè de formule de foy , comprise en un certain nombrè de mots , have not composed a Formula of Faith comprised in a certain number of Words : he adds , Irenaeus and Tertullian did not intend la formule de foy , mais la foy meme , a Creed , or form of Faith , but the Faith it self . This is the Judgment of Vossius , Erasmus , our Perkins , and others : however some Men , who make a great noise about Antiquity , are pleased to take up an Error from others , instead of understanding the Authors they quote . Had it not been for these Socinian Impudences discovered in this Letter , and in the fifth to the Publisher , as well as in other of their Writings both at home and abroad ; I had rested in that of Calvin Instit . l. 2. c. 16. Ser. 18. Apostolicum nuncupo , de Authore interim minimè solicitus : I call it the Apostles , but in the mean time trouble not my head about the Author . But after all this , What ground hath this Letter for his Confidence ? It saith , pag. 23. this Creed is recited by S. Cyril , S. Cyprian , and Socrates in his Hist . lib. 1. c. 26. Quotations , that are true Socinian ; for they are false , but if true , are yet insufficient for their end . For did these Authors recite this Creed , yet how doth this prove the Apostolical Composure of it ? But Cyril of Jerusalem explains a Creed peculiar to that Church , which differs nothing material from that of Nice and Constantinople , except the Consubstantiality The English Reader may find it at the end of the Life of this Father written by Dr. Cave . S. Cyprian hath it not , unless he means a Piece bound up with him in the Oxford Edition , which is ascribed by some to S. Jerom , by others to Ruffinus . Which ( if so ) must betray either his Ignorance or Sophistry . Socrates indeed hath a Creed in the place quoted , but he there tells us , it was composed by Arius and Euzoius ; and begins thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We believe in one God the Father Almighty , and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son , who was made of him before all Ages , God the Word , by whom all things were made . This , he faith , is the Apostles Creed , which he so earnestly contends for ; where observe , 1. What trust we may repose in Socinian Quotations ; for if he is so false where he makes a particular Reference , what must the Reader expect where he only names an Author ? This Answer will prove what I here assert against the whole Party of 'em , That throughout this Letter , there is not one Quotation in seven , but what is either false , or not to his Purpose . If they will have this an Argument of their Learning , they may ; but I am sure it is no proof of their Honesty . 2. The Socinian denies that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation : but this Creed saith , That he was before all Ages , and made all things . I demand therefore of our Socinians , that they profess this Faith , or acknowledge themselves the Perverters of Truth , and Debauchers of Antiquity . And indeed ( like the Harpies ) they rarely settle upon any place , but they so pollute it , that it wants a laborious Pen to cleanse , and restore it to it self . He hath then Presumption only , but no colour of Proof , that the Apostles composed this Creed . We therefore proceed to the next part of our Argument . 2. Though this Creed , called the Apostles , doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost , yet it sufficiently teaches both . For , 1. It doth stile the Son his [ only ] Son ; which Words indeed in themselves import only this , That he is a Son in such sort as none else is , which the Socinian would perswade respects not his Divinity , but his being born of a Virgin : but take them together with the Scriptures , whence they are themselves taken , and by which they must be explained , and then it will sufficiently appear that his only Son is a Son by Nature . Whence S. Austin in Symb. l. 1. c. 2. Quando Unicum audis Dei filium , agnosce Deum , the only Son of God is God. This some other Parts of our Dispute will evince so far as the Letter hath led us to this Argument . But , 2. As to the Holy Ghost , he thinks nothing can be here pretended to prove him a Divine Person , excepting only the Phrase of believing with the Preposition [ in ] which is set also before the Church , and therefore can ascribe a Divinity to the one no more than to the other . But his Thoughts are very short , and dull . For though this hath been a common Error , which some at this day will hardly be drawn from ; yet we declare that we neither do , nor need for the establishing this Doctrine , hold any such force in this Phrase . See Dr. Hammod's Practical Catechism , lib. 5. Dr. Peirson , and Heylen upon this Article , who absolutely deny it ; because not this Creed only , but all Antiquity apply it to Men , and so do the Sacred Scriptures . They instance in Exod. 14. 31. The People believed [ in ] the Lord and [ in ] Moses ; and 1 Sam. 27. 20. Achish believed [ in ] David . To which we add that of our Blessed Saviour Joh. 5. 45. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in whom ye believe , or trust , as we translate it . They , with Musculus , and others , impute the Notion to S. Austin and Jerom , whose Translation first omitted the Preposition in these Texts of the Old Testament , which other Translations follow . A little before these Fathers Greg. Naz. acknowledges the Preposition in the Translations of his time , but yet saith this Phrase ought to be applied to none but the Lord ; for the People did believe in Moses not as Moses , but as a Type of the Lord , and consequently this did not terminate in Moses , but did refer ultimately to the Lord. But he did not consider that Achish believed in David , but he could not believe in David as a Type of the Lord , when he knew neither the Lord , nor that David was any Type at all . Hence Ashwel took his Notion of the Peoples believing in Moses as subordinate to the Lord ; but there could be no such subordinate Faith in this Heathen Prince , who yet believed in David . This was therefore an Error growing and setling it self in the Church sometime before Jerom and Austin ; but however it was these two that fixed the Point , and by that Omission in that Translation , as well as otherwise occasioned others to e rt with them . But you will say then , where , or how doth this Creed teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost ? I answer that the Son , and the Holy Ghost are put into this Creed as equally Objects of Faith and Worship with the Father ; and this is the very thing that declares the Divinity of both . Nor is this from Men , but from God ; for it was so done upon the special Precept of our blessed Saviour in the form of Baptism , which is the Original of all Creeds . I confess the Fathers use this Phrase in their Disputes for a Trinity . So Greg. Nys . to . 2. cont . Eunom . l. 1. if the Holy Ghost be not God , Tì 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Why do Men believe the H. Ghost ? But observe , he doth not here Dispute from the sole force of that Phrase of believing in , but from our believing in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father , which makes the Blessed Spirit equally with the Father a sharer in our Faith , and Adoration . In this sense is Hila. Pict . Epist . de Trin. l. 9. who teaches that we cannot believe in the Father without the Son ; whence he concludes they must be the same in Nature : But this Conclusion is drawn not from the Form of the Expression that we believe in , but from the Matter expressed , that they are both equally the Objects of our Faith. And indeed there is no such Extravagance in the World as to teach that we believe in God , in a Creature , and a simple Power ; that he , who will not give his Glory to another , should set a meer Creature , and a naked Power , or Inspiration , which is no Person , equal with himself in the Faith and Adoration of his People . So falsly doth this Letter pretend from this Creed , that the Apostles did believe as the Socinians believe ; when neither did the Apostles compose it , nor is it any way servicable to the Socinian Hypothesis . SECT . V. Now , as if he had proved his Point , when he had proved nothing , but what we may safely grant him , he concludes p. 24. parag . 6. Theirs , viz. the Socinians , is an Accountable and a Reasonable Faith. Answ . A Faith just as Reasonable as this Inference : For as this is drawn from no due Premises , so that stands founded on neither Scripture , nor good Argument . A reasonable Faith indeed , which makes a Finite God , and an Infinite Creature ! Which denies the Son to be God , and yet doth Worship him ! A reasonable Faith , which cannot support itself without expunging some Texts out of the Sacred Canon , without transposing the parts of others contrary to the Ancient and most Authentick Reading , and without expounding some contrary to the very Letter , and most evident Design of the place ! Socinus himself was so sensible of the reasonableness of this Faith , that he not only rejects the sense of 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 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 . Ans . 1 St. Cyprian in the middle of the Age before Arius hath this Text intire de Vnit 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 4 th Age wanted them , after St Cyprian in the 3 d Age had ' em . Nor do we find many that quarrell'd with St. Jerome for censuring this Omission , which some would certainly have done , had he not had a ground for this Censure : which is an Argument that St. Cyprian himself had this Clause , and that it was not afterwards foysted in by some other hand . 2 They plead , that V. 7. is not in the Syriac , nor Arabick , whence some reject the whole . Ans . We grant it ; but V. 8. is in both ; which is linked to V. 7. by a Conjunction Copulative [ and ] ; beside which , the Sense , Coherence and Dependance of these with , and upon one another , speak this imperfect without that . Whence Beza ( whom Letter 4 , p. 152 quotes on his side ) saith both must be expunged , or reteined together ; and then concludes for the reteining both . And indeed this Case is so clear , that since the Socinians receive V. 8 , they must receive V. 7. too , or renounce their own reason . We proceed to confirm the whole Verse to be authentick . 1. These words [ I and my Father are one ] are allowed on all hands to be St. John's ; therefore rhose Words [ these Three are One ] from the Likeness both of Stile and Matter , seem to be his too . For such a Likeness between Text and Text , is as good an Argument ( according to the proportion of Matter ) to prove that each have the same Author , as it is between that Gospel and his Epistle ; But all Learned Men allow of this Argument , therefore the Socinian must allow of that , or differ from the World of the Learned , as they do already from the World of Christians . 2. Our Learned Bishop of Salisbury , Dr. Burnet , in his Letter from Zurie , observes that among Ten Copies he had seen abroad , Nine had either the 7 th V. or St. Jerome's Epistle , or Preface , which condems the Omission , while One only wanted both . Therefore among Ten Copies one only was purely Arian , or Socinian ; because the Omissions in them that wanted , are condemned not only by that Epistle , or preface , but by them also who added that Epistle or Preface to those Copies . 3. Suppositions grant nothing ; therefore suppose we , that this Text it self is not authentick ; yet the Matter of it is taught by all those Scriptures , which assert the Divinity of the Father , the Word and the Holy Ghost , and the Existence of but one God ; for they , taken together do assert that these Three are One ; that is , One God , or One in Nature , therefore was the Socinian a Man of that Reason he pretends , he could not think the expunging this Text out of the Sacred Canon , of so much moment , when divers others taken together speak the same thing . He is then imployed about a Work he can never effect ; or if effected , yet can do him but little , if any service . For which reasons they betake themselves to other Methods . For they farther plead , If this Text be Authentick yet it cannot intend one in Nature , but One in Testimony , because each verse speaks of each three as Witnesses . Ans . True , each intend Testimony , as Beza Calvin , Erasmus and others observe : But this doth not prove that v 7. intends no more ; nor do these Authors Exclude an Unity of Nature . But the variation of the Phrase implies a restriction of the matter . For v. 7. saith , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , are One ; which is equally extendible to Nature , and Testimony : But v. 8. saith , the Spirit , the Water , and the Blood , agree in One : Which is applicable not to Nature , but to Testimony , especially where Testimony is mentioned , or evidently intended ; therefore we understand the former of One in Nature , and Testimony both : else we do not take the Phrase in its full latitude , nor make it comport with those other Texts , which declare the Divine Nature of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : And yet that these three are but One True , and Almighty God , because that Nature is numerically one , in which they all agree : But we understand the latter of Testimony only , because the phrase designs no more , nor do any other Scriptures declare that the Spirit , the Water , and the Blood , do agree in Nature , as the other do . But they insist thus , The Expounding , v. 7. of Nature , doth lose the design of these Texts , which speak of Testimony . Ans . The Expounding it of Nature only , exclusive of Testimony , would have gave some colour of Reason to his Objection : But we Expound it both of Nature , and Testimony too ; which Exposition doth not lose , but secure the design of this Text. For since they are One in Nature , and that Nature is Divine , they must be One in Testimony , and that Testimony must be infallible too ; because three Divine Persons , who are one in Nature , can neither agree in a false Testimony , nor disagree in that Testimony they give . Can we now think that this Doctrine , which teaches there are Three , who are but one God , is false , and impossible ; when it is so evidently founded on this , and other concurring Texts , which are the Word of Truth ; and which therefore can teach nothing which is false and impossible ? If any thing we teach seems absurd , and contradictory ; or false and impossible ( as the Letter words it ) it is not from the Doctrine it self , but from the Socinians Misrepresentation of it . For , 1. They say we teach that there are but One ; hereby suggesting to others , and arguing themselves , as if we mean in One respect only ; which is indeed impossible . Whereas we teach , that Three in one respect are but One in another ; which ( according to their own Doctrine ) takes away the Impossibility . For the Socinian himself grants us , upon these Words , I and my Father are One , that Two in one respect may be but One in another : And if Two may be One , why not Three ? Since the difficulty lies not between Two and One , but between a Plurality whether they be Two , or Three , and an Vnity . They allow the Thing , it is only the Modus , or Manner , how Two , or Three , can be but One , in which we differ . Therefore since we so far agree , they ought to set forth how we hold Three to be hut One , together with our Reasons for this Doctrine ; which would lead even a prejudiced Reader to some deliberation : and not by a partial and Sophistical Representation , make our Doctrine seem prima facie , absurd and impossible , to the end they may huff off all consideration of it . Indeed their manner of Vnion is common among Men ; but if ours is plainly founded on Divine Revelation , as we maintain it is , the singularity of the thing is not able to destroy the Thing it self ; and therefore ought in Justice to be so proposed , as to leave Men to examine and consider it ; and not to be rejected without either . 2. They say , Let. p. 159. we teach there are Three Persons , who are severally , and each of them the true , and most high God ; and yet there is but One true , and most high God. Ans . We teach , there are Three Divine Persons , who together are the true and most high God. They are every one a Divine Person , or God , as they have every one a Divine Nature ; but they are together the true and most high God ; as that Divine Nature is but One , tho common to all Three . The Distinction arises from the distinct manner of Subsistence ; but the Unity from the Sameness of Essence . This speak Three that are God , but not Three Gods , because these are all within the Godhead , as having but one and the same Substance ; and consequently can be but One God. 3. Their Objections arise from the want of Parallel Instances in Nature ; whence they speak it absurd , and impossible : but the Absurdity lies on their side , who measure Supernatural things by Natural , and will believe nothing of God but what they see in the Creature ; as if an Infinite Nature must be in all things commensurable to the Nature and Thoughts of what is Finite . 4. They declare it absurd and impossible , because we cannot demonstrate the manner of it , how Three can be but One ; when 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 revealed . Now it is revealed that the Father is God , the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God ; and yet these are not Three Gods , but One God. But how this is , Revelation doth not tell us . Therefore we are not absurd , who teach what the Scriptures teach ; but they are absurd in demanding more . The Church indeed uses the distinction of Personal and Essential ; that they are Three Personally , and but One Essentially ; that is , they are Three Persons , and but One God. Not that these Terms are fully , and so clearly expressive of this Mystery , as to remove all Cavils and Difficulties ; but that she may ( the best she can ) express her own Sense , the Sense of Antiquity , and the import of those Scriptures that respect a Trinity . Let them give us more proper , and significant Terms , and we will use them ; but let them not reject a Divine Truth for the sake of those Terms which Heresie hath forced us to make use of . 5. This method of theirs implies a whole train of Absurdities , for we are to prove , First , [ That ] a thing is ; and then [ how ] it is : If we prove the former , that must be granted , because proved ; though we should never be able to prove the Latter . But they ( contrary to all the Rules of Art , and method ) require us to prove [ how ] it is ; in order to their believing [ that ] it is : And do reject that part , which is proved , only because the other is not . According to this method they must deny a thousand things , which they see , which all Mankind will say is absurd with a witness . They say p. 158 , that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true , that holds forth either a Doctrine , or a Consequence , that is absurd , contradictory , or Impossible . Ans . We readily grant it , and such is that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned in the next Page . For God is a Spirit , but not a Body . Because body is compounded of parts , is subject to Dissolution , and cannot be in all places at once ; therefore those Scriptures , which ascribe humane parts to God , cannot be true in a literal sense ; but only in an improper one . And when these Men have proved such an absurdity , contradiction , ot impossibility in the Doctrine of a Trinity , we will dispute no more . They may indeed prove that three Men cannot be one ; or one Man three ; but as the Learned Bishop of Worcester , Dr. Stillingfleet , observes , they can never prove that an infinite Nature cannot communicate it self to three different Subsistences , without such a division as is among created Beings : Because a Finite capacity can never comprehend the Powers , and Operations of an infinite Nature . So absurd are these Men as to decry revealed Truths for absurd , and impossible , only because they cannot understand them . Should they do the like in natural things , they would quickly become the contempt of Mankind . We are not ashamed to own a Mystery in the Divine Nature , when we find little but Mystery in common Nature her self . Nor can we think it unreasonable that God should command us to believe that a thing is ; though he hath not told us how it is ; any more than it is unreasonable that Nature should oblige us to assent , where the most refined reason can find no place of Entrance . God 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 . 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. Paul is 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 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 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 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 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 , and Monarchians . 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 , 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. 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 Vnitarians , they had acted like Men : But their insisting upon these terms without disproving our Doctrine , speaks them as wretched as their Cause ; the one Barren , the other Blind , since both are forced to call in exploded Cavils to support them . Hence he proceeds to Glory in some Men of Name among them , as Theodotion and Symmachus , both of whom Translated the Old Testament into Greek , and by Eusebius are called Ebionites , or Nazarens . Ans . Eusebius speaks them Ebionites , but not a word there of a Nazaren ; under which name he vainly strives to sweeten himself , and Party ; that they might seem to appear with some little face of honest Christianity . We acknowledg their Translation of the Old Testament , but being branded for Ebionites , we must presume they denied great part of the New : As for Symmachus , he is expresly said to reject the Gospel of St. Matthew . Therefore since our Socinians so passionately desire to pass for Ebionites , that I may gratify 'em what I can ; I grant 'em there is one good reason why it should be so , and that is , as the Ebionites reject some parts of Scripture , and corrupt others ; so do the Socinians too ; and now at length scoff at the Divine Authority of the Whole . The matter is too plain to be denied ; I have sometimes heard it my self , and know of persons that complain of some under their charge , that are debauched in their Principles and Manners by such Doctrines . But whether these are the strict fort of Socinians , or Socinians at large ▪ viz. Atheists and Deists that now heard among them , I think they ought to acquaint us . But let old Theodotion , and Symmachus be what they will , what is the Glory of having these two on their side , when the whole Church was against them ? It must be a miserable Crap , where such gleanings are their Vintage . But they have a third , it seems , Paulus of Samasatum , p. 27 ▪ a Man both Learned and Eloquent . Ans . He did indeed deny the Divinity of the Son , which is the only thing ( it seems ) that makes him great and good . For Eusebius H. l. 7. c. 27. and the Synodical Letter , c. 30. say , He had neither Wealth , nor Learning , but made himself vastly rich by Sacriledg , and Oppression . His Pride was unmeasurable , be walked the Streets with Guards — He abolished the Psalms Sung in Honour of our Saviour , and had others Sung in praise of himself . He incouraged , and protected the Wicked , gaining to his side the worst of men . Prateolus among other things saith , He was proud and simple . He taught that Christ was more for the Jewish than the Christian Religion ; whence he taught Circumcision : Of a Beggar he became Rich by Sacriledg , Oppression and Knavery . These are the Characters of an Heretie , which neither himself nor Friends could ever Answer , and whom the vilest object would blush to own , unless a Socinian , who would fain Adorn themselves with this mans Glories ; like the wild Savages , who dressed up themselves with the guts of Beasts . His next man i Photinus of Si●mium , who being deposed by the Council , his City would not part from him , till the Emperor sent an Army to Expel him . Ans . 1. Praleonus , Haev l. 14. 25 ▪ saith , Photinus held that Christ was a mere Man , Ex utroque sexu natum , born of both Sexes ; but this the Socinians deny , for they hold he was Born of the Holy Ghost , and of the Virgin ; therefore this letter is false in reckning Photinus one of them . 2. But however an Heretick he was , and therefore a Party with the Socinians ; and ( it seems ) so dear to his City , that the Emperor was obiiged to Expel him by an Army . Suppose it ; yet had this man considered how often Constantius imposed his Arian Creatures by Force and sometimes Established 'em by Blood ; he must have expected to lose more than he thought to have gained by this Plea. 3. This is an Appeal from the Government both Civil , and Ecclesiastical to the Mob ; an Argument that his Heresie had left him but few , if any Friends of Sense and Judgment . He proceeds to Eusebius , H. l. 5. c. 2 and Theodoret. Haer. Fab. c. 2. de Artem. And pretends , they say , that these Nazarens constantly affirmed , that they derived their Doctrine from the Apostles , — And that it was the genenal Doctrine of the Church , till the Popes , Victor and Zepherine , set themselves to root it up . Ans . Neither of these in the places quoted , mention a Nazaren : But the Heresie of Arlemon , renewed by Paulus Samofatensis , who taught that Christ is no more than Man. Eusebius saith indeed , there were some who affirmed that all the Antients , and the Apostles themselves , taught this Doctrine , and that it continued till Victor and Zepherine . But he calls this an impiouse Lye , and proceeds , Perhaps this might seem credible , did not the sacred Scriptures , and the Writings of certain Brethren , more Antient than Victor , contradict them ; I mean Justin , Miltiades ▪ Tatian , Clemens and many others ▪ in all whose Books the Divinity of Christ is taught . For who knows not the Writings of Irenaeus , Melito , &c in which Christ is set forth as both God and Man ? The Psalms and Canticles of the Brethren written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the beginning — ascribe a Divinity to him . Seeing then this was so long since the Doctrine of the Church , how can it be , that all men to the time of Victor could teach that Doctrine which these men hold ? — Theodoret , in the place cited , saith , that Artemon pretended the Apostles taught that Christ was a mere Man , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Perverting the sense of the Sacred Scriptures . This exactly agrees with that of Eusebius Therefore this Letter wisely refers us to those very places of Antiquity , which declare that Doctrine to be Heresie , and condemn the Maintainers of it of Falshood and Impudence , which yet it self would support . He told us the Socinians are Learned and Reasonable Men , but I hope this is not one of his Proofs of it . However , the Letter proceeds , Victor ( say the Socinians ) began to persecute the Apostolic Doctrine of One God , or ( which is the same ) that God is One in the Year 194 but with little success , till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians , grew into general credit ; — for Justin Martyr , Origen , and other principal Fathers , teaching ( as the Arians afterwards did ) that the Father is before the Son , and the Holy Ghost , in Time , Dignity , and Power ; yet that the Word , or Son , — was ereated sometime before the World , — and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son. Ans . The Letter tells us , That the Socinians say this ; and indeed it may pass for a Socinian Story ; for it hath not one Word of Truth in it . For , 1. The Doctrine of One God , or that God is One ; that is , One person , as they explain it , never was the Apostolic Doctrine , as 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 from the same place in Eusebius , and from all the same Topicks already mentioned . 3. That Victor did persecute , and root out the Heresie be contends for , doth not appear from any Monuments of those times , nor is in any reason to be supposed , because that Heresie had not then obtained in that Church ; and what he did was only ( according to the common Rules , and Practice of the Church ) to quash this Heresie in its beginning . 4. The Letter makes it , that that pretended Persecutition did little succeed , till it was assisted by the Doctrine of Justin Martyr , and Origen , which supposes that their Doctrine began under that Persecution , which is impossible : for this Persecution ( the Letter saith ) began A. D. 194. but Justin suffered about 30 years before that time , and Origen did not appear till the middle of the Age after . And , 5. Neither these , nor any other Fathers , from the Apostles , to Origen , did ever teach any such Doctrine , which might be easily proved by an induction of Particulars , so far as their Works are come down to our hands . Justin Martyr saith indeed , Apol. p. 60. that beside the Father , we worship the Son , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the second place ; and the Holy Ghost , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the third . Now here is a Priority of Order or Prace ; but where is that of Time and Power ? Not in this Father , I am sure , but in the Socinian Comment only . We charge him with Falshood ; let him clear himself by a particular Reference . What Justin here saith , ever was , and still is the Doctrine of the Church . So Novat . de Trin. c. 31. Pater qua pater — the Father , as Father , is before the Son , and yet he declares , that the Son is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father ; which speaks ( as we said ) a Priority of Order or Place , but not of Time , because the Father and Son are co-eternal . This must necessarily be the Sense of our Justin ; for in the same Apology , p. 64. he saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We worship God only . Wence any Man in his Wits must conclude , that they held , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are God ; Else how could they worship all Three ▪ and yet worship none but God ? And if they are God , they cannot be after the Father , in Time , or Power , but must be co-eternal , and co-equal with him . Had Justin taught , that the Son , and Holy Ghost are after the Father in time , and yet had worshipp'd them , he would hereby have totally ruin'd the very Reason , and Design of this , as well as of other Apologies ; which were purposely written to justifie the Christians , who suffered any thing rather than worship the Gentile Gods , for this very Reason , that they were not from Eternity , and consequently were not Gods , but Creatures . Our Socinian ( it seems ) thinks it enough to Name an Author , tho he can find nothing in him to his purpose ; having neither Authority , nor Argument for what he saith . Iren l. 3. c 26. Indeavours to prove that the Son is God by Nature , and after some time spent on this Argument , thus diligenter , igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus , per ea quae dicta sunt , generationen ejus quae ex Virgine , & substatiam quoniam deus . The blessed Spirit diligently signifies by what things are spoken , his Generation , which is of the Virgin , and his substance as he is God. By his Generation he intends his humane Nature , and by his Substance as God the Divine . This ( he saith ) is expressed , Isa . 7. 14. by that word [ Immanuel ] God with us , of God in our Nature . He proceeds ; his humanity 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 ▪ 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 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 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 ; 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 , 29 this 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 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 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 , demonstrates , that it is the Design of this Author to assert the Divine Nature of Christ , because nothing but that can be Vnbegotten , 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 Vnius 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 Vnius Substantiae , of 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 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 4 th 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 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 the Nicene Fathers explained the Matter ) by Vnity of Wills , and specifick Identity , or sameness of Substance , but by numerical , or true Identity , and sameness of Substance and Nature . 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 . 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. 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 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 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 to Bilibaldus thus , I ( saith Erasmas ) 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 the Arians , and Pelagians , if the Church had approved what they taught : Not that the words of Christ do not satisfy me , but it ought not to seem strange , if I follow the Judgment of the Church , by whose Authority I believe the Canonical Scripture , which place is certainly against him : For 1. He saith the words of Christ do satisfie him , i. e. as to Arianism , and Pelagianism , before mentioned . 2. He puts Arianism , and Pelagianism together , implying that he had no more favour for that , than for this ; which I do not remember he was ever charged with . Therefore 3. His design is not to favour this , or t'other Heresy , but only to shew how far he could give up his Faith to the Judgment of the Church : And consequently his own sense must be much distant from both these Perswasions , else this could be no Argument of his wonderful submission to the Churches Authority . A Romanist may make good advantage of this , and therefore the Paris Doctors never put it among their Censures : But it no more helps the Socinian , than the things he calls his Arguments , and Demonstrations . He proceeds p. 31. Grotius is Socinian all over , and p. 32. there is nothing , in all his Annotations which they , viz. the Socinians , do not approve , and applaud . Ans . Upon Joh. 1. 1. these words [ in the beginning ] Grotius will have to be taken from Gen. 1. 1. and understands them of the Creation properly , or of the beginning of the Creature : As he doth also v. 2. [ by him were all things made . ] For which he quotes the Epistle of Barnabas , Justin , Athenagoras , Tatian , Tertullian , and others . This word [ was ] he renders jam tum erat , then was , or did exist , when all Creatures began : By which Existence before time he understands an Eternal Existence : And yet he holds the [ Word ] or Son not for the Command or simple Power of God , but for a Person . Where observe that Grotius teaches that the Son is a Person eternally existing , who ( in a proper sense ) made , or created the World , and if either Arian or Socinian approve , or applaud this they must each depart from his own Heresy . Therefore when upon those words , Colos . 1. 16. by him ; viz. the Son ; as Grotius himself takes it , were all things , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [ created ] ; he saith , this word is sometimes applied to the New Creature ; we must understand him , as shewing the Various Acceptations of the word , not as designing hereby to deny the Son to be Creator , because he so expresly ascribes Creation to him upon that Text of St. John. 3. In p. 32. he pretends , that Petavius grants , that the Fathers before the Nicene Council , did agree in their Doctrine concerning God , with the Socinian , and concerning the Son , and Holy Spirit , with the Arians . Ans . 1. Petavius saith no such thing . Let the Socinian vindicate himself , by referring us to the places . 2. Had he said so , the Quotations we have given the Readet out of Ignacius , Justin ; Iraeneus , Clemens , Tertullian , and others , would abundantly confute him . 3. Patanius himself was a Trinitarian , as appears from what he hath wrote upon this Argument ▪ And , 4. He did not accuse these Fathers of Arianism , or Socinianism , but only censured some of those Arguments , by which they would establish the Doctrine of a Trinity . 4. The Letter reports Episcopius suspected of Arianism p 34 , 35. he saith , the Father is so first , as to be first in Order ( i. e. in time . ) Ans . 1. Episcopius saith , the Father is first in Order which we all grant : But it is the Socinian Comment , that makes the first in Order to be the first in time , which we deny . Because though the Father is first in Order , yet the Son is Co-eternal with the Father , as before . 2. This Author denies a Co-ordination , and asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity : But this Subordination doth not destroy , but only Explains the Doctrine of a Trinity , as is noted already . And , 3. In his Institut . Theol. l. 4. c. 32. He ascribes a Divine Nature to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and teaches that they are all properly Persons : And if this be Arianism , or Socinianism , we are all such . 5. He Complements his dear Friend Sandius for a Gentleman of Prodigious Industry , and Reading : and no less ingenious than Learned . Ans . Whatever his Industry , and Learning was , I 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 ( excepting their Corruptions ) to Clemens of Alexandria . He receives likewise the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius ; and de Vet. Script . Eccles . he would prove the Legitimacy of that ad Philip. by this Argument , viz. Origen , who flourished about the middle of the Third Age , hath something upon St. Luke , like something in that Epistle ; where observe . 1. Origen doth not mention either Ignatius , or this Epistle . 2. Ignatius , and Origen might hit upon somewhat like Notions without Communication . And , 3. These ascribed Epistles are not mentioned by Eusebius , Jerom , or any other hefore them ; whence we ought in all reason to reject them . Dr. Peirson , late Bishop of Chester observes , they appeared not till 400 years after Ignatius , whence he declares them spurious Vind. Epist . 8. Ignat. c. 10. 2. By such intolerable Errors he creates difficulties to himself . For the design of his History is to prove that all Antiquity is Arian : Bur the Epis . ad Heron. which is one of the ascribed , saith , that if any asserts that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a mere Man ( which phrase was always used in opposition to his Divinity ▪ Iren. l. 3. c. 26. and Eusebius in the case of Ebion ) the same is a Jew and a Murtherer of Christ . Now had he like a Man of Art , and Judgment , rejected these Epistles , he had removed this Block , at which he must now stumble and fall . 2. I deny his Honesty . For Hist . l. 1. Secul . 1. he will have the Creed called the Apostles , to be composed by them , to be the only Creed used in the Church ; and that very Creed too , which was established at Nice : And that Evag. H. l. 3. c. 17. saying , we are Baptized into a Creed composed by 318 Bishops , intended no other but this : When this was never mentioned in that Council , and the Concert is totally Ruined by the Testimonies we have already produced upon this Argument , Sect. 4. Should I draw out all the instances of weakness and knavery , I ●hould leave but little of that book behind me . A fit man for an Ecclesiastical Historian , whose want of Judgment , and Honesty makes his writings like a sword in some mens hands , dangerous to them , that come in the reach of it . Sure I am , no Student ought to read him till he is well acquainted with the true state , and doctrine of antiquity . His accounts of antiquity , and the brief history of the Socinians , may go together ; and if each will be pretenders to wit , and reason , I matter not , so long as we have on our side better pretensions to truth , and Honesty . Dr. Wallis in one of his letters gives an account of this Sandius's conversion , and his dying in the Trinitarian Faith. I earnestly pray that the same Mercy , and Goodness , would open the eyes of all Arians and Socinians , that they may no longer lye under strong delusions , and the belief of a Lye but may come to the knowledg of the truth , and be saved . FINIS . Boeks Printed for John Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-Street . AN Enquiry into Several Remarkable texts of the old and new Testament , which contain some difficulty in them : with a probable Resolution of them , In two parts . By John Edwards , B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge . A new Discourse of Trade , wherein is Recommended several weighty Points relating to Companies of Merchants . The Act of Navigation , Naturalization of Strangers ; and our Woollen Manufactures , the Ballance of Trade , and the nature of Plantations , and their Consequences in Relation to the Kingdom , are seriously Discussed . And some Proposals for erecting a Court of Merchants for determining Controversies , relating to Maritime Affairs , and for a Law for Transferrance of Bills of Debts , are humbly Offered . By Sir Josiah Child . Miscellaneous Essays : By Monsieur St. Euremont , Translated out of French , with a Character , by a Person of Honour here in England , continued by Mr. Dryden . Monarchia Microcosmi : The Origin , Vicissitudes , and Period of Vital Government in Man. For a farther Discovery of Diseases , incident to Human Nature . By Everard Maynwaringe , M. D. 
A52606	----	A brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians in four letters, written to a friend. Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. 1687 Approx. 188 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 93 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A52606 Wing N1505 ESTC R37735 17008482 ocm 17008482 105752 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A52606) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 105752) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1098:9) A brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians in four letters, written to a friend. Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. Biddle, John, 1615-1662. Firmin, Thomas, 1632-1697. 184 p. [s.n.], [London] printed : 1687. Attributed to Nye by Wing and NUC pre-1956 imprints. Also attributed to John Biddle and Thomas Firmin. Cf. DNB; NUC pre-1956 imprints; McAlpin. The second, third, and fourth letters each have special t.p.: "A second-fourth letter to a friend, concerning the Unitarians, called also Socinians." The 2nd letter contains "... the texts objected to them out of the Old Testament, and their answers," the 3rd, "... the texts objected to them out of the Evangelists and Acts, and their answers," the 4th, "... the texts objected to them out of the Epistles and Revelation." Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Unitarianism -- Early works to 1800. 2006-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-05 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-06 Andrew Kuster Sampled and proofread 2006-06 Andrew Kuster Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A Brief History OF THE UNITARIANS , Called also SOCINIANS . In Four Letters , Written to a Friend . Acts 17. 11. They searched the Scriptures daily , whether those things were so ? Printed in the Year 1687. The First Letter , Concerning the Unitarians , vulgarly called Socinians . SIR , IN Answer to yours , demanding a brief account of the Vnitarians , called also Socinians ; their Doctrine concerning God ( in which only they differ from other Christians , the Remonstrants , professedly agreeing with them in other points of Faith and Doctrine ) and the Defence they usually make of their Heresy . They are called Socinians , from F. Socinus , an Italian Noble-Man , and a principal Writer of their Party . They affirm , God is only one Person , not three . They make our Lord Christ to be the Messenger , Minister , Servant , and Creature of God ; they confess he is also the Son of God , because he was begotten on blessed Mary by the Spirit or Power of God , Luke 1. 35. But they deny that he or any other Person but the Father ( the God and Father of the said our Lord Christ ) is God Almighty and Eternal . The Holy Ghost , or Spirit , according to them , is the Power and Inspiration of God , Luke 1. 35. That the Lord 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 . 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God , there could be no Person greater than he ; none that might be called his Head , or his God ; none that could in any respect command him . But the Holy Scriptures teach , that the Father is greater than Christ ; is the Head , and the God of Christ ; and gave Commandment to him , what he should say , and what he should do . John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I. 1. Cor. 11. 3. The Head of Christ , is God. John 20. 17. I ascend to my Father , and your Father , to my God , and your God. John 12. 49. The Father which sent me , he gave me a Commandment , what I should say . John 14. 31. As the Father gave me Commandment , so do I. 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God , it could not without Blasphemy be ( absolutely and without Restriction ) affirmed of him , that he is the Creature , the Possession , the Servant , and Subject of God ; or that for his Obedience , he was rewarded and advanced by God. But the inspired Authors of Holy Scripture do say , that the Son our Lord Christ is the Creature of God , the Possession of God , the Servant of God ; was obedient to God , and for that cause by him rewarded and exalted ; also that when God shall have subjected all Men to his Son our Lord Christ , yet even then shall he remain subject to God. Col. 1. 15. The first-born ( from the dead , ver . 18. ) of every Creature . Heb. 3. 1 , 2. Consider the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ , who was faithful to him that appointed him . In the Greek , and in the Margin of our Bibles , 't is faithful to him that made him . 1 Cor. 3. 23. Ye are Christ's , and Christ is God's . Matth. 12. 17 , 18. That it might be fulfilled that was spoken by Isaias , — Behold my Servant . Phil. 2. 8 , 9. He humbled himself , and became obedient , — Wherefore God hath highly exalted him ; and given him a Name above every Name . 1 Cor. 15. 28. When all things shall be subdued to him , then shall the Son also be subject to him that put all things under him , that God may be all in all . 3. He that is true God , is not the Minister , or Priest of any other Person or Persons ; he neither doth nor will ( being himself Omnipotent and All-sufficient ) mediate or intercede with any whomsoever , for his Servants and People . But 't is certain that our Lord Christ is the Minister , and Mediator of God and Men ; a Priest that appeareth in the Presence of God , and intercedeth with him for Men. Heb. 8. 6. Now hath he obtained a more excellent Ministry . 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , the Man Jesus Christ. Heb. 2. 17. A merciful and faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God. Heb. 9. 24. Christ is not entred into the Holy place made with Hands , but into Heaven it self , now to appear in the Presence of God for us . Heb. 7. 25. He ever liveth to make Intercession for them . 4. Almighty God doth all things in his own Name , and by his own Authority ; He ever doth his own Will , and seeketh his own Glory ; he declares himself to be the prime Object of Faith and Worship ; and pronounces all Doctrines or Religions to be vain , which proceed not from Him alone . But in our Lord Christ all things are contrary , for he declares , that he came not into the World in his own Name or Authority ; not to do his own Will , or seek his own Glory , or propound himself as the principal Object of our Faith or Worship , or to publish a Doctrine of his own . John 17. 28. I am not come of my self . John 5. 43. I am come in my Father's Name . John 8. 42. I proceeded forth and came from God , neither came I of my self , but he sent me . John 5. 30. I seek not my own Will. John 8. 50. I seek not my own Glory . John 12. 44. He that believeth on me , believeth not on me , but on him that sent me . Phil. 2. 11. That every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord , to the Glory of God the Father . John. 7. 16. My Doctrine is not mine , but his that sent me . 5. God was always most wise , never ignorant of any thing : He needeth not the concurrence of any other Person , to assure him that he judgeth right . He cannot ( saith St. James , chap. 1. ver . 13. ) be tempted . And as he is infinitely great , so he is no less Good. But the sacred Writers do not speak of the Lord Christ after this Tenor . They say our Lord Christ increased in Wisdom ; that he professed himself ignorant of some things ; that he ascribed the Certainty and Infallibility of his Judgment to the Father's Presence with him ; that he was tried by great Temptations , being thereto exposed by the Holy Ghost ; that he refused to be called Good , because God only is Good. Luke 2. 52. Jesus increased in Wisdom , — and in Favour with God and Men. Mark 13. 32. Of that Day and Hour knoweth no Man ( In the Greek tis , none knoweth ) no not the Angels which are in Heaven , neither the Son , but the Father . S. Matthew ( Mat. 24. 36. ) adds , But the Father only . John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him ? They say unto him , Lord , come and see . John 8. 16. My Judgment is true , for I am not alone ; but I and the Father that sent me . Matth. 4. 1. Then was Jesus led of the Spirit , to be tempted of the Devil . Luke 18. 19. Why callest thou me good ? there is none good save one , that is God. 6. God giveth what and to whom himself pleaseth ; he needs not the Aid of any other ; he entreateth not for himself or People ; he cannot die , and he deriveth his Power from none but himself . But 't is certain that the Lord Christ could not himself , without the previous Ordination of the Father , confer the prime Dignities of Heaven , or of the Church . He placed his Safety in the Father's Presence and Help . He prayed often and fervently to the Father , both for himself and for his Disciples . He died , and was raised from the dead by the Father . After his Resurrection he received of another , that great Power which he now injoyeth . Matth. 20. 23. To sit on my right Hand , and on my left , is not mine to give ; but [ it shall be given ] to them , for whom it is prepared of my Father . John 8. 29. He that sent me , is with me ; and the Father hath not left me alone , for I always do those things that please him . Luke 22. 42. Father , if thou be willing , remove this Cup from me . Heb. 5. 7. Who in the Days of his Flesh offered up Prayers and Supplications , with strong Crying and Tears , unto him that was able to save him . John 17. 20. Neither pray I for these alone , but for them also which shall believe in me through their Word . Ephes . 1. 19 , 20. According to the mighty working of his Power , which he wrought in Christ , when he raised him from the dead . Matth. 28. 18. Jesus came and spake to them , saying , All Power is given to me . 7. Jesus Christ is in holy Scripture always spoken of , as a distinct and different Person from God ; and described to be the Son of God , and the Image of God : Rom. 16. 27. To God only wise , be Glory through Jesus Christ. Luke 18. 19. Why callest thou me good ? there is none good save one , that is God. 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , the Man Jesus Christ. John 13. 18. He that believeth not , is condemned already , because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God. Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee ( Blessed Mary ) and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also ( or , and therefore ) the Holy thing that is born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Col. 1. 15. The Image of the invisible God. ' Tis. ( say the Socinians ) 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 that very thing whose Image it is ; which they take to be simply impossible , and contradictory to common sense , which Religion came not to destroy , but to improve . Whereas to these arguings : 't is objected , that these things are in Holy Scripture spoken of Christ according to only his humane Nature , or as he is a Man ; but that he is also God the Son , though united to an humane Nature , that is , to an humane Soul and Body . The Socinians reply , that there is in Scripture no real Foundation for such a Conceit ; that 't is inconsistent with almost all the Texts already cited , especially those in which the Lord Christ is spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God ; and that there are many other Considerations and Passages of holy Scripture , which no less than demonstrate it to be false . As , 8. Because so many Texts expresly declare , that only the Father is God : John 17. 1 , 2 , 3. Father , this is Life eternal , that they know thee , the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ; or Jesus Christ thy Messenger . 1 Cor. 8. 6. But to us there is but one God , the Father , of whom are all things , and we in him : and one Lord ( or , Master , i. e. Teacher ) by whom are all things . In the Greek thus , One Lord , Jesus Christ , for whom are all things , and we for him . See the Note on Heb. 1. 2. in the Fourth Letter . Eph. 4. 4 , 5 , 6. One Spirit , one Lord , one God , and Father of all , who is above all . 1 Cor. 15. 24. Then 〈◊〉 the End , when he ( Christ , ver . 23. ) shall deliver up the Kingdom to God , even the Father . Jam. 3. 9. Therewith ( with the Tongue , ver . 8. ) bless we God , even the Father . Rom. 15. 6. With one Mind , and with one Mouth glorify God , even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . 9. If Christ were indeed God as well as Man , or ( as Trinitarians speak ) God the Son incarnate in an humane Nature ; it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said humane Nature , as a Director and 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 ? Luke 4. 1. Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost , departed from Jordan . Acts 1. 2. After that he through the Holy Ghost ( i. e. through direction and motion of the holy Spirit , and Inspiration of God ) had given Commandments unto the Apostles . Acts 10. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost . 10. Had the Lord Christ been ( as Trinitarians speak ) God the Son joyned to an humane Nature , he could not have ascribed his miraculous Works to the Holy Ghost , or to the Father , dwelling in him ; but to the Son dwelling in him and united to him . Matth. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me , he doeth the Works . John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self . Acts 2. 22. Jesus of Nazareth , a Man approved of God among you , by Miracles , and Wonders , and Signs , which God did by him in the midst of you . 11. Had our Lord been more than a Man , the Prophecies of the Old Testament in which he is promised , would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman ; the Seed of Abraham ; a Prophet like unto Moses ; the Servant and Missionary of God , on whom God's Spirit should rest . Gen. 3. 5. I will put Enmity between thy Seed and her Seed . Her Seed is by all Interpreters understood to be Christ . Gen. 22. 18. In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed . This again is universally interpreted of Christ . Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren , like unto thee ; and I will put my Words into his Mouth . This is interpreted of our Lord Christ in many Texts of the New Testament , as John 1. 45. and Acts 3. 22. and Acts 7. 37. Isai . 41. 1. Behold my Servant whom I uphold , mine Elect in whom my Soul delighteth ; I will put my Spirit upon him , and he shall bring forth Judgment to the Gentiles . This is interpreted of Christ , Matth. 12. 17 , 18. Now that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is only the Power and Inspiration of God , at least is not himself God , they hold is ascertained by these Considerations . 1. The Holy Ghost or Spirit , and the Power of God , are spoken of , as one and the same thing . 1 Cor. 2. 4 , 5. My preaching was not with enticing Words of Mans Wisdom , but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power ; that your Faith should not stand in the Wisdom of Men , but in the Power of God. Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee ( Blessed Mary ) and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee . Luke 11. 20. I with the Finger of God ( that is , by the Power of God , Exod. 8. 19. ) cast out Devils . Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. Compare also Luke 24. 49. with Acts 1. 4 , 5 , 8. 2. A manifest Distinction is made , as between God and Christ , so also between God and the Holy Spirit , or Power and Inspiration of God ; so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself . Rom. 5. 5. The Love of God is shed abroad in your Hearts , by the Ho-Ghost which is given to us . 1 Cor. 3. 16. The Grace ( or Favour ) of our Lord Jesus Christ , the Love of God , and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you . Rom. 8. 27. He ( the Spirit , v. 26. ) maketh Intercession for the Saints , according to the Will of God. They note here , that God's Spirit or Inspiration ( being designed to be a continual Director and Guide to the Faithful ) it is spoken of , in these and some other Texts , as a Person ; by the same Figure of Speech that Charity is described as a Person , 1 Cor. 13. 4 , 5. and Wisdom , Prov. 9. 11. and the Law or Commandments of God , Psal . 119. 24. They note also that in some Texts 't is called the Holy Ghost , and Holy Spirit : in the same sense that we commonly say the Holy Wisdom , Holy Will of God. 3. The Spirit is obtained for us of God , by our Prayers ; therefore it self is not God. Acts 15. 8. God which knoweth the Hearts , bare them witness ; giving them the Holy Spirit as he did to us . Luke 11. 13. How much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him . If we say , these Texts are to be understood , not of the Person of the Holy Ghost , but of his Gifts and Graces ; the Socinians readily confess it , but they say also , that if the Holy Spirit were at all a Person , much more a God , his Gifts and Graces would be bestowed by himself , and asked of himself , not bestówed by , and asked of another Person ; as 't is manifest ( and by all confessed ) they are in these Texts . They add , there is neither Precept nor Example in all Holy Scripture , of Prayer made to the Spirit , on this or any other occasion : which ( on the Trinitarian Supposition ) that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God , no less than the Father , is very surprizing , nay utterly unaccountable . 4. If the Holy Spirit , and our Lord Christ , are Gods or 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 , Me , Him , &c. Job 13. 7. Will ye speak wickedly for God ? — Will ye accept his Person ? Heb. 1. 1. God — hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son , — who being the Brightness of his Glory , and the express Image of his Person , — sat down at the right Hand of the Majesty on high . Deut. 6. 4 , 5. Hear , O Israel , the Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart . In the Hebrew thus , O Israel , hearken to Jehovah our God : Jehovah is one , and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thine Heart . The Jews by a most ancient Tradition and Custom , are obliged to repeat this Verse every Morning and Evening , to keep it in perpetual Memory , that Jehovah , or God , is one only , not two or three . Isa . 45. 5. I am the Lord , — there is no God but Me. Psal . 102. 25. O my God , — of old hast thou laid the Foundation of the Earth . Matth. 4. 10. — the Lord thy God , him only shalt thou serve . No Instance ( say the Socinians ) can be given in any Language of three Persons , whoever spoke of themselves , or were spoken to , by the singular Pronouns , I , Thou , Me , Him , Thee , &c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom , Grammar , and Sense , which are the Laws of Speech : therefore the Holy Scriptures always speaking thus of God , either he is only one Person ; or the Scriptures are one continued ungrammatical Soloecism and Impropriety , and that in the capital Article of Faith , which no reasonable or good Man can or ever will allow . For it no way helps the Trinitarians , that God ( according to some Translations ) says at Gen. 1. 26. Let Vs make Man. Because nothing is so usual in common Speech , as for single Persons to speak of themselves , indifferently by singular or plural Pronouns ; thus 2 Cor. 10. 2. I think to be bold against some , who think of Vs , ( saith Paul of himself only ) as if We walked according to the Flesh . Briefly , they contend that when God speaks of himself in the plural Number , or by plural Pronouns , ( which yet some deny he ever does ; and if he doth , 't is not above once or twice in the whole Scripture ) he speaks according to the Custom of single Persons , especially Princes and great Persons , in all Nations and Languages : but were Almighty God three Persons , they could never speak of themselves , or be spoken to , by the singular Pronouns , I , Thou , Thee , Him , Me ; because 't is contrary not only to Grammar , ( which is always to be observed , when there is no Custom to the contrary ) but to the Custom of all Nations which understand to speak intelligibly and sensibly . 5. Had the Son , or Holy Ghost , been God , this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed . This Creed ( say they ) which is of next , if not equal Authority to any part of Holy Scripture , after having declared that God is the Father Almighty , and Maker of Heaven and Earth ; speaks not a Word of the Godhead of the Son , or Holy Ghost . It describes the Son by all the characters of a Man , and by such only ; it says , he was conceived or begotten by the Holy Ghost on Blessed Mary , that accordingly he was born of her ; that he was crucified , died , and was buried ; that he rose on the third day , and ascended into Heaven : all these are the Descriptions of a Man : for God cannot be conceived , or be born , or die , no nor ascend into Heaven , for he is always there . Not content to take no notice that he is God , this Creed distinguishes him very plainly from God , ( that is , denies him to be God ) by adding , He sits at the right Hand of God. i. e. He is advanced to be next to God , and is under the immediate and particular Protection of God. Concerning the Holy Ghost , this Creed says no higher thing than it says of the Church , I believe in the Holy Ghost , and in the Holy Catholick Church . For in the Greek , the same Preposition in , is before both alike ; and so also is this Creed recited by St. Cyril , and by St. Cyprian ad Numid . and by Socrates Hist . l. 1. c. 26. If the Compilers of this Creed had believed , that either the Son or Spirit is God ; t is unaccountable that they should take no notice of it in a Greed , and such a Creed as was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion . If a Socinian ( say they ) were to draw up a Confession of his Faith , he would do it in no other Words , but these of the Apostles ; and on the contrary , no Trinitarian , after having described the Father , by all the usual Characters of God , ( saying , he is God , Almighty , and Maker of Heaven and Earth ) would fail to mention the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit ; whence we must needs infer , that the Apostles believed as the Socinians , not as the Trinitarians believe concerning God , Christ , and the Holy Spirit . 6. To conclude ; Theirs ( they say ) is an accountable and a reasonable Faith ; but that of the Trinitarians is absurd , and contrary both to Reason and to it self , and therefore not only false , but impossible . For you ( say they ) teach , there are three almighty , and most wise Persons , and yet but one God ; as if every Almighty and most wise Person were not a God , and consequently three such Persons , three Gods. You add yet more absurdly , that there are three Persons who are severally and each of them true God , and yet there is but one true God : This is an Error in counting or numbring ; which when stood in , is of all others the most brutal and inexcusable ; and not to discern it , is not to be a Man. But we would not ( say they ) trouble our selves at the non-sense of this Doctrine , if it did not impose false Gods on us ; by advancing two to be Gods , who are not so : and rob also the one true God of the Honour due to him , and of which he is jealous . This , Sir , is the Doctrine of the Vnitarians , more commonly by others call'd Socinians , concerning Almighty God ; and these their Arguments ; which I have so related as not to judg or rail of their Persons , because however learned and reasonable Men ( which is their Character among their worst Adversaries ) may be argued out of their Errors , yet few will be swagger'd or chode out of them . It remains , that I make a brief and fair Deduction of their History ; from the time that they have been taken notice of in the World. They whom we call Socinians , were by the Fathers and first Ages of Christianity called Nazarens ; by which name St. Paul is accused before Felix , Acts 24. 5. They were also in those first times called Ebionites , Mineans , Artemonites , Theodotians , Symmachians , Paulinists , Samosatenians , Photinians , and Monarchians . The Writings of these Ancients are all lost , being destroyed by the Arians and Catholicks : Notwithstanding they had ( I find ) some very considerable Men among them ; as , 1. Theodotian , who translated the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek , about the Year of our Lord 182. 2. Symmachus , who published another Translation from the Hebrew also into Greek , in the Year 193. Eusebius assures us , both these were Ebionites or Nazarens ; and their Translations were greatly esteemed , and much used in the Greek Churches . 3. Paulus of Samosatum , Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch ; a Man not only learned and eloquent , but so much esteemed in that Capital City of the East , that an Episcopal Council there assembled , were not of sufficient Authority with his Citizens , to cast him out of St. Peter's Chair . 4. Photinus Bishop of Sirmium , against whom other Bishops being by Imperial Authority assembled , proceeded by Conciliary Acts and Censures of the Church ; but neither would his City part with him , till the Emperour sent an Army to expel him . Eusebius ( Hist . l. 5. c. 28. ) and Theodoret ( Haer. Fab. l. 2. c. de Artem. ) say , that these Nazarens constantly affirmed , that they derived their Doctrine from the Apostles of our Lord ; and that it was the general Doctrine of the Church , till the Popes , Victor and Zepherin , set themselves to root it up . Victor ( say the Socinians ) began to persecute the Apostolick Doctrine of one God , or ( what is the same ) that God is one , in the Year 194 ; but with little Success , till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians grew into general Credit and Accepance . For Justin Martyr , Origen , and other principal Fathers teaching ( as the Arians afterwards did ) that the Father is indeed before the Son and Holy Spirit , in Time , in Dignity , and in Power , yet that the Word , or Son , who in the fulness of time took our nature on him , was generated or created some time before the World , and was the Father's Servant and Minister in making the World ; and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son , and subservient to him in making all things : this Doctrine being advanced by Justin , Origen , and others of note in the Church ; and seeming more for the Honour of the Son , than the plain and simple Doctrine of the Nazarens , by the Help of Persecution prevailed against theirs , and became the more current 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 , being supported by Imperial Authority . But did Superstition ( say the Socinians ) stop here ? No , for there shortly arose another Doctrine , that the Son and Holy Spirit are the same God with the Father , not only ( as the Nicene Fathers explained this matter ) by Unity of Wills , and specifical Identity or sameness of Substance , but by numerical or true Identity and sameness of Substance and Nature . This last has been establish'd by so many terrible penal Laws , partly obtained of the Roman Emperours by Catholick Bishops ; partly made by Popes in the times of their Omnipotence ; that now not only the Nazaren Faith , but the Arian and the Nicene ( truly so called ) are no where openly profest in the Territories of Christian Princes and States ; except in a few Cities of Transilvania , and some Churches of the United Netherlands , in which Countries Liberty of Conscience makes a part of their Civil Rights and Franchises . But in the Turkish and other Mahometan and Pagan Dominions , where also the conquered Provinces of Christians have Liberty of Conscience , the Nazaren and Arian Churches are very numerous . Much of the new Conquests of his present Imperial Majesty , in Hungaria , Sclavonia , and Illyricum , are Arian . But though the open and avowed Profession of the Unity of God ( as 't is taught by the Nazarens , or Socinians , and by the Arians ) be supprest ; yet 't is observed that not a few of the most learned and celebrated Writers of the Church , whether Catholick or Reformed , have certainly been either Arians or Socinians , or great Favourers of them ; though they have used much Caution in so expressing themselves , as not to lye too open to Exception , Envy , or a legal Prosecution . 1. D. Erasmus , the restorer of Learning , hath given occasion both to his Friends and Enemies to think him an Arian . He saith , that Phil. 2. 6. was the principal Argument of the Fathers against the Arians ; but that to say true , it proves nothing against them . He notes on Eph. 5. 5. that the word God being used absolutely , doth in the Apostolick Writings always signifie the Father . In his Scholia on the third Tome of St. Jerom's Epistles , he denies that the Arians were Hereticks ; he adds , farther , that they were superior to our Men in Learning and Eloquence . 'T is believed , Erasmus did not make himself a party to that which he esteemed the ignorant and dull side of the Question . In his Epistle to Bilibaldus , he speaks as openly as the times would permit a wise Man to speak , I ( saith Erasmus ) could be of the Arian Perswasion , if the Church approved it . 2. H. Grotius is Socinian all over . This great Man in his younger Years attacked the Socinians in a principal Article of their Doctrine : But being answered by J. Crellius , he not only never replied , but thank'd Crellius for his Answer ; and afterwards publishing some Annotations on the Bible , he interpreted the whole according to the mind of the Socinians . There is nothing in all his Annotations , which they do not approve and applaud . His Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism , not excepting his Notes on John 1. 1 , &c. which are written so artificially , and interwove with so many different Quotations , that he has cover'd himself , and his sense of that Portion of Scripture , from such as do not read him carefully . 3. D. Petavius , the most Learned of the Jesuits , has granted that generally the Fathers who lived before the Nicene Council , and whose Writings are preserved , agreed in their Doctrine concerning God with the Nazarens or Socinians , and concerning the Son our Lord Christ , and the Holy Spirit with the Arians . For 't is to be noted that the Arians and Socinians agree in their Doctrine concerning God , that he is only one Person , the God and Father of our Lord Christ ; but they differ concerning the Son and Holy Spirit . The Son , according to the Arians , was generated or created some time before the World , and in process of time , for great and necessary causes , became incarnate in our Nature : The Holy Ghost ( they say ) is the Creature of the Son , and subservient to him in the Work of Creation . But the Socinians deny , that the Son our Lord Christ had any Existence before he was born of Blessed Mary , being conceived in her by the holy Spirit of God : They say , the Spirit is the Power and Inspiration of God , saving that Mr. Bidle , and those that follow him , take the holy Spirit to be a Person , chief of the Heavenly Spirits , prime Minister of God and Christ , and therefore called the Spirit by way of excellence ; and the Holy Spirit , to discriminate him from Satan , Prince and Chief of the wicked and Apostate Spirits . This difference notwithstanding , because they agree in the principal Article , that there is but one God , or but one who is God , both parties ( Socinians and Arians ) are called Vnitarians , and esteem of one another as Christians and true Believers , as may be seen on the part of the Arians in their Historian Chr. Sandius ; ( Hist . Eccl. l. 1. c. de Paul. Semosat . ) and for the Socinians in the Disputation of Alba. But to return to Petavius , He often affirms , that the Doctrine of the Trinity , and of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit , cannot be proved by Scripture only ; and that those who have attempted it , have always been baffled . He adds , there is no way to Unity in the Church about these matters , but by contenting our selves to speak concerning them , as the Fathers who lived nearest to the Apostles time did speak . 4. S. Episcopius , so much esteemed by our English Divines , seems to have been an Arian . He saith , the Father is so first , as to be first in order ( i. e. time ) in Dignity and in Power . He saith , that to make three equal Persons in God or in the Godhead , is to make three Gods. He denies , that the Lord Christ is the Son of God by substantial Generation , that is , by Generation from the Father's Substance or Essence . Speaking of the Creeds that express the Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity , and the Divinity of the Son and Spirit , he saith , that Bishops in general Councils being led by Fury , Faction , and Madness , did not so much compose as huddle up Creeds for the Church : See for these things Episc . Inst . Theol. l. 4 c. 32 , 33 , 34. 5. C. Sandius , a Gentleman of prodigious Industry and Reading , and no less ingenious then learned , in all his Books refuses in Words to be called either Arian or Socinian ; but has written an Ecclesiastical History in Quarto , with Addenda to it Coloniae 1678 , on purpose to prove that all Antiquity was Arian ; and that the Vnitarian Doctrine has been reduced so low by the Persecutions of Rome , and the puissant Arms of Charles the Great , and other Kings of France , for which Services they have been requited by the Roman Pontiff . with the Titles of Most Christian Kings , and Eldest Sons of the Church . He has also ( under the borrowed Name of Cingallus ) written a small Treatise with this Title , Scriptura Trinitatis Revelatrix ; here under pretence of asserting the Trinity , he has ( as much as he could ) defeated all the strengths of the Catholick Cause ; and shews that there is no considerable Text objected to the Arians or Socinians , but is given up as an incompetent and insignificant proof , by some or other of the principal Critics and Authors , who were themselves Trinitarians ; so that among them they have given away the Victory to their Adversaries . But , Sir , I perceive I have drawn out this account of the Socinians , to already a sufficient length for a Letter ; I will therefore conclude with a Passage out of Dr. Burnet's second Book of the History of the Reformation abridged . George van Parr , a Dutch Man , refused to abjure ; so he was burnt in the year 1549 , ( by virtue of a Law or Writ since abolished by Act of Parliament ) for affirming , that only the Father is God , and denying the Divinity of the Son our Lord Christ . He had led a very exemplary Life , for Fasting , Devotion and a good Conversation ; and suffered with extraordinary Composedness of Mind . These things cast a great Blemish on the Reformers : It was said , they only condemned Cruelty , when acted on themselves ; but were ready to practise it when they had Power . The Papists made great use of this in the next ( Queen Mary's ) Reign ; and what Arch-Bishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridly ( Authors of Van Parrs Punishment ) suffered in her time , was thought a just Retaliation on them by that wise Providence , which disposes all things justly to all Men. Thus far Dr. Burnet . SIR , I am most sincerely Yours . A Second Letter TO A FRIEND , Concerning the UNITARIANS , Called also SOCINIANS . Containing the Texts objected to them out of the Old Testament , and their Answers . Acts 24. 14. After the way which they call Heresy , so worship I the God of my Fathers , believing all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets . Printed in the Year 1687. A Second Letter , Concerning the Unitarians , vulgarly called Socinians . SIR , THE Texts and Arguments from them , objected to the Doctrine of the Vnitarians and Saoinians concerning God , are so many ; that 't is impossible to give a tolerable account of what they answer to the Orthodox , in a Letter ; their Answers would indeed require a Volume . Yet because I would not wholly disappoint your Expectations and Demands , I will in several Letters lay before you some part of what they reply to the Texts and Arguments taken from the Old Testament ; what to those that are found in the Gospels and Acts ; what to those out of the Epistles and Revelation . The Texts objected to them out of the Old Testament , are of two sorts . 1. Those which singly and alone prove the Trinity , or the Divinity of the Son or Spirit . 2. Those which perhaps would not , if alone considered , prove the Orthodox Doctrine ; but do it sufficiently when compared with , and interpreted by some Texts of the New Testament . I will propound both these in the order of Scripture . 1. Gen. 1. 26. Let Vs make Man in our Image . Answ . ( 1. ) This Text hath been considered in the foregoing Letter . ( 2. ) But 't is to be also farther observed , that some Rabbies render the Original Hebrew thus , Let Man be made in our Image . Meaning ( say they ) in the Likeness of God and Angels : for he speaketh to the Angels who were all present : Job . 38. 4. 7. Yet God speaketh to them , not as Adjutants , but as Spectators of his Work. They note , that this Translation agreeth with the stile used all along in this chapter ; ver . 3. Let there be Light. ver . 6. Let there be a Firmament . ver . 20. Let the Waters bring forth . ver . 24. Let the Earth bring forth the living Creature . 2. Gen. 3. 22. God said , The Man is become as one of Vs , to know Good and Evil. Answ . ( 1. ) It may be ( and is by very many learned Men ) said , that God speaketh here to the Angels . ( 2. ) But others translate the Hebrew words thus , the Man is become one of himself , knowing Good and Evil. And thus also 't is expressed in the Chaldee Translation by Onkelos . 3. Gen. 11. 6 , 7. The Lord said , Let Vs go down , and there confound their Language . Answ . ( 1. ) It is said by some , that God speaketh here to the Angels , and the Ministers and Executors of his Decree . ( 2. ) Others say , Let their Language be confounded ( for so the Hebrew may be rendred ) is an Hebrew Phrase , signifying , I will confound their Language . For so he saith , Gen. 1. 3 , 6 , 20 , 24 , 26. Let there be Light. Let there be a Firmament . Let the Waters , Let the Earth bring forth . Let Man be made : that is , I will make Light ; I will make a Firmament , I will cause the Waters and Earth to bring forth ; I will make Man. Note that God is said to go down , because his Power accompanied his Angels , who were either Ministers , or Spectators of his miraculous Work. 4. Gen. 19. 24. The Lord ( Heb. Jehovah ) rained Fire from the Lord ( Heb. Jehovah ) out of Heaven . Answ . The Translation of Seb. Castalio is generally approved , by the most learned Criticks , as agreeing to the Genius and manner of the Hebrew Tongue , he renders the original Words thus , Jehovah rained Fire from himself from Heaven . But see also what they say on Zech. 3. 2. a place parallel to this . 5. 2 Sam. 23. 2 , 3. The Spirit of God ●ake by me , — the God of Israel said . Answ . The Spirit of God , that is , the Inspiration of God ; q. d. God inspired , and spake by me . 6. Psal . 2. 7. Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee . Answ . Paul hath taught us that this Text so far forth as it respecteth Christ , and is a Prophecy of him , and what God would do for him , was not intended of his ( supposed ) eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father or God ; but of his being begotten to Life again from the dead . Acts 13. 34. God hath fulfilled the same , — in that he raised up Jesus from the dead ; as it is written in the second Psalm , Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee . Col. 1. 18. The Head of the Body the Church , the first born from the dead . 7. Psal . 45. 6 , 7. Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever , — thou hast loved Righteousness , — therefore thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows . These Words are interpreted of Christ by the Author to the Hebrews ; Heb. 1. 8 , 9. Vnto the Son , he saith , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever , &c. Answ . In the Hebrew and in the Greek 't is , God is thy Throne ( i. e. thy Seat , resting-place , or Establishment ) for ever . 8. Psal . 68. 18. Thou hast ascended on high , thou hast led Captivity captive , thou hast received Gifts for Men ; or ( as 't is in the Syriac , and Eph. 4. 8. ) hast given Gifts to Men. These Words manifestly spoken of God , are interpreted of Christ ; Eph. 4. 8 , 9 , 11 , Whereforh he saith , when he ascended up on high , he led Captivity captive , and gave Gifts to Men. ( Now that he ascended , what is it , but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the Earth ? He that descended , is the same also that ascended up far above all Heavens , that he might fill all things ) And he gave some Apostles ; some Prophets ; and some Evangelists , &c. Answ . ( 1. ) Those Words , descended first into the lower parts of the Earth ; are to be understood of our Lord's descent into the Grave and Hell , from whence he arose and afterwards ascended into Heaven . ( 2. ) These Words , ascended far above all Heavens , that he might fill all things , had been better rendred , that he might fulfil all things , namely all the Prophecies of himself and others concerning his Death and Descent into the Grave and Hell , and his Ascension into the highest Heavens ; far above all the visible Heavens , all the Heavens and Orbs in which the Sun and Stars move . ( 3. ) Thou hast ascended , — and given Gifts to Men ; are in the Psalm litterally meant of God ; and of Christ only by way of Prophecy , or rather of Emblem and Accommodation . And that Paul in the Ephesians intended no more than an Accommdation ( or , as Grotius speaks , a mystical or allegorical Interpretation ) of the words in the Psalm , is evident by the Gifts he mentioneth : He gave some Apostles , some Prophets , some Evangelists ; that is , he advanced some to be Apostles , others to be Prophets and Evangelists , in the Christian Church . These Gifts not being given or received till about one thousand Years after David's time , Paul could not possibly intend a literal Interpretation of David's Words , but only to accommodate them to Christ , because Christ also did ascend on high , and give Gifts to Men. To this effect speak Grotius , Dr. Patrick , and other famous Interpreters , on this Text. 9. Psal . 95. 9 , 10. Your Fathers tempted me ; forty years long was I grieved with this Generation . These words spoken by and of God , are interpreted of the Holy Ghost , Heb. 3. 7 , 9 , 10. As saith the Holy Ghost , your Fathers tempted me , &c. Answ . As saith the Holy Ghost , that is , As saith the Holy Spirit or Inspiration of God by the Mouth of the Prophet David . So Estius , Piscator , Capellus , Grotius , &c. Note that in the Psalmist's words there is an Enallage of the Person , ( frequent in the Hebrew , and especially in the Psalms ) Me for Him , and I for He. 10. Psal . 97. 7. Worship him all ye Gods ; or , all ye Angels . These words , though spoken of God , are interpreted of Christ , Heb. 1. 6. Again , when he bringeth the first-begotten into the World , he saith , And let all the Angels of God worship him . Answ . In the Greek 't is , When he bringeth again the first-begotten into the World , ( that is , when he raised Christ from the dead , who is his first-begotten from the dead ) he commandeth , let even all the Angels of God worship him . 'T is uncertain whether St. Paul had any respect to the Words in the Psalm ; but if he had , he doth not quote the Words of the Psalmist , as if they were spoken of Christ : but only declareth the Decree of God ( known to him by the Spirit ) for subjecting the Angels to Christ , in the same words that the Psalmist had used on another occasion ; because they are words most proper to express that Decree , for the Writers of the New Testament generally affect to speak in Scripture Language . 11. Psal . 102. 25. Of old hast thou laid the Foundation of the Earth , &c. This seems applied to Christ , Heb. 1. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. And thou , Lord , in the Beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth ; — but to which of the Angels said he at any time , Sit on my right Hand ? Answ . Thomas Aquinas hath rightly acknowledged , that the Words of both these Texts may be understood of God only , not of Christ . The Context of the Hebrews hath this sense , And thou Lord ( that is , and in another Text of the Psalms 't is said , Thou Lord. So Estius , Camerarius , Grotius ) hast laid the Foundation of the Earth ; — But to which of the Angels said he , ( i. e. said the Founder of the Earth , &c. ) sit on my right Hand ? as he saith to Christ at Psal . 110. 1. For though Psal . 110. 1. is literally designed of David , yet you Hebrews knowing that David was a Type of Christ , do also apply the Words there , sit on my right Hand unto the Messias or Christ . 12. Psal . 110. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord , Sit on my right Hand , until I make thine Enemies thy Footstool . It appears by Matth. 22. 43. that the Jews understood these words of David , as spoken of God and Christ : and therefore our Saviour puts this Question to them , how Christ could be David's Son , ( for they were , it should seem , commonly taken to be David's Words ) if he was David's Lord ? which can no way be answered but by saying , he was David's Son according to the Flesh , and David's Lord , as he was God. Answ . Our Saviour's Words are , David in Spirit calleth him Lord , saying , The Lord said unto my Lord , Sit on my right Hand ; that is , David in the Spirit of Prophecy foreseeing Christ , calls him his Lord. But he calleth him so , not because Christ is God , ( for if that were true , himself could have made his Enemies his Footstool ) but because not only the Spirits of David and all Saints , but even Angels are in Heaven made subject to Christ , and that as the Reward of his most Holy Life and obsequious and acceptable Death , 1 Pet. 3. 22. Phil. 2. 8 , 9. But note that when the Psalmist says , the Lord said unto my Lord , the Lord said is to be understood , he hath in decree said ; he hath decreed it shall be so . So Dr. Patrick in his Paraphrase on this Text. 13. Psal . 110. 3. Thy People shall be willing in the day of thy Power , in the beauty of Holiness from the womb of the Morning , thou hast the Dew of thy Youth . Answ . This Text , as 't is in the English Translation , is wholly unintellible . Seb. Castalio has , as he is wont , made a probable and elegant sense from the Hebrew thus , Thy People ( or thy Troops ) shall be chearful ; when with sacred Majesty thou goest to Battel , thou shalt have innumerable Youth . The words are spoken to David . 14. Psal . 139. 7. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ? Answ . From thy Spirit , is an Hebrew Phrase for From thee . Like as when 't is said of Moses , Psal . 106. 33. They provoked his Spirit ; the undoubted meaning is , They provoked Him. So also ( Eph. 4. 30. ) Grieve not the holy Spirit of God , is an Hebraism for Grieve not God. 15. Prov. 8. 24. When there were no depths , I was brought forth . Answ . Solomon speaketh here of the Quality or Faculty of Wisdom , by which God and Men order their Affairs wisely . That he meaneth not ( as some have fancied ) the Son , or the Spirit of God , appears by the Gender he useth : For he saith , ver . 2. She standeth in the top of high Places : ver . 3. She crieth at the gates : and chap. 7. 4. Say unto Wisdom , Thou art my Sister . 16. Prov. 30. 4. Who hath ascended up into Heaven , — who hath established all the Ends of the Earth ? what is his Name , and what is his Son's Name ? Answ . Dr. S. Partick interpreteth this Verse thus ; Hath any Man ascended into Heaven ; — who among Men hath gathered the Wind , or fixed the Earth ; what is the Man's Name , or his Sons ? 17. Isa . 6. 1 , 8 , 9. I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne . — I heard the Voice of the Lord , — go tell this People , Hear ye indeed , but understand not , — shut their Eyes , &c. This Appearance of God is ascribed to Christ , John 12. 41. These things said Isaias , when he saw his Glory : the Words , Go tell this People , &c. are ascribed to the Holy Spirit , Acts 28. 25 , 26. Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaias , — Go unto this People , &c. Answ . ( 1. ) The Words in St. John are to be understood not of Christ , but of God ; for God only is intended in the foregoing Verse , as all confess . ( 2. ) Accordingly the best Greek Bibles read that Text thus , These things said Isaias , when he saw God's Glory . ( 3. ) The Texts in the Acts ascribeth the Words in the Prophet to the Holy Spirit , because the Vision and all the Words there mentioned were a Scene wrought in the Prophet's Mind ( not exhibited to his outward senses ) by the Spirit or Power of God. 18. Isa . 7. 14. A Virgin shall conceive and bare a Son , and shall call his Name Immanuel . 'T is added , Matth. 1. 23. which being interpreted , is God with us . Answ . ( 1. ) Matthew ( as all know ) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew , and therefore did not interpret the Hebrew Name , no more than the Prophet ( whose Words he cited ) had done before him . We are not bound to subscribe to the Interpretation of the Greek Translator , being an obscure and unknown Person . Immanuel is by Erasmus interpreted God with him , a Name most proper for the Lord Christ ; and to this Interpretation of the Name Immanuel , S. Peter very plainly alludes , Acts 10. 38. ( 2. ) Admitting that Immanuel may signify God with us , yet the Child also who was to be a Sign to King Ahaz ( and whom Grotius thinketh to be the Son of the Prophet Isaiah ) was called Immanuel by order from God. And there are several Names of this high Import and Signification in Scripture . Elihu , recorded 1 Chron. 12. 20. signifies , He is my God. Eliatha ( mentioned 1 Chron 25. 4. ) is , Thou art my God. ( 3. ) Christ may well be named Immanuel , taking it for God with us ; as God was most plentifully with his People , by sending the Lord Christ to be his Ambassador and Representative , and our Redeemer . Several of the most learned Trinitariaus acknowledg , that no more than this was intended by this Name . 19. Isai . 8. 4. He shall be a Stone of Stumbling , &c. This is spoken of God in the Prophet , and applied to Christ ; Rom. 9. 33. 1 Pet. 2. 8. Answ . Neither St. Paul nor St. Peter cite the Words of the Prophet as spoken of Christ , but only as in some sense applicable to him ; namely as Christ also was to many a Stone of stumbling . 20. Isa . 9. 6 , 7. Vnto us a Child is born , unto us a Son is given ; — He shall be called Wonderful , Counseller , The mighty God , The everlasting Father , The Prince of Peace . Of the Encrease of his Government and Peace there shall be no end ; upon the Throne of David to order and establish it with Judgment and Justice , from henceforth and for ever . The Zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform this . Answ . ( 1. ) This cannot be a Prophecy of Christ , because it speaks of a Prince actually born at that time , Unto us a Child is born , Unto us a Son is given . Isaiah lived above seven hundred Years before Christ . ( 2. ) The Text is indeed to be understood of Hezekiah , but is very extravagantly rendred in the English . In the Hebrew 'tis thus , Vnto us a Child is born , unto us a Son is given , — the wonderful Counsellour , the mighty God , the everlasting Father shall name him the peaceable Prince ; his Government shall be multiplied , ( i. e. He shall reign long , even twenty nine Years ) and he shall have very great Peace ; he shall sit upon the Throne of David , ordering and establishing it with Judgment and Justice , from henceforth to the end of his Life : The Zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform this : i. e. God's Love to his chosen People shall make good this my Prophecy . Note that no end of Peace , and no end of Riches are never to be strictly understood in humane Affairs ; but we mean by them , very great Peace and Riches . Therefore the Peace of Hezekiah being in twenty nine Years interrupted by only one Expedition against him ; and that also in the end , unsuccessful ; he may be said to have enjoyed great Peace , or ( speaking hyperbolically , as is the manner of this Prophet ) Peace without end . 21. Isai . 35. 4 , 5. Your God will come , — then the Eyes of the Blind shall be opened , &c. This seems to be applied to Christ , Matth. 11. 4 , 5. Jesus answered , — Go tell John what ye do see and hear , the Blind receive their Sight , &c. Answ . God is said to come to the Jews , in his Ambassadour and Messenger Jesus Christ : and because in and by him God gave Sight to the Blind , &c. John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me , He doeth the Works . Acts 10. 38. God was with him . 22. Isai . 40. 3. The Voice of him that crieth in the Wilderness , Prepare ye the way of the Lord , — a high way for our God. This Voice was John Baptist , Matth. 3. 1 , 3. And it was Christ's way he prepared , Luke 1. 76. compared with Matth. 11. 10. Mark 1. 7. Acts 13. 24. Answ . John Baptist is said to prepare the way for God , when he prepared the way for Christ ; because Christ was the Ambassadour and Representative of God , and God was with and in Christ . Acts 10. 38. God was with him . John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me , he doeth the Works . 23. Isai . 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord , I am the first , and I am the last . Christ also is called the first and the last , Rev. 1. 8 , 17. Rev. 22. 13. Answ . Rev. 1. 8. is not spoken of Christ , but of God. At v. 17. Christ is called the First and the Last : but Erasmus , Grotius , and Hugo Cardinalis interpret the Words of him as he is a Man. Christ ( saith Hugo ) is the first ( or most honourable ) with good Men ; and the last ( or most despised ) with Infidels and wicked Men. Briefly , both Almighty God and our Lord Christ , are the First and the last , but in different Senses . 24. Isai . 45. 23. I have sworn by my Self . — Vnto me every Knee shall bow . These Words of God are applied to Christ ; Rom. 14. 10 , 11. We shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ , for it is written , — Every Knee shall bow to me , and every Tongue shall confess to God. Answ . In bowing and confessing to Christ at the last Judgment , we are said to bow and confess to God ; because Christ then and there holdeth the place of God , representeth him and acteth by his Commission . So Men are said to appear before our Soveraign Lord the King , when they appear at the Bar of his Judges ; because the Judges act in the Kings stead , and by his Commission . 25. Isai . 48. 16. I have not spoken in secret from the Beginning ; from the time that it was , there am I : and now the Lord God hath sent me , and his Spirit . Answ . I in this Text is not Christ , but the Prophet ; for Christ was not sent by the Lord God and his Spirit in the days of the Jewish Prophets , Heb. 1. 1 , 2. But if it were Christ , or the Son that here speaketh , yet this very Text would prove that he is not God ; for he is here distinguished from the Lord God , as one who is not himself God , but is sent by God. The Prophet seems to speak of the Overthrow of the Chaldean and Babylonish Troops , by some great Prince , whom God either had or would raise up against them , see ver . 14. and 15. Therefore Grotius and Forerius do not translate ( as the English hath it ) From the time that it was , but before this thing is , or before it hapneth . There am I , that is , I declare it as explicitly and clearly as if I were present on the place . 26. Jer. 23. 5. 6. I will raise unto David a righteous Branch , — in his days Judah shall be saved , and Israel shall dwell safely : and this is the Name whereby he shall be called , The Lord ( Heb. Jehovah ) our Righteousness . Answ . In the Hebrew 'tis , This is the Name which they shall call the Lord our Justifier : that is , in the happy and peaceful days of the Branch , the Nation shall call God their Justifier , or their merciful Deliverer from all Adversaries and all Evils . 27. Dan. 3. 25. The Form of the Fourth is like the Son of God. Answ . In the Hebrew 'tis like a Son of God : that is , like an Angel , for so this Passage is explained at ver . 28. Angels are called Sons of God ; Job . 1. 6. Job 38. 7. 28. Micha 5. 2. Thou Bethlehem , — out of thee shall come unto me , that is to be Ruler of Israel ; whose goings forth have been of old ; from everlasting : or as 't is in the Margin , from the days of Eternity . Answ . In the Hebrew 'tis , From ancient days . Grotius makes this sense of the Verse , whose goings forth ( or whose Descent , Original , or Pedigree ) is of old , from ancient times . For Christ descendeth of the most ancient and Royal Stock of David of Bethlehem . 29. Zech. 2. 8 , 9. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts ; after the Glory hath he sent me to the Nations which spoiled you ; — I will shake my Hand upon them , and they shall be a Spoil to their Servants : and ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me . Answ . These Words as they are in the English Translation , are hardly sense . Neither are these Words , Thus saith the Lord of Hosts , the Words of the Lord of Hosts himself , but of the second Angel , who at ver . 3. and 4. spoke to the first Angel , and to Zechariah . The Verses should have been thus rendred from the Hebrew , Thus saith the Lord of Hosts , Afterwards shall be Glory , ( i. e. after ye are departed our of Babylon , ver . 7. ye shall have Peace and Honour ) for he hath sent me to the Nations which spoiled you : ( i. e. To the Babylonians and their Confederates ) I will shake my Hand upon them , and they shall be a Spoil to their Servants ; ( i. e. I will stir up their Subjects to rebel against them , and spoil them ) And ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me ; i. e. hath sent me to punish them , and give you Peace and Glory . 30. Zech. 3. 2. The Lord ( Heb. Jehovah ) said unto Satan , The Lord ( Heb. Jehovah ) rebuke thee . Answ . The Lord in the first clause is the Angel of the Lord , as appears by ver . 1. for there Satan stands before the Angel. And that indeed he was an Angel , and not true Jehovah , is ascertained by his praying to another Person to rebuke ( i. e. to chastise ) Satan . When Angels are sent by God , and do represent his Person , the names Jehovah and God are communicated to them ; Exod. 3. 2 , 4 , 6. The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a Flame of Fire out of the midst of a Bush . — and when the Lord ( Heb. Jehovah ) saw that he turned aside to see , God called to him out of the midst of the Bush , — Moreover he said , I am the God of thy Father . Briefly , Jehovah is a Name of God , but such an one as is sometimes communicated both to Persons and Places . Therefore the English have very ill translated Psal . 83. 18. Thou whose Name alone is Jehovah , art the most High over all the Earth . In the Hebrew 'tis , Thou whose Name is Jehovah , thou alone art the most high over all the Earth . 31. Zech. 12. 10. They shall look upon me , whom they have pierced . The same thing is said of Christ , Rev. 1. 17. nay the Words ( tho spoken of God ) seem to be applied to Christ , John 19. 37. Answ . As the Jews in the times of the Prophets , did ( as it were ) pierce God with their Sins of several kinds ; so they pierced him again when they put to death the Lord Christ : as on the contrary , he who received ( i. e. kindly and respectfully entertained ) Christ , was understood as receiving him that sent him . But the Words in the Prophet , are not by St. John interpreted of Christ , but accommodated to Christ and his Sufferings . 23. Mal. 3. 1. I will send my Messenger , and he shall prepare the way before me ; and the Lord ( or Prince ) whom ye seek , shall suddainly come to his Temple . This Messenger was John Baptist , who prepared the way before Christ . Answ . See on Isai . 40. 3. 33. Baruch . 3. 35 , 37. This is our God , — afterwards did he shew himself upon the Earth , and conversed with Men. Answ . ( 1. ) 'T is an Apocryphal Book . ( 2. ) Those that admit the Book , reject these Verses as supposititions . ( 3. ) The original Greek may be thus rendred . Afterwards this Book of the Commandments of God , and the Law which endureth for ever , was seen upon Earth , and turned over by Men. Note that the last Verse of Baruch 3d , is to be read with the first of Baruch the 4th . Besides these particular Answers to the several Texts objected to their Doctrine out of the Old Testament , the Socinians say farther to them all in general . 1. Whereas so exceptionable a Doctrine as that of the Trinity , and its Dependances , ought to be proved by clear Texts and demonstrative Arguments ; on the contrary , these Texts are so far from being clear and evident Proofs , that a Man must have a more than ordinary Wit and Capacity to apprehend how most of them are at all to the purpose , and why or to what end they are alledged by the Trinitarians . 2. Though in the Heat of Disputation and Anger , Men catch up any Weapon against their Adversaries ; yet out of these Heats the more learned and judicious Trinitarians confess , that the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit , are not indeed taught in the Scriptures of the Old Testament , but are a Revelation made to us in the New. So saith Tertullian , Adv. Prax. c. 3. Cyprian , Serm. 6. St. Jerom , Adv. Lucif . Thcodoret l. 2. ad Graec. R. Tuitiensis de Divin . Offic. l. 11. c. 14. Fr. L. Brugensis on John 1. 49. and on Matth. 28. 19. Card. Bellarmine de Christ . l. 2. c. 6. and more plainly de Purg. l. 1. c. 11. Calovius Anticrel . S. 420. Alf. Salmero Pros . in Evang. 11. q. 3. And infinite more , both Catholicks and Reformed . 3. If so many had not confessed it , yet the thing is evident in it self . For if the Trinity were indeed taught in the Old Testament , how came the Jewish Church in all Ages to be so wholly ignorant of it , that ( as all confess ) they had not the least Suspicion , that God is more than one Person ? And if in this they had erred , 't is not to be doubted our Saviour would have reproved their Heresy , and carefully set them right , as he did in the matter of the Resurrection . But doth our Lord any where charge them with Heresy , for believing that God is only one Person . 4. The Socinians confess , that to Persons who never read any thing of this great Question , some of their Interpretations of the Texts , both of the Old and New Testament may seem somewhat harsh and strained . But this ( they say ) is only because such Persons have been always accustomed to understand the alledged Texts in a contrary sense , that is , in the sense of the Church : but if they will often read and consider the Socinian sense of them , they will soon discern that 't is not only a probable sense , but the true and only sense of which these Texts are capable , if we would reconcile them to the rest of Scripture , and ( particularly ) to the many and clear Texts and Demonstrations cited and hinted in the first Letter . SIR , I am Yours . A Third Letter TO A FRIEND , Concerning the UNITARIANS , Called also SOCINIANS . Containing the Texts objected to them out of the Evangelists and Acts ; and their Answers . Matth. 22. 29. Ye do err , not knowing the Scriptures . Printed in the Year 1687. A Third Letter , Concerning the Unitarians , called Socinians . SIR , IN this I give you the Texts of the Evangelists and Acts objected to the Socinian Doctrine concerning God our Lord Christ , and the Holy Spirit : and the Answers of the Socinians to the Arguments arising from them . ( 1. ) Matth. 1. 23. They shall call his Name Immanuel , which being interpreted , is , God with us . Answ . See on Isai . 7. 14. ( 2. ) Matth. 2. 2. Where is he that is born King of the Jews , for we — are come to worship him . Answ . Neither the Hebrew , Greek , nor Latin Word for worship him , import any more than a civil Worship and Honour . And it was the manner over all the East , and particularly among the Jews , to prostrate to Kings , 2 Sam. 19. 18. 1 Kings 1. 16 , 23 , 31. 2 Sam. 9. 6. ( 3. ) Mat. 9. 6. The Son of Man hath Power on Earth to forgive Sins . Answ . This is plainly spoken of Christ as he was a Man. God gave this Authority to the Lord Christ , because he gave to him also to know what was in Mens Hearts ; namely , whether their Repentance and outward Professions were sincere and lasting . John 2. 24 , 25. Rev. 1. 1. ( 4. ) Mat. 11. 27. All things are delivered to me of my Father , and no Man knoweth the Son but the Father , &c. Answ . ( 1. ) If Christ were himself that one true God , it could not be said here that another Person gave all things into his Hands . ( 2. ) The most Orthodox Interpreters do understand all things here , to be all things requisite for procuring and effecting the Redemption and Salvation of Men , or all things necessary to the executing the Office of the Messias . Whereas our Lord adds , None knoweth the Son but the Father , &c. Maldonate and Grotius make the sense to be , None but God knows what the Son's Office is , or what he is to do and suffer in order to the Salvation of Men ; as on the other side , none but the Son knows the Father's Mind , concerning the way and means by which Mankind is to be redeemed and saved . ( 5. ) Mat. 12. 31. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven . Answ . St. Austin , and generally all judicious Interpreters , by Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost or Spirit , understand Mens ascribing ( with the Scribes and Pharisees in this Chapter ) the Miracles and Works done apparently by the Spirit or Power of God , unto Magick , or the Power of the Devil . So that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is not in this Text a Person or a God , but merely the Power of God. ( 6. ) Mat. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name , there am I in the midst of them . Matth. 28. 20. I am with you always , even to the end of the World. Answ . Christ is in the midst of , and is with his People ; not by an immediate Presence , as God is , but by his most powerful Aid and Help , which he affordeth partly by his continual and succesful Mediation with God for them all in general , Heb. 7. 25. partly by the Angels who are under his Directions , and by him engaged in the Defence of the Faithful , Heb. 1. 14. ( 7. ) Matth. 26. 63. Tell us whether thou be the Christ , the Son of God. Like to which Text are Matth. 14. 33. Mat. 16. 16. John 1. 49. Answ . It being manifest that Princes are called Sons of God by the Psalmist , Psal . 82. 6. As also that Psal . 2. 7. ( Thou art my Son ) is literally meant of David . Hence it was that the Jews both then and now call the Messias the Son of God : not because ( as some imagine ) they think he is God , or is generated of the Divine Substance ; but because they expect he shall be a very great Prince , an universal Monarch , and therefore the Son of God in a more perfect and higher sense than David , or other Princes are . ( 8. ) Mat. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . Answ . ( 1. ) To be baptized in the Name of a Person or Persons , is a Rite by which one delivers himself to the Institution , Instruction , and Obedience of such Person or Persons : so that to be baptized in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is to profess to be led and guided by them ; or ( as Grotius expresses this matter ) 't is to declare we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion , but what proceeds from these , that is , nothing but what is commanded by God or the Father , and has been delivered by his Son the Lord Christ , and confirmed externally by the Miracles , and internally with the Witness and Testimony of the Spirit , that is , of the Power and Inspiration of God. ( 2. ) 'T is in vain , not to say ridiculously pretended , that a Person or thing is God , because we are baptized unto it , or in the Name of it . For then Moses and John Baptist also would be Gods , 1 Cor. 10. 1 , 2. Our Fathers were — all baptized unto Moses . Acts 19. 3. Vnto what then were ye baptized ? and they said , Vnto John's Baptism ; that is , ( saith the Generality of Interpreters ) unto John and the Doctrine by him delivered . Nor can it be doubted that to be baptized unto a Person or Persons , and to be baptized in the Name of such Person or Persons , is the same thing . For ( 1. ) 'T is acknowledged by all that understand the Hebrew and Syriac Idioms . ( 2. ) 'T is manifest by comparing some Texts of Scripture . For what in some of them is called baptizing unto , is in others called baptizing in the Name of . Rom. 6. 3. As many of you as have been baptized into Jesus Christ , ( or unto Jesus Christ ; for 't is the same Preposition in the Greek that is used of Moses , 1 Cor. 10. 1 , 2. and of John Baptist , Acts 19. 3. ) have been baptized into ( or unto ) his Death . Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ ( in the Greek , unto Christ ) have put on Christ . Acts 2. 38. Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ. Acts 8. 16. They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus . Who does not now see , that to be baptized unto , and in the Name of Christ , or any other Person or thing , are used as equivalent terms ? And accordingly the Fathers , particularly Tertullian , often say baptized unto the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . Nothing therefore can be inferred from this Text , for the Godhead of the Son or Spirit ; because as now Christians are baptized unto them , so the Jews were baptized unto Moses , and John's Disciples unto John. ( 9. ) Luke 1. 16 , 17 , 76. Many of the Children of Israel shall he ( John Baptist ) turn to the Lord their God ; and he shall go before him in the Spirit and Power of Elias . — Thou Child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest , for thou shalt go before the Face of the Lord to prepare his way . Answ . See on Isa . 40. 3. ( 10. ) Luke 17. 5. The Apostles said unto the Lord , Increase our Faith. Answ : By thy Prayers to God , which are always heard for us . ( 11. ) Luke 24. 47. That Repentance and Remission of Sin should be preached in his ( Christ ) Name . Answ . The sense is , Christ commanded the Disciples to require Men to repent , and on their so doing to assure them in his Name ( or from him ) that God would forgive them . ( 12. ) John 1. 1. &c. In the Beginning was the Word , &c. Answ . The Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd , and contradictory : 't is this , In the Beginning : i. e. from all Eternity . Answ . From all Eternity is before the Beginning , or without Beginning ; not in the Beginning . In the Beginning must refer to some time and thing , it must be in the Beginning of the World , or of the Gospel , or of the Word ; and in which ever of these senses it is taken , the Word cannot be from all Eternity , by Virtue or Force ( I mean ) of this Expression , Was the Word . i. e. was God the Son. Answ . But where in Scripture is the Word called God the Son ? The Word was with God ; i. e. The Son was with the Father . Answ . It seems then that God in this clause is the Father . But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost , and is not he too ( according to the Trinitarians ) God , or a God ? If he is , why doth St. John only say the Son was with the Father ; and how comes the Father to engross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Holy Ghost ? The Word was God. What shall we do here ? was the Word the Father ? for so they interpreted God in the foregoing clause . No , God in this clause , hath a new meaning , 't is God the Son. But in the whole Scripture there are not these words , God the Son. The same was in the Beginning with God. How comes this to be again repeated ? for John had said once before , that the Word was with God. They care not , 't is said , and that 's enough . The Truth is , according to their sense of this Context , no account can be given of this Repetition , and they must allow it to be a meer Tautology . But let us ( say the Socinians ) hear Grotius interpreting this sublime Proem of St. John's Gospel . Ver. 1. In the Beginning , ( i. e. when God created the Heavens and the Earth . For these Words are taken from Gen. 1. 1. ) was the Word . The Hebrews call that Power and Wisdom of God , by which he made the World , and does all other his extraordinary Works , his Word . Psal . 33. 6. By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made . Heb. 11. 2. The Worlds were made by the Word of God. 2 Pet. 3. 5. By the Word of God the Heavens were of old . They borrowed this Expression from Moses , who in describing the Creation , saith that God said , Let there be Light , Gen. 1. 3. God said , Let there be a Firmament , Gen. 1. 6. and so through the whole Chapter . Undoubtedly Moses is not to be understood of a Word orally spoken , for God is a Spirit ; but his meaning is , God put forth his Power and Wisdom , and thereby created Light and the Firmament , &c. As easily as Men can speak these Words , Let there be Light , Let there be a Firmament . Thus we see why the Divine Wisdom and Power was called the Word by David , and so many Writers of the New Testament . The Word was with God ; i. e. It was not yet in the World , or not yet made Flesh , ( ver . 10. and 14. ) but with God. The Word was God ; i. e. The Word ( or Divine Wisdom and Power ) is not something different from God ; but being his Wisdom and Power , is God. 'T is the common Maxim of Divines , that the Attributes and Properties of God are God. Which is in some sense true . We may also here note , that those Persons ( whether Angels or Men ) to whom the Divine Word hath been in an extraordinary Degree communicated , have also had the Names Jehovah and God given to them . The Angel who destroyed Sodom by a miraculous Tempest from Heaven is called Jehovah ; so is he that promised Abraham to cause Sarah to conceive a Son , Gen. 18. 13. On the same account God says to Moses , Exod 7. 1. See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh . Ver. 2. The same was in the Beginning with God. This is here again repeated by the Evangelist , to teach us that the Word is so God , that it is not all that God is ; there being other Properties and Attributes of God , that are communicable as well as the Word . Ver. 3. All things were made by him . The English-Geneva Translation saith here , All things were made by It. But it matters not , for the Word begins here to be spoken of as a Person , by the same Figure of Speech that Solomon saith , Wisdom hath builded her House , and hewn out her seven Pillars , Prov. 9. 1. And that David calls God's Commandments Counsellours , Psal . 119. 24. Ver. 4. In him : i. e. In him when he was in the World and was made Flesh ; Ver. 10. and 14. Was Life . i. e. By the Word , when made Flesh or Man , the way and manner of obtaining Life ( eternal Life ) was discovered to the Gentiles . The way is the Doctrine of the Gospel , John 12. 50. And the Life was the Light of Men ; i. e. The Life-giving Doctrine by him taught was that Light , to and by which Men may and ought to direct their Steps in order to eternal Blessedness . John 12. 50. So here the Doctrine of Christ , the Gospel , is called Light , as before it was called Life . Ver. 8. He ( John ) was not that Light ; i. e. John neither was , nor was the bringer of the Light of the Gospel : though he bare Witness to both . 'T is usual in familiar Speech to call the Bringer of a thing , by the name of the thing he brings : and for this reason our Saviour is called Life , and Light , John 14. 6. John 8. 12. Ver. 10. He was in the World. Here the Evangelist returns to speak of the Word . The sense is , in Process of time the Word became incarnate , that is , Abode on the Person of Jesus Christ , and so conversed in the World among Men. God communicated his Word , ( that is , a vast Effusion of his Divine Power and Wisdom ) to his Son the Lord Christ , Acts. 10. 38. The World was made by him ; i. e. The World and all Men were made by this Word , which ( afterwards ) abode on Jesus Christ : and which in and by him performed Works not much less wonderful than was the first Creation . And the World knew him not . Knew not that the Word abiding on Jesus , was that very Divine Word which made both the World and all Men. Ver. 11. He came unto his own ; i. e. To those whom he had made , ver . 10. He is to be understood of the Word . The Word came in the Person of Christ . His own received him not ; i. e. did not own him for what he indeed was , the Divine Word . 'T is again repeated , to brand the Ingratitude and Stupidity of the Jews of that Age. Ver. 12. Them that believe on his Name . On his Name , is an Hebrew Phrase , as much as to say , on him ; i. e. Them that believed on the Word , made Flesh : or them that received and owned him for what he indeed was , even the Divine Word . Ver. 14. And the Word was made Flesh ; Or , For the Word was made Flesh : i. e. did abide on and inhabit an humane Person , the Person of Jesus Christ ; and so was ( in Appearance ) made Flesh or Man : for Flesh is the usual Scripture Phrase for Man , Gen. 6. 12. Deut. 5. 26. Jer. 12. 12. Jer. 17. 5. Mark 13. 20. And we beheld his Glory ; i. e. The Glory of the Man , on whom the Word did abide and inhabit in him . We beheld his Glory in his many Miracles , John 2. 11. Also in his Transfiguration , 2. Pet. 1. 17. And on many other occasions . The Glory as of the only begotten of the Father ; i. e. A Glory worthy of the only-begotten of the Father . Christ is called the only-begotten on several accounts , this especially , that he only was begotten by the Divine Power on a Woman , Luke 1. 35. Ver. 15. John bare Witness of him — saying , — He was before me : i. e. Was before me in Dignity , being the only-begotten of God. So Erasmus and Beza as well as Grotius . Ver. 18. Which is in the Bosom of the Father : i. e. Who is most dear to the Father . So the Phrase signifies in other Texts ; Numb . 11. 12. Deut. 13. 6. Hath declared him : i. e. hath revealed his Mind and Will to Men. Hitherto ( for the most part ) Grotius . Briefly , The Word ( according to Grotius ) is not an eternal Son of God , but is here the Power and Wisdom of God ; which Word abiding without measure on the Lord Christ ; ( as it is expresly said , Heb. 1. 3. Matth. 28. 18. Col. 2. 3. see the Notes on these Texts ) 't is therefore spoken of as a Person , and as one Person with Christ and he with that . This notion of the Word will lead a Man through all the Difficulties of this Chapter , with far more ease than any other hitherto offered . Besides that it is so well founded , as has been shown on ver . 1. 't is also as easy and obvious , and clears the sense as much as can be expected on a Portion of Scripture , that is so obscure and dark , and which was designedly written after a mysterious and sublime manner . ( 13. ) John 2. 19 , 21. Destroy this Temple , and in three Days I will raise it up . — He spake of the Temple of his Body . Answ . 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 , Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle , — by Jesus Christ ; and God , the Father , who raised him from the dead . See also Eph. 1. 19 , 20. 1 Thess . 1. 9 , 10. Had our Lord raised himself by his own proper Power , his Resurrection could in no respect be ascribed to the Father . ( 14. ) John 2. 25. He knew what was in Man. Answ . The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had , or now in his state of Exaltation hath , of the Secrets of Mens Hearts , is the pure Gift of , and Revelation from God , and the Divine Word abiding on him . Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants . John 3. 34. God giveth not the Spirit by measure ( that is , sparingly ) unto him . But see also what they say on Rev. 2. 23. ( 15. ) John 3. 13. No Man hath ascended up to Heaven , but he that came down from Heaven ; even the Son of Man , which is in Heaven . Answ . ( 1. ) Erasmus , Beza , Camerarius , acknowledg that the Greek should be rendred , which was in Heaven . Neither so are the Words , which was in Heaven , an idle Repetition of what went before ; for it is repeated majoris asseverationis causâ , for its greater Confirmation . The most learned Orthodox Interpreters understand this ascending into , and being in Heaven , as also the descending , only metaphorically ; and interpret thus , No Man hath ascended up to Heaven : No Man hath known the Mind of God our Heavenly Father . But he that came down from Heaven ; i. e. but he that is sent to you as the Messenger of Heaven , or of God. Even the Son of Man which is in Heaven ; i. e. even I whose Meditation and Conversation is in Heaven . As St. Paul says of himself , Phil. 3. 20. Our Conversation is in Heaven . So they interpret the whole Passage , of the humane Nature , I suppose , because our Lord considers and speaks of himself here by the Name only of the Son of Man. But the Socinians do ( generally ) understand this Text literally , and say , that 't is here intimated that before our Lord entred upon his Office of Messias , he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God ( as Moses was into the Mount , Exod. 24. 1 , 2 , 12. ) and from thence descended to execute his Office , and declare the said Will of God. The same thing they say is also hinted , John 6. 38 , 46 , 51 , 62. John 8. 40. ( 16. ) John 3. 18. The only begotten . Answ . See on John 1. 14. ( 17. ) John 5. 19. Whatsoever things He ( the Father ) doth , those also doth the Son. Answ . The Son doth them , only by the Spirit or Power of the Father inhabiting in him . John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self . John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me , He doth the Works . Matth. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. ( 18. ) John 5. 23. That all Men should honour the Son , even as they honour the Father . Answ . The meaning only is , as we honour God or the Father , so we must not forget to honour also the Son of God ; because to him the Father hath committed the last Judgment of all Men , ver . 22. An Equality of Honour is no more intended here , than an Equality of Perfection in those words , Be ye perfect , even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect , Matth. 5. 48. For the sense there is , as God is truly perfect , so do ye endeavour to be perfect with that Perfection of which your finite Natures are capable . 19. John 6. 44. I will raise him up at the last Day . Answ . The Lord Christ shall raise and change our Bodies by the same Divine Word , or Power of God communicated to him , and abiding on him , by which while he was in this mortal Life he raised and changed the Body of Lazarus , which was corrupted : that the Power by which he restored Lazarus to Life again , was not our Lords own proper Power , but God's , that is the Fathers ; is plainly intimated by our Lord himself , John 11. 41. Father , I thank thee , that thou hast heard me , &c. Almighty God can lodge even in dry Bones , a Power of restoring the dead , 2 Kings 13. 21. see also what hath been said on John 5. 19. ( 20. ) John 8. 56 , 58. Abraham rejoiced ( or desired ) to see my Day , and saw it . — Before Abraham was , I am , Or ( as 't is rendred by the Syriac , Nonnus and Grotius ) I was . Answ . ( 1. ) Abraham saw Christ's Day , in the Spirit of Prophecy ; he saw it as coming , not as present ; he foresaw ( as he desired ) the time when it should be . ( 2. ) St. Austin has confessed , that Christ is here said to be before Abraham , not actually , but in the Counsel Decree , and Ordination of God. And so St. Peter explains this matter ; 1 Pet. 1. 20. Who verily was fore-ordained from the Foundation of the World , but was made manifest in these last times . In like manner at Rev. 13. 8. Christ is called the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. The Words are , Whose Names are not written in the Book of Life , of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. Every one sees that Christ could be no otherways slain from the Foundation of the World , but in the Counsel and Decree of God. See more such Instances on John 17. 5. 'T is true the Jews did not apprehend in what sense our Lord meant he was before Abraham : but neither did he intend or care they should ; for finding them averse from Truth and Piety , he often so spake to some of them , as to perplex and affront their Blindness and Arrogance yet more , and not to instruct them , see for this Luke 8. 10. ( 21. ) John. 10. 30. I and the Father are one . Answ . Not one God , but as Friends are said to be one . Thus our Lord explains himself , John 17. 11. Keep them whom thou hast given me , that they may be one as we are . The Disciples could be one no otherways than as Friends are one , ( namely in Affection and Design ) neither with one another nor with God. Ver. 22. The Glory which thou gavest me , ( i. e. the Power of doing Miracles ) I have given them , that they may be one , as we are one . ( 22. ) John 10. 33. Thou being a Man makest thy self God , or a God. Answ . It appears they lied , by our Saviours Answer at ver . 36. Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World , Thou blasphemest , because I said , I am the Son of God. Had our Lord been more than the Son of God , he would have owned his Dignity , when they charged him with Blasphemy for saying those things , from which it might ( by their strained Consequences ) be inferred that he made himself a God. Camero on this Text ingenuously confesses , that in this Context our Lord doth not make himself God : He adds , that times and circumstances required , that the Revelation of this Mystery should be deferred till our Lord's Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven . In which saying he gives up to the Socinians all the Texts of the Evangelists . ( 23. ) John 10. 38. The Father is in me , and I in him . Answ . 'T is also said , 1 John 4. 16. He that dwelleth in Love , ( i. e. exerciseth Love and Charity ) dwelleth in God , and God in him . Therefore Christ and Christians are said to be in God , and God in them , by their mutual Love ; or because of their mutual Love. ( 24. ) John 12. 41. These things said Isaias , when he saw his Glory , and spake of him . Answ . see on Isai . 6. 1 , 8 , 9. ( 25. ) John 14. 1. Ye believe in God , believe also in me . Answ . Our Lord has himself interpreted this . John 12. 44. He that believeth on me , believeth not on me ; but on him that sent me . ( 26. ) John 14. 7 , 9. If ye had known me , ye would have known my Father also : and from henceforth ye know him , and have seen him : — He that hath seen me , hath seen the Father ; how sayest thou then , shew us the Father ? Answ . It is also said , Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you , heareth me ; 't is there farther added , He that despiseth you , despiseth me ; and he that despiseth me , despiseth him that sent me . Shall we now infer , that the Disciples and Ministers of Christ , are Christ : nay , are him also that sent Christ , namely God ? The Truth therefore is , when we are said to know , see , hear , despise God , in knowing , seeing , hearing , or despising Christ , or his Ministers ; the meaning only is , that Christ and his true Ministers being the Ambassadours and Messengers of God , and revealing to us his Nature and Will , they are so far forth to be esteemed one with God ; and in seeing and hearing them , we see and hear him as much as the invisible God can be seen or heard , in this mortal Life . ( 27. ) John 14. 14. If ye ask any thing in my Name , I will do it . Answ . The obvious meaning is , if ye pray for any thing to God , using my Name ; I will cause it to be done for you by my Intercession , the general Intercession that I will make for all good Christians . Heb. 7. 25. He is able to save them that come unto God by him , ( i. e. that pray to God in his Name ) seeing he ever liveth to make Intercession for them . ( 28. ) John 16. 8 , 13 , 14. When he ( the Comforter , or Spirit ) is come , he will reprove the World of Sin : — He shall not speak of himself : — He shall receive of mine , and shew it to you . Here the Spirit is plainly spoken of as a Person . Answ . ( 1. ) Of those that are Vnitarians , all the Arians , and very many Socinians , do acknowledg , that the Holy Spirit is a Person , chief of the Heavenly Spirits , prime Minister of God and Christ ; because he is here called the Comforter ( or Advocate ) and said to hear , speak , and teach ; and elsewhere to interceed for us . But they add , that this very Context in telling us , ( ver . 13. ) He will guide you into all Truth , for he shall not speak of himself ; Sufficiently sheweth that he is not God , or a God. For it were intolerable to say of God , he shall lead you into all Truth , for he shall not speak of himself : the contrary is true of God , he shall lead you into all Truth , For he shall speak of himself . ( 2. ) But more generally the Socinians say , that Actions proper to Persons are by a Figure ascribed to things , and even to Qualities of things , not only in Holy Scripture , but in all Writers . God's Commandments are called Counsellours , Psal . 119. 24. Understanding is said to lift up her Voice , Prov. 8. 1. Wisdom to build her House , and hew out her seven-Pillars , Prov. 9. 1. Charity to think no evil , 1 Cor. 13. 5. Water and Blood to bear Witness , 1 John 5. 8. The Stone set up by Joshua to hear all the Words of the Lord , Josh . 24. 27. Are these things Persons ? Is it not evident that Actions proper to Persons are ascribed to them , as well as to the Holy Spirit , or Power and Inspiration of God , by the Figure called Prosopopeia ? Briefly , We ought to conceive thus of this matter , a great Effusion of God's Inspiration and Power being to be given to the Disciples , that it might be a continual Director and Guide when the Lord Christ was no more personally with them : therefore this Guide is by the aforesaid Figure spoken of in such terms as if it were some Doctor , Teacher , and Advocate . Hence it is said to reprove the World , to guide into all Truth , to intercede for us ( namely because it suggesteth Prayer and Affection in Prayer ) also not to speak of himself , but to speak what he shall hear from God ; to receive of Christ's , that is , receive of God the Remainder of Christ's Doctrine , and teach it to the Apostles . For 't is to be noted that our Lord left some things to be taught by this Inspiration of God ; because the Disciples were not capable to hear and believe them , till they had seen the great Miracles of our Lords Resurrection and Afcension into Heaven , John 16. 12. I have yet many things to say to you , but ye cannot bear them now ; Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come , he shall guide you into all Truth . The Spirit that guided the Apostles into all Truth , was it not the meer Inspiration of God ? It is for the same Reason , and by the same Figure , that this Power and Inspiration of God in the Apostles , is said to bear Witness , John 15. 26. to search Mysteries , 1 Cor. 2. 10. 11. to distribute Gifts , 1 Cor. 12. 2. to appoint Bishops , Acts 20. 28. to glorify Christ , John 16. 14. Finally , It appeared in the Form of a Dove on Christ , and of Cloven Tongues on the Apostles , Matth. 3. 16. Acts 2. 3 , 4. Because God conveyed this Divine Energy to the Lord Christ , and to the Apostles , in these outward Symbols , which were fit Emblems of the Quality of the Gifts then bestowed . The Dove signified the mild and peaceable Spirit of Christ ; and that the Power then conveyed to him should not be for the Damage or Hurt of Mankind : The Tongues denoted , that the Apostles did then and there receive the Gift or Faculty of speaking with many Tongues . But what sense can the Trinitarians make of these things ? they say the Spirit is a Person and God : did God receive and assume the Shape of a Dove , that is , of a Brute ? What hinders but that they may believe all the Transformations in the Metamorphosis of Ovid ? ( 29. ) John 16. 15. All things that the Father hath , are mine . Answ . ( 1. ) St. Paul hath said as much of every Christian ; 1 Cor. 3. 21 , 22. All things are Yours : — things present , things to come , all are yours . 2. All things in this Text of St. John , are all things relating to the Christian Faith , Doctrine and Discipline : for it follows , Therefore said I , He ( the Spirit ) shall take of mine , and shew it to you . The meaning of the whole Passage is , all things relating to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Christian Church , which the Father hath in his Mind and Design , are mine : that is , are known to me , and shall ( for the most part of them ) be ordered by my self : as for the rest which I my self do not discover or order , the Spirit shall receive it , and shew it to you . ( 30. ) John 17. 5. Glorify me with thine own self , with the Glory I had with thee , before the World was . Answ . ( 1. ) St. Austin and many other learned and Orthodox Interpreters , not only grant , but contend that the meaning here is , Let me now actually receive that Glory with thy self , which I had with thee in thy Decree and Design before the World was . This Interpretation is confirmed by this , that the Sufferings of Christ were to precede his actual Glory , 1 Pet. 1. 11. Searching what , and what manner of time the Spirit — did signify , when it testified before-hand the Sufferings of Christ , and the Glory that should follow . ( 2. ) As 't is here said , The Glory that I had with thee before the World was : so 't is said , 2 Cor. 5. 1. We have a Building of God , an House not made with Hands . Where we have is , we have it in God's Decree and Intention , or it is prepared for us ; 2 Tim. 1. 9. Grace was given us in Christ before the World was . Where again was given to us is , was given in God's Decree and Intention . Therefore so also we may understand , that Christ had Glory before the World was . ( 31. ) John 17. 10. All mine are thine , and thine are mine . Answ . It appears by the foregoing verse , and by what follows , that Christ speaks of such as were or should be his Disciples . His meaning is , all that are my Disciples , are of thy giving to me , and still remain thine ; and all that are true Servants and Lovers of God , readily become mine , that is , Disciples to me . ( 32. ) John 17. 24. For thou lovedst me from the Foundation of the World. Answ . None can deny , that God loved all the Elect from the Foundation of the World. To God all things are present ; not only what is past , but what is to come , is present to the Divine Mind and Knowledg . ( 33. ) John 20. 28. Thomas answered , and said unto him my Lord , and my God : Or , O my Lord , and O my God! For 't is an Attic Vocative . Answ . 1. Nestorius , Patriarch of Constantinople , was of Opinion that these Words were not designed to Christ , but to God. For though the Evangelist saith , Thomas answered and said unto him ( i. e. to Christ ) O my Lord , and O my God. Yet the Exclamation might be addressed to God as it's Object , tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour , or in Answer to our Saviour , and to what he had said at ver . 27. Or if the Words were addressed to our Saviour also , it may be admitted as true what others say here : Namely , ( 2. ) When Thomas had felt the Prints of the Spear and Nails in our Saviour's Side and Hands , and was thereby fully satisfied that he was indeed risen again , he breaks forth into this Exclamation ; the first part of which he directed to Christ , the other to God. O my Lord ! are Words of Congratulation to our Saviour ; And O my God! Words of Admiration and Praise to God. ( 34. ) Acts 5. 3 , 4. Why hath Satan filled thine Heart , to lie to the Holy Ghost ? — Thou hast not lied unto Men , but unto God. Answ . Some of the most celebrated Interpreters among the Trinitarians have owned , that this Text ought to be thus understood , Why hast thou lied to the Holy Ghost : i. e. to us Apostles who have ( thou knowest ) the Holy Spirit or Inspiration of God in us . Thou hast not lied unto Men , but unto God ; i. e. thou hast not hereby lied to Men only or chiefly , but to God , who is in us by his Spirit and Inspiration . This Interpretation is confirmed by 1 Thess . 4. 8. He therefore that despiseth , despiseth not Man , but God , who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit . Here 't is manifest , that those who despised the Apostles , are said to despise God , because God was in them by his Spirit : What hinders then , but that for the same reason , those that lied to the Apostles , should be said and understood to lie to God ? ( 35. ) Acts 7. 59. They stoned Stephen , calling upon God , and saying , Lord Jesus , receive my Spirit . Answ . ( 1. ) The Word God is not in the Original Greek , in no Greek Bible . ( 2. ) Admitting this Word God to be here rightly understood , yet the Greek when rendred Grammatically , maketh this sense , calling upon God , and saying , O Lord of Jesus receive my Spirit . ( 3. ) Admitting the English Translation , the meaning here is only this , Stephen called upon God , and he also said , Lord Jesus receive my Spirit ; because at the same time he saw Jesus ( in Prophetick Vision ) standing at the Right Hand of God. He began to have this Vision while he stood before the Council , ver . 56. and it continued with him to the Moment of his Expiration , for his Consolation and Support ; as is granted by many learned Interpreters of the Orthodox party . ( 36. ) Acts 9. 14 , 21. To bind all that call upon thy Name . ( The Words are spoken to the Lord Christ , as is made undeniable by ver . 17. ) — Is not this he , that destroyed them which called on this Nome ( Christ's Name ) in Jerusalem ? Answ . ( 1. ) The Socinians generally not only grant , but earnestly contend , that Christ is to be worshipped and prayed to : because God hath ( they say ) by his ●●●●biting Word or Power given to the Lord Christ , a Faculty of knowing all things , and an Ability to relieve all our Wants . The Polonian Vnitarians were so zealous in this matter , that they excommunicated and deposed from their Ministry , such of their own Party as denied that Christ might be prayed to , and worship't with Divine Worship . This had bad Effects , therefore the Vnitarians of Transylvania were more moderate , they admitted to the Ministers and Professors-Places , those that rejected the Invocation and Adoration of Christ ; but obliged them under their Hands , not to speak against worshipping or praying to the Lord Christ in their Sermons or Lectures . ( 2. ) Those Vnitarians that reject the Invocation of Christ , say , 1. That the most learned of the Ancients were of their Opinion . It appears by St. Austin ( T. 6. L. 1. de Haeres . Num. 43. ) and by Photias ( Cod. 117. ) that Origen denied that the Son was to be adored or prayed to . He is , saith Origin , not the Author , but Procurer of the good things bestowed on us . 2. Our Lord Christ , when he was consulted about the Object and matter of Prayers , directed his Disciples to God ; Luke 11. 1 , 2. When ye pray , say , Our Father which art in Heaven . 3. It seems clear enough , that he forbad the Disciples to pray to himself ; ordering them at the same time to pray to God in his Name , or for his Sake : John 16. 23. In that Day ( i. e. after I am risen , have seen you again , and being ascended into Heaven have procured for you the Comforter , whose Consolations none can take from you . So all Interpretters of note ) ye shall ask me nothing ; — whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name , he will give it you . 4. To make Christ himself the Object of Prayer , is to destroy his Mediatory Office. For if he doth hear our Prayers , and can and doth ( by a Power constantly resident in him ) relieve our Wants ; to what purpose is he our Mediator with God. They that make it a Duty to pray to Christ , will find it hard to give a good account of those Words , Heb. 7. 25. He ( Christ ) is able to save unto the uttermost , all that come unto God by him , ( i. e. that pray to God in his Name , or for his sake ) seeing he ever liveth to make Intercession for them . What can be more evident , than that here Christ's saving us from the Evils we either fear or labour under , is ascribed not to his own inherent Power , but to his Intercession with the Almighty . It is farther to be observed , that these Gentlemen say , that Christ's Mediation and Intercession for us , is not to be understood of a verbal or personal Mediation , proceeding from a particular Knowledg of our Wants and Prayers , but he mediates by his Merits ; that is , by the perfect Obedience and most acceptable Services , that he has performed to God. As to the objected Texts , To bind all that call upon thy Name . And again , Is not this he that destroyed them that called on this Name in Jerusalem ? They answer , that the Original Greek may be translated several ways . 1. Thus , to bind all that are called by thy Name . And , Is not this he , that destroyed them who are called by this Name in Jerusalem ? that is , All that from Christ are called Christians . And this seems to be the genuine sense of these Texts . 2. Thus , To bind all that name thy Name . And , Is not this he that destroyed them who name this Name in Jerusalem ? that is , that profess the Name of Christ , that speak of Christ as their Master and Teacher . Agreably to this , St. Paul saith , 2 Tim. 2. 9. Let all that name the Name of Christ , depart from Iniquity . 3. Thus , as 't is in our English Bibles , to bind all that call upon thy Name . And , Is not this he that destroyed them that called on this Name in Jerusalem ? For though the first Christians did not pray to the Lord Christ , yet they called upon his Name in Prayer , they used his Name in their Prayers to God , praying for all things in his Name ; which is a calling upon his Name in the most proper and grammatical sense of these Words ; and is indeed the only sense of which they are capable , when they are used of a Man , as Christ was . So they . ( 37. ) Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost , and to us . Answ . that is , to God's Inspiration in us , and therefore to us also : See on John 16. 8 , 13 , 14. ( 38. ) Acts 20. 28. Feed the Church of God , which he hath purchased with his own Blood. Answ . ( 1. ) It appears by the Syriac , the Armenian , and the most ancient Greek Bibles , that the true reading of this Text is , Feed the Church of Christ , which he hath purchased with his own Blood. ( 2. ) Admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek , yet some great Masters of that Tongue have rendred the Greek Words thus , Feed the Church of God , which he hath purchased with his own Son's Blood. ( 3. ) Admitting the Translation in our English Bibles , some learned Men ( particularly Erasmus ) have noted , that the Blood of Christ is here called the Blood of God , because it was the Blood which God gave for the Redemption of the World. So John 1. 36. Behold the Lamb of God : that is , the Lamb of Sacrifice which God giveth for the Sins of the World. For God so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son to die and shed his Blood for us . From , SIR , Your Faithful and Assured . A Fourth Letter TO A FRIEND , Concerning the UNITARIANS , Called also SOCINIANS . Containing the Texts objected to them out of the Epistles and Revelation . Rom. 1. 25. Who changed the Truth of God into a Lie ; and worshipped and served the Creature , more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever . Amen . Printed in the Year 1687. A Fourth Letter , Concerning the Unitarians , vulgarly called Socinians . SIR , WE are come to the last part of our Task , the Texts of the Epistles and Revelation , and the Answers of the Socinians to them . ( 1. ) Rom. 1. 3. Jesus Christ our Lord , which was made of the Seed of David , according to the Flesh . Rom. 9. 5. Of whom , as concerning the Flesh , Christ came ; who is over all , God blessed for ever , Amen . Answ . ( 1. ) It is very probable , by the Syriae and by some Passages in Ignatius and other Fathers , that the word God was not originally in this Text , for they read it thus , Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came , who is blessed above all for ever . 2. But admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek , the Greek Words ( as Erasmus and Curcellaeus observe ) should have been thus translated , Of whom , as concerning the Flesh , Christ came ; God who is over all be blessed for ever . For the Words are a Thanksgiving for Christ , and for his Exaltation . The Addition of the word Amen , proper in Prayers and Thanksgivings , doth much countenance this Translation . 3. These Words , according to the Flesh , and as concerning the Flesh , never signify ( as Trinitarians would here interpret them ) according to his humane Nature , as if Christ had also a Divine Nature : Rom. 9. 3. My Kinsmen according to the Flesh . Rom. 4. 1. Abraham , our Father as pertaining to the Flesh . Col. 3. 22. Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh . Had now Abraham or Paul's Kinsmen , or have Masters a Divine Nature , because these Words , according to the Flesh , and as pertaining to the Flesh , are used of them ? The Truth is , these Phrases are only as much as to say according to the Body ; and are to signify that Abraham is the Father of the Jews , according to their Bodies , as God is the Father of their Souls or Spirits : and that the Jews were Paul's Kinsmen according to the Body , but not of Kin to him in Respect of Likeness in Faith or Manners : also that Masters are Masters over our Bodies , not of our Minds or Spirits . Therefore in the other Texts also , where Christ is said to be of the Seed of Abraham , of Israel , and of David , according to the Flesh ; the meaning can only be , that as to his Body or outward Man , he descended of the House of David , and of the Stock of Israel and Abraham , his Soul or Spirit being from God. ( 2. ) Rom. 2. 16. God shall judg the Secrets of Men by Jesus Christ . 1 Cor. 4. 5. Who both will bring to light the hidden things of Darkness , and will make manifest the Counsels of Hearts . Answ . The Knowledg Christ hath , or at the last Judgment shall have of the Secrets of Hearts , is purely by Revelation from God , and the Divine Word communicated to him , Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants . ( 3. ) Rom. 10. 12. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him . Answ . This and what follows is spoken of God , not of Christ . ( 4. ) 1 Cor. 1. 2 , 3. All that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ . Ver. 3. Grace be to you and Peace from God our Father , and from the Lord Jesus . Answ . 1. As to the former of these Texts , see on Acts 9. 14 , 21. For all that is there said , takes place here also . 2. But as to ver . 3. It shows plainly that Christ is not God , for it speaks of him as a distinct and different Person from God : Therefore Grace and Peace is wished to the Corinthians from God , as the Author of every good and perfect Gift ; and from Christ , ( to use the Words of Origen ) as the Procurer by his Intercession with God. ( 5. ) 1 Cor. 6. 9. Your Body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost . 2 Cor. 6. 16. Ye are Temples of the living God. Answ . The Holy Ghost or Spirit being the Inspiration and Power of God , the same Bodies that are Temples of one , must needs be Temples also of the other . ( 6. ) 1 Cor. 10. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ , as some of them also tempted , and were destroyed of Serpents . It had been said before at ver . 4. They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them , and that Rock was Christ . Answ . 1. The Rock was Christ , not really , but in Signification , it signified and prefigured Christ , for which reason 't is called a spiritual Rock . So St. Austin , contr . Advers . Leg. et Prophet . l. 2. c. 6. This Interpretation is confirmed by Instances of like Nature , Gen. 41. 26. The seven good Kine are seven Years , and the seven good Ears are seven Years : that is , they signify and prefigure seven Years of plenty . This Rock prefigured Christ , as he is the true Rock of his People and Church : Its Waters also signified Christ , for as they were the Refreshment and Life of the Israelites in the Wilderness ; so is Christ of the true Israel of God , in the howling Wilderness of this present World. 2. Whereas we are bid at ver . 9. not to tempt Christ , 't is to be noted that the ancient and true reading of this Text is , Let us not tempt God. S. Epiphanius hath left upon record , that it was the Heretick Marcion who corrupted this Text , by putting Christ for God in the Copies by him published , Epiphan . L. 1. T. 3. p. 358. Edit . Petav. But admitting the reading in the English Bibles , yet the sense will be , Let us not tempt ( that is , murmur against ) Christ ; as the Israelites tempted or murmured against God in the Wilderness . That tempting God and Christ is rightly interpreted by murmuring against them , appears by Numb . 14. 27 , 28 , 29. ( 7. ) 1 Cor. 12. 4 , 5 , 6 , 11. There are Diversities of Gifts , but the same Spirit ; — Differences of Administrations , but the same Lord ; — Diversities of Operations , but it is the same God which worketh all in all . — All these worketh that one and the same Spirit . Answ . The plain meaning is , God and his Spirit ; that is , God by his Spirit and Inspiration , worketh that great Diversity of Gifts , ( Prophecy , Tongues , Healing ) which were in the Christians of those times : and that though there are different Administrations ( that is , Orders of Men ) in the Church , yet they are all under one Lord or Head , even Christ . ( 8. ) 2 Cor. 8. 9. Ye know the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , that though he was rich , yet for our sakes he became poor , that we through his Poverty might become rich . Answ . The sense is , Such was the Favour and Love of Christ to Mankind , that in his own Person he set us an Example of Mortification and Self-denial , in his living a poor sort of Life ; though 't is certain he could have lived in the greatest Splendor , Dignity , and Plenty . He that could multiply the Loaves and Fishes , and the Wine at the Wedding of Cana , need not have wanted any of the Comforts of Life ; if for our Sakes ( that we Gentiles might be rich and blessed for ever ) he had not chose to imploy himself in preaching , and making Disciples who might be his Agents in planting the Word of the Gospel over all the World. ( 9. ) 2 Cor. 12. 8 , 9. I besought the Lord thrice , that it might depart from me . — Therefore I will rather glory in my Infirmities , that the Power of Christ may rest on me . Answ . He besought the Lord , that is , he besought God. The Power of Christ here is the Strength or Power which Christ procures , by his general Mediation ( for all his Church , and every Member of it ) with God. So the sense is , that what my Lord Christ can do and procure for me with God , may abide on me , namely Power and Strength either to overcome or bear this Affliction . But note that the Socinians , for the most part of them , do grant that the Word or Power of God abiding on Christ , doth qualify him both to hear our Prayers , and to succour us in all Distresses . ( 10. ) 2 Cor. 13. 14. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , the Love of God , and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you . Answ . 1. This Text demonstrates , that neither the Lord Christ , nor the Holy Spirit are God , for it plainly distinguishes them from God. 2. The sense of the whole Verse is , I wish you the continual Favour and Intercession of Christ ; for you are not unknown to him , seeing the Angels ( of whom he is made King and Head ) signify to him your State and Condition , Rev. 5. 6. Heb. 1. 14. I wish you , as an Effect of Christ's Intercession , the Love of God or the Father : and as the Consequence of that , a plentitiful Communication of God's Holy Spirit or Inspiration , together with all the Effects of it . ( 11. ) Gal. 1. 1 , 12. Paul an Apostle , not of Man , neither by Men , but by Jesus Christ , and God the Father . — I neither received it of Man , neither was I taught it , but by Revelation of Jesus Christ . Answ . As we truely say the Holy Bible is the Word not of Men , but of God ; because though it was spoken and written by Men , yet it proceedeth ( as to the matter of it ) from the Inspiration of , and Direction from God : So Paul rightly denies he is made an Apostle by Man , because he was made one by Jesus Christ , who in all things acted by the Spirit and Directions of God. Briefly , Not of Man , neither by Man in these Verses , is only as much as to say , not by humane Authority , but by Authority from God by the Lord Christ . ( 12. ) Eph. 3. 9. Who created all things by Jesus Christ. Answ . Though the Words might have been rendred , Who created all things for Jesus Christ , ( see on Heb. 1. 2. ) yet the truth is , these Words , by or for Jesus Christ , were not originally in this Text , but added to it . For it appears by the most ancient Greek Copies , and by the Syriac and Latin , as also by several of the Fathers , that the true reading here is only thus , Who created all things . ( 13. ) Phil. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. Let this Mind be in you , which was in Christ Jesus ; who being in the Form of God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with God : But made himself of no Reputation , and took upon him the Form of a Servant . And being found in Fashion as a Man ; he humbled himself and became obedient unto Death , even the Death of the Cross : Wherefore God hath highly exalted him , and given him a Name above every Name . Answ . It cannot be the Design of the former part of these Words , to intimate that Christ is God ; because 't is at last added , that God hath exalted him and given him a Name above every Name ; for these Words plainly distinguish Christ from God , as one who is not himself God , but exalted by God. This and other Considerations , has obliged the more judicious and learned Trinitarians , to interpret this whole Context of Christ , as he is a Man , and to translate somewhat otherways than we have done in the English . They render and interpret the Words thus ; Ver. 5. Let this Mind be in you , that was in Christ Jesus ; i. e. be ye humble and lowly as the Lord Christ was , ver . 3 , 4. Ver. 6. Who being in the Form of God ; i. e. who being made like to God ; and namely by a Communication to him of Divine and miraculous Power over Diseases , Devils , the Grave , the Wind , the Seas , &c. Committed not Robbery by equalling himself to God ; i. e. did not rob God of his Honour , by arrogating to himself to be God , or equal to God. Ver. 7. But made himself of no Reputation ; i. e. chose a poor Life , like a Person of no Reputation or Merit . And took upon him the Form of a Servant ; i. e. became like a Servant ; possessing nothing of his own , and suffering Injuries and Reproaches without making Reply or seeking Revenge . Being a Preacher of Mortification , Humility and Self-denial , he lived up to the height of his Doctrine . Ver. 8. Being made like other Men , in the common Similitude of Man ; he humbled himself , and became obedient unto Death ; i. e. being a Man in all respects like other Men , ( Sin excepted ) he always expressed a great Humility ; and notwithstanding that he could have delivered himself from them , yet was he obedient even to evil Magistrates ; and without Resistance underwent that Death , which their Wickedness and Malice prepared for him . Ver. 9. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him . For this , as well as other causes , he is now by God advanced even above Angels ; the very Angels being put under his Directions . ( 14. ) Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body , that it may be fashioned like to his glorious Body ; according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself . Answ . See on John 6. 44. and on John 5. 19. places parallel to this . ( 15. ) Col. 1. 15. The Image of the invisible God. Heb. 1. 3. The Express Image of his Person . Answ . 1. These Texts are Demonstrations that Christ is not God ; it being simply impossible , that the Image should be the very being or thing whose Image it is . 2. Those that alledg these Texts to prove that Christ is God , forget that St. Paul saith of every Man , that he is the Image and Glory of God , 1 Cor. 11. 7. ( 16. ) Col. 1. 15 , 16. The Image of the invisible God , the first-born of every Creature . For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth . — And he is before all things , and by him all things consist . Answ . 1. Christ is called the first-born of every Creature , not absolutely , as if he was in being before all other Creatures ; but the meaning is , he is the first-born from the dead of all God's Creatures . He is the first that was raised from the dead ( and thus as it were born again into the World ) so as never to die again , but forthwith injoy eternal Life . Thus in this very Context is the first-born explained , ver . 18. He is the Head of the Body the Church , who is the Beginning , the first-born from the dead . 2. These Words , For by him were all things created , &c. are not spoken of Christ , but of God. The sense of the whole Context is this , the Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God , the first-born from the dead of every Creature ; for ( O Colossians ) by him , even by the invisible God , were all things created ; they were not ( as some of your Philosophers have taught you ) from all Eternity , nor ( as others say ) arose from the accidental Concourse of Atoms , but all of them ( whether things in Heaven , or things in Earth ; whether they be Thrones or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers ) are Creatures , and were by God created , who is before them all , and by him they all consist . But he is the Head of the Body the Church , who is the Beginning and first-born from the dead , even the Lord Christ . 3. They observe farther , that the most learned and critical Interpreters of the Trinitarians , do not think that Creation is in this Context ascribed to Christ . They interpret this Context thus , The most Beloved ( so first-born is used by the Hebrews and Hellenists ; Exod. 4. 22. Psal . 89. 27. Jer. 31. 9. ) of every Creature , or the Chief and Head of every Creature . So Camero , Piscator , Deodat , Dally , Vorstius , Davenant , Grotius . For by him were all things modelled , whether they be things in Heaven , or things in Earth , modelled , not created . So of the Ancients , even Athanasius , and St. Cyril , and Fulgentius : So also Alfonsus , Salmero , Arias Montanus , Grotius , and many more . The Lord Christ is said to model ( or order ) all things on Earth , because of the great change he introduced ; abolishing Judaism and Paganism ( the only Religions then in the World ) and introducing Christianity in their stead . He new ordered or modelled the Thrones , Dominions , Principalities , Powers , ( and other Angelick Orders ) in Heaven , in that he became their Head and King ( whereas they were before immediately under God ) and giveth to them from time to time such Orders and Directions as to him seem good , 1 Pet. 3. 22. Rev. 1. 1. Rev. 5. 6. Whereas 't is added at ver . 17. He is before all things : They understand it thus , he is in Worth and Excellence , as well as Dignity and Power , before all other Persons and things ; And by him all things consist ; i. e. By his wise Providence and Government they consist , or fall into no Disorder and Confusion . 4. St. Chrysostom goes away by himself . He understands indeed , ver . 16. of Christ , but he renders it not , for by him were all things created , but thus , the most beloved of every Creature , for for him were all things created that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth , &c. So that the sense here is the same with what is said , Heb. 1. 2. Whom he ( God ) hath appointed Heir of all things ; i. e. All things were originally made with respect to Christ , that they might be subjected one day to him , and he be made Heir or Lord ( under God his Father ) of them . ( 17. ) Col. 2. 3. In him are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg . Answ . 1. The Socinians grant , that in Christ are inestimable Treasures of Wisdom , given to him by God. But , 2. It has been observed by others , that this particular Verse and it s Context should have been thus translated , to the Acknowledgment of the Mystery of God even the Father , and of Christ ; in which ( i. e. in which Mystery ) are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg . ( 18. ) Col. 2. 9. In him dwelleth the Fulness of the Godhead bodily , and ye are compleat in him ; or , ye are filled by him . Answ . 1. 'T is also said , Eph. 3. 9. That ye ( ye Ephesians ) might be filled with all the Fulness of God. And this very Text of the Colossians saith , that the Fulness of God ( or of the Godhead ) is so in Christ , that we are filled by him with the same . Therefore the Fulness of God or of the Godhead here , is the Fulness of the Knowledg of God , or of the Godhead : this dwelt in Christ , and with this he hath filled or compleated us Christians . This Knowledg is said to dwell in Christ bodily , or ( as others translate ) substantially ; in Opposition to that imperfect umbratile and unsincere Knowledg of God , that was to be found in the Philosophy and Philosophers of the Greeks , who in Paul's time were in great Esteem among the Colossians and other Greek Nations and Colonies . This Interpretation is confirmed by ver . 8. and allowed by the most learned and Orthodox Interpreters . ( 19. ) 1 Thess . 3. 11 , 12. God himself and our Father , and our Lord Jesus Christ direct ( in the Greek , prosper ) our way unto you . Answ . Paul wisheth that the Lord Christ may prosper his way ; meaning , by his general Intercession with God for all his Ministers and other Labourers in the Gospel ; as also by his Angels , who are Christ's Agents , sent forth to minister to ( i. e. to protect and help ) those that shall be Heirs of Salvation , Heb. 1. 14. 1 Pet. 3. 22. Rev. 1. 1. Rev. 5. 6. But it is added at ver . 12. of this third to the Colossians , And the Lord make you to encrease and abound in Love. Answ . If these Words are to be understood of Christ ; It must be said that the Lord Christ causeth us to abound in Love , and all other Graces , partly by his Gospel ; partly by his Intercession with him , who is the Giver of every good and perfect Gift , Heb. 7. 25. See also what has been said on Acts 9. 14 , 21. ( 20. ) 2 Thess . 2. 16 , 17. Our Lord Jesus , — comfort your Hearts ; and establish you in every good Word and Work. Answ . See on 1 Thess . 3. 11 , 12. ( 21. ) 1 Tim. 3. 16. Without Controversy , great is the Mystery of Godliness , God was manifest in the Flesh , justified in the Spirit , seen of Angels , — believed on in the World , received up into Glory . Answ . It appears by the Syriac , Latin , Ethiopic , Armenian , Arabic , and most ancient Greek Bibles ; as also by the first Council of Nice , and a great many Citations out of the Fathers both Greek and Latin ; that the Word God was not originally in this Text , but added to it : For they read it thus , Without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness , which was manifest by Flesh , ( that is , by Man , by the Ministry of Men , even Jesus and his Apostles ) justified by the Spirit ; ( i. e. proved by Miracles done by the Spirit or Power of God ) seen of Angels ( i. e. discovered to Angels , who greatly desired to understand this Secret , and the Particulars and Causes of it , Eph. 3. 10 , 11. 1 Pet. 1. 12. ) believed on in the World , received with Glory ; that is , entertained in most places with the greatest Respect and Honour , Gal. 4. 15. Note that the Gospel is here called a Mystery , because it was so long concealed , and so late discovered : and the Mystery of Godliness , from its Effect ; namely , because it disposeth Mens Minds to true Piety and Godliness . Note also that it was Macedonius ( the 2d ) Patriarch of Constantinople , that corrupted this Text by substitution of the word God instead of the word which ; and for this and other matters he was deposed in an Episcopal Council , and banished by the Emperour Anastatius , about the Year 512. But 2. Admitting the word God were truly read in the vulgar Copies of the Greek , yet if you will make sense , you must thus translate and interpret , great is the Mystery of Godliness , God was manifested by Flesh , ( i. e. God's Nature and Will was manifested by Flesh , that is , by Man , by Jesus Christ and his Apostles , to us Gentiles ) was justiby the Spirit , ( i. e. the same Will and Nature of God , was verified by Miracles done by the Spirit or Power of God ) was seen of Angels , ( was known to the Angels , who were very desirous to understand this new Revelation ) believed on in the World , received with Glory or gloriously . ( 22. ) 1 Tim. 6. 14 , 15 , 16. Vntil the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ , which in his time he shall shew , who is the blessed and only Potentate ; — whom no Man hath seen , nor can see . Answ . The last Words shew , that not the Lord Christ , but God is designed in this whole Description . ( 23. ) 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by Inspiration from God. 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost . Answ . The Holy Ghost or Spirit being only the Inspiration and Power of God , it is truly said , that the Scriptures which proceeded from that Inspiration , did proceed from God ; and that those who were acted by that Inspiration , were acted by God. ( 24. ) Titus 2. 13. Looking for the glorious appearing of the great God , and our Saviour Jesus Christ . Answ . 1. Nothing hinders , but that we may believe that not only the Lord Christ , but God himself , will appear at the last Judgment . So that Christ is said to judg the World , because he shall pronounce the Decree and Sentence of God , and order the Angels to execute it . So several of the Fathers understood this Text. 2. But the Truth is , the Words in the Greek are thus , Looking for the appearing of the Glory of the great God , and our Saviour Jesus Christ . Where the Glory of the great God is the Pomp , Power , and Angels that God , even the Father , will cause to accompany the Lord Christ on that Day . Matth. 16. 27. The Son shall appear in the Glory of his Father , with his ( the Fathers ) Angels . ( 25. ) Heb. 1. 2. By whom also he made the Worlds . Answ . Grotius renders the Greek thus , For whom he made the Worlds . The Author ( saith Grotius ) writing to the Hebrews , refers to a Maxim received among them , that the World was made for the Messias . This Translation suits well with what went before , whom he hath appointed Heir of all things : for what can be more agreeable , than that the World should be made for him , who is appointed Heir or Lord of it ? Others render the Words thus , By whom he made the Ages ; understanding hereby , the Gospel-Ages , or Times . ( 26. ) Heb. 1. 3. Vpholding all things by the Word of his Power ; or , governing all things by his Powerful Word . Answ . This is to be understood of God's Word or Power ; not of Christ's , otherways than it was communicated to him by God , and did abide on him . For the whole Context runs thus , Who ( Christ ) being the Brightness of his ( God's ) Glory , and the express Image of his ( God's ) Person , and upholding ( in the Greek , Governing ) all things by his ( God's ) powerful Word . So the sense is , Christ upholds the Government and Order of the Church both in Heaven and Earth , he governs the Angels and Spirits of Heaven , and the Church militant on Earth , by the Word ( i. e. the Power ) of God given to him without measure : See also on John 1. 1 , &c. ( 27. ) Heb. 1. 5. Thou art my Son. Answ . See on Psal . 2. 7. in the second Letter . ( 28. ) Heb. 1. 6. Again when he bringeth the first-begotten into the World , he saith , And let all the Angels of God worship him . Answ . See on Psal . 97. 7. in the second Letter . But as to the word First-begotten or First-born , it doth not belong to Christ only , in all the senses of it . Christ is Almighty God's first-begotten or First-born from the dead ; as was said on Col. 1. 16. but in other respects others also are so called , Israel is Gods First-born , Exod. 4. 22. and David , Psal . 89. 26 , 27. for this Expression in the Hebrew , signifies ordinarily , no more than the most beloved , or much beloved , as is apparent from the Texts last cited , and from Jer. 31. 9. Heb. 11. 17. ( 29. ) Heb. 1. 8. Vnto the Son , he saith , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever . Answ . In the Greek 't is , unto the Son he saith , God is thy Throne ( i. e. thy Seat , Resting-Place , and Establishment ) for ever . So Grotius . ( 30. ) Heb. 1. 10. And thou Lord in the Beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth . Answ . See on Psal . 102. 25. from whence these Words are taken . ( 31. ) Heb. 2. 14. For as much as the Children are partakers of Flesh and Blood , he also himself took part of the same . Answ . The Socinians do not deny , that the Soul of Christ took part in Flesh and Blood , that is , was incarnate ; as his Children , ( that is , his People ) were also Partakers in Flesh and Blood. ( 32. ) Heb. 2. 16. He took not on him the Nature of Angels , but he took on him the Seed of Abraham . Answ . In the Greek , and in the Margin of our Bibles , 't is , He taketh not hold of Angels , ( i. e. he saved not from Ruin , and from utter and final falling into Perdition , the Apostate Angels ) but of the Seed of Abraham he taketh hold ; i. e. he saveth the Seed of Abraham . The Author here mentioneth only the Seed of Abraham , because this Epistle was written only to the Hebrews . Unless perhaps by the Seed of Abraham , he meaneth Abraham's spiritual Seed , all the faithful , all true Believers . ( 33. ) Heb. 3. 3 , 6. He who hath builded the House , hath more Honour than the House . — Christ as a Son over his own House , whose House are we . Answ . The House here is not Mens Bodies , but the Church of Christ ; which ( under God ) he is truly said to build , partly by himself , partly by his Ministers . ( 34. ) Heb. 4. 15 , 16. We have not an High-Priest , which cannot be touched with the Feeling of our Infirmities ; but was in all points tempted as we are . — Let us therefore come boldly unto the Throne of Grace . Answ . We are encouraged here to pray with Assurance and Faith to God , by this Argument or Consideration , that our High-Priest and Intercessor having been in our very Circumstances , is touched with a true Feeling of our Infirmities , and therefore doth with great Earnestnest intercede for us all in general . ( 35. ) Heb. 7. 3. Without Father , without Mother , — having neither Beginning of Days , nor end of Life : but made like unto the Son of God , abideth a Priest for ever . Answ . All acknowledg that these Words are spoken of Melchizedec . And that because neither his Father nor Mother , nor the time of his Birth or Death , are mentioned in Scripture ; he is therefore said to be withour Father or Mother , and without Beginning of Days , or end of Life . But he is not herein like the Son of God ( the time of whose Birth and Death is recorded in Scripture ; and whose Mother was blessed Mary , and his Father the everlasting God ) but he is like the Son of God , in that he abideth a Priest for ever . ( 36. ) Heb. 10. 5. A Body hast thou prepared for me . Answ . 'T is undoubted , that God prepared a Body for the Soul of Christ . ( 37. ) Heb. 11. 26. Esteeming ( i. e. Moses esteeming ) the Reproach of Christ , greater Riches than the Treasures of Egypt . Answ . The sense is , Moses preferred being reproached and ill used by Pharaoh and the Egyptians ( as Christ was reproached and abused , when he came to deliver the true Israel of God , from the Bondage of Sin and Satan ) before all the Treasures and Riches , which he as an adopted Son of Pharaoh's Daughter , might have expected and had in Egypt . So Grotius , and others the most esteemed Interpreters . ( 38. ) Heb. 13. 8. Jesus the same yesterdy , today , and for ever . Answ . This is prefaced to what here follows , be not carried away with diverse and strange Doctrines , as an Argument to perswade Constancy in the true Faith. The sense is , the Lord Christ and his Gospel is the same thing that it always was , be not therefore carried about to every novel Doctrine : Ye will by Experience find , that 't is a good thing to be establish'd in the Grace of the Gospel ; and not in Doctrines about Meats , which the Jews from the Mosaic Law , and the Gentiles from the Dictates of their Philosophers , so much urge . ( 39. ) 1 Pet. 1. 11. Searching what , and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify , when it testified before-hand the Sufferings of Christ. Answ . 1. The Spirit of Christ , that is , the same Spirit of Prophecy that was in Christ . Or 2. The Prophetick Spirit in them which spoke of Christ . So Grotius interprets here . Others confirm his Interpretation by observing , that the Spirit of Truth , and the Spirit of Error mentioned , 1 John 4. 6. are those Spirits which speak the Truth , and teach Error . So we call Virgil the Poet of Eneas , and Homer of Achilles and Vlisses , because they have written and spoken of Eneas , Achilles and Vlisses . ( 40. ) 1 Pet. 3. 19 , 20. Quickned by the Spirit , by which also he went and preached to the Spirits in Prison , which sometimes were disobedient , — in the days of Noah . Answ . This Text seems to speak of Christ's descent into Hell. The sense is , Christ being dead , was shortly quickned , or brought to Life again by the Spirit or Power of God : by which also ( that is , by assistance of which Spirit ) he preached and spoke to the Spirits imprisoned in Hell , who would not harken to Noah who in his Life-time preached Righteousness to them , 2 Pet. 2. 5. Cardinal Bellarmine has quoted above thirty of the Fathers , who interpret this Text after this manner . The Interpretation seems confirmed by 1 Pet. 4. 6. For this cause was the Gospel preached also to them that are dead . For that he speaketh of the real dead , appears by the foregoing verse . ( 41. ) 1 John 1. 1 , &c. That which was from the Beginning , — which we have seen with our Eyes , — of the Word of Life , — declare we unto you , Answ . The Word of Life here is the Gospel . The sense is , we declare or preach to you that Gospel or Word of Life , which from the Beginning was in the Mind and Decree of the Father . So St. John explains himself in these Words at ver . 3. That eternal Life which was with the Father , and was manifested to us . He calleth the Word of Life , eternal Life ; as 't is the ordinary and appointed means and way to eternal Life . He saith , he had heard it , and seen it with his Eyes , and handled it with his Hands ; to signify by these Expressions , that it was fully , certainly , and perfectly known to him . For the Hebrews use to express full and certain Knowledg of things , by Words and Phrases borrowed from the senses . ( 42. ) 1 John 3. 16. Hereby perceive we the Love of God , because he laid down his Life for us . Answ . Neither the Syriac , nor almost any Greek Copy of the Bible , hath the Word God in this Text. The true reading is , hereby perceive we his Love , because he ( Christ ) laid down his Life for us . 2. Admitting the reading in the English Bible , yet he in this Text is not God ; but Christ the Son of God , who was mentioned ver . 8. So Grotius . And the Interpretation is certain , for God cannot lay down his Life . ( 43. ) 1 John 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth not , that Christ is come in the Flesh , is not of God. Answ . This saying , is come in the Flesh , ( or in Flesh , for so 't is in the Greek ) is opposed to those false Prophets and Teachers , that affirmed Christ had not a real Body of Flesh and Blood , but a spiritual ; and consequently was not a true Man , nor the Off-spring of David . On the contrary St. John here teaches that Christ is come in Flesh , or in the Flesh ; that is , was clothed with a real Body of real Flesh . ( 44. ) 1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear Record in Heaven , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , and these three are one . Answ . 1. This verse was not originally in the Bible , but has been added to it . 'T is not found in the most ancient Copies of the Greek , nor in the Syriac , or Arabick , or Ethiopic , or Armenian Bibles , nor in the most ancient Latin Bibles . 'T is not acknowledged by the Fathers , who treated professedly of this Question of the Trinity ; 't is wholly rejected by abundance of the most learned Criticks and Interpreters , and by all acknowledged to be doubtful and uncertain . 2. Admitting this verse to be genuine , yet the most learned Trinitarians confess the sense is , not these three are one God , but these three are one in their Testimony , or they agree in their Testimony ; for they are here considered and spoken of as Witnesses . So Beza , Vatablus , Calvin , Erasmus , the English-Geneva Notes . And accordingly most of the Greek Bibles which have this verse in them , read here as they do in the next verse ( not these three are one ; but ) these three agree in one ; i. e. in one and the same Testimony . ( 45. ) 1 John 5. 20. We know that the Son of God is come , and hath given us an Vnderstanding , that we may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true , even in his Son Jesus Christ : This is the true God. Answ . This was a very negligent Translation , say the Socinians . For whether you interpret him that is true to be God , or to be Christ , no sense can be made of the Words . The latter part of the Text ought to have been thus rendred , We are in him that is true ( i. e. in God ) by his Son Jesus Christ . This is the true God ; i. e. He whose Son Christ is , and in whom we are , he and no other is the true God. So that this Text plainly denies that Christ is the true God. When we are said to be in God by Christ ; the meaning is , we are united to God ( by his Love to us , and ours again to him ) by the Procurement and means of the Lord Christ , who hath by his Gospel revealed God to us , and by the highest Arguments engaged us to love and serve him . ( 46. ) Rev. 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega , — saith the Lord , which is , and which was , &c. Answ . This verse speaks of God only , not of Christ : for at ver . 4. and 5. Christ is distinguished from him , which is , and which was . ( 47. ) Rev. 1. 11. I am Alpha and Omega , the first and the last . Answ . 1. This part of the verse is not in the Latin , nor in any good Greek Bible . 2. But admitting the Words , it has been said on Isai . 44. 6. in the second Letter , in what sense these terms may be used of the Lord Christ . ( 48. ) Rev. 1. 17. I am the first and the last . Answ . See on Isai . 44. 6. ( 49. ) Rev. 2. 23. I am he , which searchesh the Reins and Heart . Every one knows this is an Hebrew and Scripture Phrase , signifying , I know the most secret Thoughts , which is a Property belonging only to God. Answ . The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had or hath , of any ones secret Thoughts , is a Revelation made to him by God ; as it was also sometimes to former Prophets : Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants . 2 Kings 6. 12. The Prophet that is in Israel , telleth the King of Israel , the Words that thou speakest in thy Bedchamber . 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil that thou wilt do to the Children of Israel . Prophets search the Heart , that is , know the Thoughts and Propensions of the Heart , by the Spirit or Inspiration of God in them . But the Lord Christ hath a far greater measure of that Spirit , than any of the former Prophets ever had . ( 50. ) Rev. 3. 14. The Beginning of the Creation of God. Answ . 1. These Words prove that Christ is not God , but a Creature . 2. But the Truth is , the Greek should have been thus rendred , The Prince ( or chief ) of the Creation of God. ( 51. ) Rev. 5. 5. The Root of David . Answ . That is , a Root springing from David : As a Root of the Earth , is a Root which springeth from the Earth ; not on the contrary , a Root from which the Earth springeth . ( 52. ) Rev. 5. 6. I heheld , in the midst of the Throne . — a Lamb ( as it had been slain ) having — seven Eyes , which are the seven Spirits of God , sent forth into all the Earth . Answ . This Text confirms what has been often said , namely that the Knowledg which our Lord Christ now hath of Affairs on Earth , is ( partly ) by means of those ministring Spirits which are sent forth into all the Earth , as his Eyes , to see and relate the state of things : for what other reason can they be here called his Eyes ? ( 53. ) Rev. 5. 8. Having every one of them , — Vials full of Odors , which are the Prayers of the Saints . Answ . In this Vision the Prayers of the Saints are by the Elders ( or Presbyters ) offered to Christ , as the Mediator ; that is , with Intention that he should recommend them to God by his Intercession . But note also , that 't is not here said that these Prayers were at all offer'd to Christ . ( 54. ) Rev. 17. 4. Lord of Lords , and King of Kings . Answ . Christ is so Lord of Lords ; as that himself hath one , who is not only his Lord but his God. John 20. 17. I ascend to my Father and your Father , to my God and your God. ( 55. ) Rev. 21. 6. I am Alpha and Omega . Answ . These Words are spoken by and of God only . ( 56. ) Rev. 22. 20. Even so , come Lord Jesus . Answ . 'T is a Wish , not a Prayer . ( 57. ) Rev. 22. 21. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you . Answ . In what sense the Grace or Favour of Christ is wished to Christians , hath been explained on 1 Cor. 1. 2. and on 2 Cor. 13. 14. Besides these Answers to particular Texts , the Socinians say farther in general to all the Quotations out of the New Testament : that , 1. Whereas they differ from the Church in translating several , and in interpreting all the before-cited Texts ; their Translations and Interpretations ought to be admitted , and those of the Church or Trinitarians rejected , because that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true , which holds forth either a Doctrine or a Consequence that is absurd , or contradictory and impossible . Is it not ( say they ) manifestly contradictory and impossible , that there should be three Almighty and most wise Persons , and yet but one God ; when nothing can be more certain or evident , than that every Almighty and most wise Person is a God , a most perfect God , to whom nothing can be added ? Is it not doubly contradictory and absurd to say , there are three Persons who are severally and each of them the true and most high God , and yet there is but one true and most high God ? Unless you mean one thing by a true and most high God , in the first clause , and another thing in the other clause : and if so , you introduce two sorts of true and most high Gods ; which I think all Christians abhor . We reject the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites ( that God hath humane Parts and Passions ) though grounded , if you regard only the sound of the Words , on a great many clear Texts of Scripture , as may be seen in Mr. Biddles Catechism ; because 't is absurd and impossible , that he who has humane Parts and Passions , and resides in Heaven only , should create and preserve the World , and should be conscious to Mens Thoughts on Earth . What can be more express than this is my Body , yet we justly reject the Doctrine of the Transubstantiation , because 't is contradictory and impossible that the same Body should at the same time be in more places than one . Therefore any other Doctrine , that plainly appears to be absurd and contradictory , ought also to be rejected ; how agreeable soever it may seem to the meer Chime and Jingle of the Words of some few Texts : We are ( as Tertullian rightly saith ) to interpret Scripture , not by the sound of Words , but the Nature of things : Malo ( saith the Father ) te ad sensum rei , quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas . Turtul . adv . Prax. c. 3. 2. They say farther , that none of the objected and above-cited Texts , are by Trinitarians themselves thought to be true and demonstrative Proofs either of the Trinity , or of the Divinity of the Son or Spirit . Every one of these Texts , but John 1. 1 , &c. is given up to the Socinians , as an incompetent and unconcluding Proof , by some or other of the most learned and allowed Criticks and Interpreters of the Protestant Party . As to the Catholick Doctors ( so called ) Chr. Sandius hath made a great Collection of Testimonies out of them , to this Effect , that neither the Trinity , nor the Divinity of the Lord Christ , or of the Holy Spirit , can be proved by the Scripture ; but by Tradition only . Some of them confess that the Scriptures rather favour the Socinian Doctrine ; and that the Trinity is not only above , but contrary to Reason ; finally that if the Authority of the Church did not oblige them to be Catholicks , they should choose to be Socinians . See for these things : Sandius , Hist . Eccl. l. 1. c. de Ario and Cingallus , in Script . Trin. Revel . An English Author of the Romish Persuasion has these Words ( in Fiat . Lux. p. 379 , 380. ) I may truly say , Christ is the Pope's God. For if the Pope had not been , or had not been so vigilant and resolute a Pastor as he is ; ( he means such a Persecutor ) Christ whom the Pope both worships himself , and propounds to the World to worship as the very true God , that made all things , Christ I say had not been taken for any such Person , as this day we believe him to be . Whereas besides the above-cited Texts , the Orthodox object , that if Christ were not God as well as Man , he could not satisfy the Justice of God for our Sins , or be a full and sufficient Atonement for them : The Socinians answer , ( 1. ) That the Lord Christ is a Propitiation and Atonement for Sin , is a Demonstration that he is not God , for God doth not give or make , but receive the Satisfaction for our Sins . ( 2. ) They wonder that the Son of God , though he is a Man only , should not be judged a sufficient Satisfaction and Propitiation for Sin , ( through the gracious Acceptance of God ) when 't is so known and evident , that the Oblation and Sacrifice of Beasts under the Mosaic Law , and from Adam till those times , was accepted as a full Atonement and Satisfaction in order to Forgiveness ; Lev. 6. 6. He shall bring his Trespass-Offering , a Ram without Blemish ; — and the Priest shall make Atonement for him before the Lord , for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing . See the whole Context . Finally , whereas the Orthodox do decline many of the Socinian Arguments , by the Distinction of two Natures ( a Divine and humane Nature ) in Christ : For Example , when the Socinians object , John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I : or , John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self . We answer , that these things are spoken of Christ only according to his humane Nature ; but that he hath also a Divine Nature , by which he is equal to the Father , and can do all things of himself . To this they reply , ( 1. ) That the Distinction of two Natures ( a Divine and Humane ) in Christ , is clearly overthrown by the 8th , 9th , 10th and 11th Arguments mentioned in the the first Letter . 2. If a thing otherways true of Christ , may be denied of him , because 't is only in one of these ( pretended ) Natures , and not in the other ; if our Saviour saith he can do nothing of himself , only because he can do nothing of himself according to his humane Nature , and can do all things of himself according to his ( pretended ) Divine Nature ; then 't is lawful and allowable to say , Christ is no Man , was never born of the Virgin , was not crucified , dead , or buried , did not rise again from the dead , ascended not into Heaven , under pretence that according to his Divine Nature , he never was born of the Virgin , never was crucified , dead , or buried , &c. Now who does not see , that to speak thus , were to deny the whole New Testament , and renounce Christianity ? Have not we ( say the Socinians ) reason to reject and abhor a Distinction , that if it incommodes our Doctrine , and the Allegations for it , does as effectually fight against the most evident and acknowledg'd Points of the Christian Faith ? Nay the Distinction and Evasions founded on it , do at least as much hurt to the Trinitarians as to the Socinians . For if the Distinction of two Natures be true ; and the Answers founded on it allowable ; then no Fault can be found with a Socinian , when he shall say , Christ is not true God , was not generated of the Essence of the Father , was not from Eternity : for all this may be said of him according ( to use their own Words ) his humane Nature ; for according to that , he is not true God , was not generated of the Fathers Essence , was not from Eternity . Do not Trinitarians absolutely disallow , as false and Heretical , these Forms of Speech , though defended by the Distinction of the two Natures ? why then do they expect , that their Adversaries in this Controversy , should admit their Answers which are founded on the same , and no other Defence ? This , Sir , is the Sum of what these Gentlemen say on this great Question ; a Brief of their Arguments and Answers , by which they would support their Doctrine , that God is but one Person ; and that ( as some of them add ) our Lord Christ nor the Holy Spirit , neither are , nor ever are called Gods or God in Holy Scripture , as also that neither Creation ( whether New or Old ) nor any of the Attributes of God are ascribed to our Blessed Saviour . For a Conclusion , give me leave to advise you in the Words of St. Paul , 1 Thess . 5. 21. Prove all things , hold fast that which is good . SIR , I am Your most Obliged . The Publisher to whom the foregoing Letters were written , having left them some time with a Gentleman , a Person of excellent Learning and Worth ; they were returned to him with this following Letter . SIR , HAving had the Favour of perusing these Letters , I cannot but greatly esteem the Learning and Judgment of the Author ; who has brought so large a Controversy ( and that has been debated with the utmost Industry , Learning , and Subtilty for many hundred Years , even from soon after the time of the Apostles ) into so small a Compass , that one may soon see the Allegations from Scripture on both sides , with the most material Distinctions and Answers . Wherein it seems obvious to me , what is said in one of the Paragraphs of the first Letter , that the Vnitarian Doctrine is an accountable and reasonable Faith , grounded on clear and evident Scripture-Arguments , so far as a negative Proposition can reasonably be expected to be : Whereas the Trinitarian Doctrine is founded upon obscure or mistaken Texts ; and defended by such unreasonable Distinctions , as cannot be admitted by any Man of a free Judgment , being either contradictory in themselves , or utterly unintelligible . However I can do no less than conclude , and expect every judicious Man's Assent to it ; 1. That the Doctrine of the Trinitarians is no necessary or fundamental Doctrine of Christianity . 2. That 't is unjust and unchristian , to lay the Vnitarians or Socinians under any Penalties or Forfeitures , upon the account of their Doctrine . 3. That Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians for Christian Brethren , and behave themselves towards them as such . First , I said the Doctrine of the Trinitarians is no necessary or fundamental Doctrine of Christianity . For to say , it is , doth , 1. Reflect upon the Goodness of God , and his Love to Mankind : as making that fundamental and necessary to Salvation , the Truth whereof must be confessed to be so very obscure and uncertain , that where the Prejudices of Education , Respect of Men , and Fear of Penalties do not prevail , the vulgar ( who are ten to one of Mankind ) either do not believe it at all , or confess it as Parrots speak Words without Understanding . 2. To make the Doctrine of the Trinity fundamental , is to joyn Hands with Papists in contradiction to Protestant Doctrine ; owning with them that the Scriptures are obscure and unsufficient even in Fundamentals : and so bringing in a necessity of admitting and believing unscriptural Traditions . Of this the Papists are so sensible , that it is the chief of those Arguments with which they attack Protestants ; and which they urge in their former and latter Writings : wherein they not only seem to have , but have in reality great Advantage ; as will ( I am perswaded ) appear to those that impartially consider it . It will not be here impertinent to tell you a story that hapned in the present Reign . A certain great Lord was assaulted in his Faith by a Jesuit or other Seminary , who began with him thus ; My Lord , I know you believe the Creed of Athanasius : to which the Lord ( wisely perceiving what he would build upon that Concession ) answer'd , Who told you so ? which quick Answer by Question , did so surprize and disappoint the Seminary , that he had no more to say . It seems his intended Arguments leaned on that Pillar alone , to wit , the Belief of the Creed commonly called the Athanasian . 3. The Trinitarian Doctrine reflects Weakness and Unsufficiency upon the whole Christian Church and Faith of the first Ages ; which ( as our Author has noted ) knew or professed no other but the Apostles Creed , which doth fully agree with the Vnitarian or Socinian , but by no means with the Trinitarian Doctrine of fundamental Faith. 4. They that urge the Doctrine of the Trinity as fundamental , do clearly impugn the sixth Article of the Church of England , which saith , Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation : So that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any Man , that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith. Such also was the Judgment of Mr. Chillingworth , that eminent Defender of Protestantism , ch . 6. n. 56. where he saith , By the Religion of Protestants , I understand — that wherein they all agree . — THE BIBLE , THE BIBLE , I say , THE BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants . Whatever else they believe besides it , and the plain irrefragable and indubitable Consequences of it , well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion ; but not as a matter of Faith or Religion : neither can they with Consistence to their own Grounds , believe it themselves ; nor require the Belief of it from others , without most high and most scismatical Presumption . Secondly , I said , it follows from the foregoing Discourses , that it is unjust and unchristian , to lay the Vnitarians or Socinians under any Penal Laws or other Hardships , on the account of their Conscience and Doctrine . For we may see here , that an honest and sincere Man may in the Pursuit of his own Salvation , and in adhering to Protestant Principles of the Clearness and Sufficiency of Scripture in Fundamentals , as also in reverence of the ancient Faith held forth in the Apostolick Creed , and of the Church of the first Ages , he may ( I say ) with clear Satisfaction in his own Conscience , disbelieve the Trinitarian Doctrine . But how can Christians with Satisfaction to their Consciences punish such a Man ? As for the publick Peace , there is not only nothing in the Nature of their Doctrine that inclines them to Unpeaceableness ; but they have also always been extremely candid to those that differ from them , from a Principle common ( I think ) to them and the Remonstrants only , that Conscience ought to be free in matters of Faith : This is a Principle with the Socinians and the Remonstrants ; other Families of Christians take it up as an expedient , when they have need of it . Briefly , If the Socinians appear to be as careful and diligent to know the Truth , as Athanasians ; if they are in their Stations as learned as they , and as innocent and virtuous Men in their Conversations ; how can any Christian judg and condemn them , without incurring our Saviour's Judgment and Condemnation ? He that believes the whole Bible heartily ; and indeavours sincerely to know the Mind of God and Christ therein , and to purge himself from those carnal Affections and worldly Interests that hinder Men from seeing and obeying the Truth ; and ( perhaps ) as a Testimony thereof , suffers the Loss of Advantages , and Goods , Kinsfolk , and Country , nay , undergoes Penury and other Hardships in foreign Countries , as many do at this Day ; how can any who pretend to give Obedience to the Law of common Reason , of Moses and the Prophets , and of Christ himself in his Sermon on the Mount , to wit , of doing to others as we would they should do to us , how I say can such think a Socinian so qualified as we have but now described him , doth deserve Punishment for his Faith ? And how can any Man , without transgressing Christ's Law of Charity , judge such a one to be guilty without any Appearance of Guilt , more than may be easily seen in himself ? Is it not the common Principle of all Protestants , to believe the Holy Scriptures are sufficient to all Religion , and clear in all Necessaries of Faith and Manners , and that every Man is obliged by our Lord Christ , to believe and practise according to his own Knowledg , Light and Understanding of the Scriptures ? He that does so , is not only a Christian , but a Protestant , that is , a reformed Christian . I am fully assured ( says Mr. Chillingworth , and consequently those learned Persons , the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford , the Regius Professor , and others who licensed and approved his Book ) that God does not , and therefore Men ought not , require more of any Man than this , to believe the Scripture to be God's Word , to endeavour to find the true sense of it , and to live according to it , ch . 6. n. 56. The same Author says ( ch . 5. n. 96. ) I have learnt from the ancient Fathers , that nothing is more against Religion , than to force Religion : and of St. Paul , that the Weapons of the Christian Warfare are not carnal . The famous Salvian of Marseils ( who wrote about the Year of our Lord 460 ) saith thus concerning one sort of Vnitarians , viz. Arians , They are Hereticks , but not knowingly : — They do so much judg themselves Catholicks , that they defame us with the Name of Hereticks : — They err , but with a good Mind ; not of Hatred , but of the Love of God. — How they shall be punish'd in the Day of Judgment for this Error of a false Opinion , none can know but the Judg. De Gubern . Dei. l. 5. where may be read more to the same purpose . Though this Author , according to the Vogue of Those times , calleth the Arians Hereticks ; yet that which he says farther of them , shows they were not so : for the Character he gives of them , shews them to be conscientious Christians ; and Lovers of God. St. Austin against the Manichees ( a sort of People that held there were two Gods , one good , the other evil ) saith thus , Let them be fierce against you , who know not how laborious a thing it is to find out the Truth ; and how difficultly we escape Errors : Let them be fierce against you , who know not how rare and hard a thing it is to overcome carnal Imaginations by the Serenity of a pious Mind , &c. Contr. Ep. Fausti . Thirdly , I added , that the Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians for Christian Brethren , and to behave themselves towards them as such . For Protestants do agree , that all necessary and fundamental matters of Faith are clear and plain in Scripture ; but other matters not so evident , but that good Christians may err concerning them , as we see they did even in the times of the Apostles : now this Doctrine of the Trinitarians appearing to be no fundamental Doctrine , it does by no means unchristian those that hold the contrary , nor excuse the Trinitarians from those Offices , which are due to them as Christians . And the rather , because they are not only willing to make Confession of Faith in all the forms of Words contained in the Holy Scripture , but in the Words also of the Apostles Creed ; as also because they are not liable to any charge of Idolatry , or Superstition in their Worship ; or of Uncharitableness in condemning those of contrary Minds , as the Confederacy of Rome is . Therefore I cannot but wonder at some learned Men , that are so far carried away with an overweaning Opinion of their own Judgment , that they will not allow those the name of Christians who do not believe , besides the Bible , and the Creed of the Apostles , also the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds . Nay , some account the Trinitarian Doctrines to be so necessary to Christianity , that though those who deny them be otherways very pious and useful Men , yet going against the sense of the Catholick Church , they err , not for want of Instruction , but from a certain Wantonness and Pride of Vnderstanding , and are guilty of such unpardonable Immodesty as admits of no Excuse . If what is hinted in these Letters , concerning the Catholick Church of the Apostles times and first Ages , be true ; then that Author builds his Condemnation upon a false and rotten Foundation , and the Building falling , impresses , Rashness , and Uncharitableness upon himself ; I mean as to this particular Case , for otherways I readily acknowledg the Worth and Learning of the Author . Neither can I sufficiently admire , that another learned Man , and a Sufferer for his Conscience , should in a Pacifick Discourse treat the Socinians in the same contumelious manner , not allowing them worthy of the Name of Christians , because they go about ( saith he ) to overthrow the whole frame of the Christian Doctrine , by arrogant Presumptions of false Reasonings and Sophistical Arguments . Yea , it is commonly objected against them , that they exalt their Reasonings above plain and express Revelation in Scripture . Which Crimination seems to me , to be clearly taken away by the four Letters , in which it appears , by the many Unconcluding Texts , false Translations , unintelligible Reasonings and Distinctions , cited and urged on the Behalf of the Trinitarian Doctrine ; and on the other hand , by the numerous clear Texts , allowed Translations , Reasonings and Distinctions , common to Mankind , produced by the Vnitarians ; that these last may reasonably retort this great Objection , on their Opposites the Trinitarians , who in a thousand express Texts of Scripture do exalt their Reasonings to maintain another sense than the plain Words require . For one Instance , how many express Texts ascribe Parts and Members , Affections and Passions , Shape and Figure , Place and Circumscription to God ? all which ( as the Author of these Letters notes ) are otherways expounded by learned Men , because they judg these things in reason unsuitable to God. But what Principle more clear both in Reason and Scripture than this , that there is but one God , or that God is one ? All Christians , and all Jews , and all Mahometans ( who are said to be more in Number than Christians ) besides the wise Heathens , do acknowledg it : and all these understand by the term God , a necessary existent Person . Upon these clear Grounds the Vnitarians deny that there are three such , as contrary to that Unity ; and introducing into the Godhead two unnecessary or superfluous Persons . For if one be sufficient , and he cannot be God if he be not sufficient , then the two more are supernumerary and unnecessary , and consequently not God. For my own part I was bred up in the Trinitarian Faith , and took the Truth of it for granted ; but when these Scriptures and Reasons came into my View , ( and I had got over the Fear of examining , what some Men who name themselves the Church , call Fundamentals ) I conld not avoid the Force of them : though it grieves me that I cannot continue in consent with my old Friends , as well in this as other parts of Christian Doctrine . But certainly as in Philosophy , Truth should be more dear to us than Plato or Socrates ; so in Theology , the Testimony of plain Scripture agreeing with evident Reason , should prevail with those who believe the Scriptures Divine , more than obscure Texts dissonant to the clear Reason of Mankind . And it may well allay any ones Fear of examining and judging concerning ( pretended ) Fundamentals , when he shall consider that even the Church of England in another of her Articles says , that as the Church of Jerusalem , Alexandria , and Antioch have errred , so also the Church of Rome ( which contends that she is the Catholick Church ) hath erred , not only in her living and manner of Ceremonies , but also in matter of Faith. So also Chillingworth ( with his Approvers ) says , I see plainly and with mine own Eyes , that there are Popes against Popes , Councils against Councils ; some Fathers against others , the same Fathers against themselves ; a consent of Fathers of one Age , against a consent of Fathers of another Age. — There is no sufficient Certainty but in the Scripture only , for any considering Man to build upon . As to the boast of their Numbers , 't is well known there was a time when the Christian World was Arian , that is Vnitarian ; so that the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia in which 560 Bishops were present ( the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was ) decreed for the Vnitarian Faith. Was number in those times an Argument of Truth ? If not , how can it be so now ? The Author of these Letters has well observed besides , that the Doctrine of the Trinitarians in these days , is widely different from the Doctrine decreed in the first Council of Nice ; from whence I infer , that their Boast of Antiquity is as vain as the other of Number . I will only add to this Observation , that though the more ancient and the modern Trinitarians may agree in terms , yet those times and these have different senses of the same Words and Phrases . SIR , I pray accept of my hearty Thanks for this Publication , and shew the Author how great an Honour I have for him . I am Yours , &c. FINIS . 
A23823	----	A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity 1691 Approx. 225 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 28 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A23823 Wing A1219 ESTC R211860 12637930 ocm 12637930 64942 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A23823) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64942) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 340:7) A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717. [1], 55 p. [s.n.], London : 1691. Has been incorrectly attributed to Pierre Allix. Cf. BM. This item also appears at reel 344:13 as part of: The faith of one God. London, 1691 (Wing F258B). Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. -- Brief history of the Unitarians. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity. Unitarianism -- Early works to 1800. 2006-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-03 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-06 Derek Lee Sampled and proofread 2006-06 Derek Lee Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DEFENCE OF THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS , Against Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER IN HIS VINDICATION OF THE Holy Trinity . LONDON : Printed in the Year , M. DC . XCI . OBSERVATIONS On Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER TO THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS . CHAP. I. Containing some General Observations . WHen I see Men arguing against the Trinity ; methinks I hear a Papist inveighing against Luther or Calvin , for questioning the Truth of Transubstantiation . Indeed it appears to me very strange , that Protestants should stand to the Principles of the Reformation , only when they serve their turn ; and that they should be ready to part with them , when they are not otherways able to defend a particular Opinion . It cannot be denied , that the Christian Church in succeeding Ages fell short of her first Purity , in respect of Doctrine as well as Manners . Now what other Remedy could be applied to such a Depravation , than a sincere and careful Examination of the Points suspected of Falshood , according to Reason and Scripture ? This proved so effectual a Course ; that Transubstantiation , and some other Canonized Opinions were found to be meer Human Inventions , and accordingly were rejected as contrary to the two above-mentioned Rules . And who can assure us , that the Reformation left no Error behind ; and that the Trinity is such an Opinion , as ought neither to be doubted of , nor to be reformed ? Shall we trust Men , barely on their Word ? Or was it impossible that the Trinity should creep into the Church , as well as several other false Opinions ? Our Principles therefore allow us to examine it ; and to inquire , whether it be founded on undeniable Arguments : especially being of such a nature that it contradicts Reason ; and by confession of all Trinitarians , is no where set down in Holy Scripture in express Words . Why should Men call us Hereticks and Libertines , because we inquire after Truth ; and will have our Faith built upon a solid Foundation ? Was the Reformation so proper to Luther and Calvin , &c. that it ought no more to be thought of ? Or were those Reformers so infallible , that they purged the Church from all Errors ? This I think would be an hard matter to prove . Let therefore no Protestant be scandalized ; if having some Scruples about the Trinity , we endeavour to free our selves from them , by a sincere inquiry into the Grounds of it . I begin with Reason ; and find that the belief of a Trinity does contradict it , as much as Transubstantiation ▪ According to Transubstantiation , the same Numerical Body may be in a Million of different places at the same time . According to the Trinity , three Divine Persons , that is to say , three Intelligent Infinite Beings , each of which is God , make but one God. I cannot believe the First ; because Reason teaches me , that one Numerical Body can occupy or be in but one place at one time . I cannot believe the other ; because Reason tells me , that Three are Three , and not One : and that it implies no less a Contradiction , that Three Divine Persons should be but One God ; than that one Body be a Million . Now who should not scruple an Opinion , perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation ; and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions ? I come in the second place to examine ; Whether the Trinity be well grounded in Scripture ? Indeed Three are there mentioned ; the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : but how came Men to fancy , that they Three are but One God ? Who taught 'em so ? Does the Holy Scripture plainly say ; that there is but one God , yet there are Three Persons , Father , Son , and Holy Spirit in the Godhead ? One would think indeed , that such a Mystery , and so necessary in order to Salvation , were set down in Scripture in plain or express Words . But the Scripture is perfectly silent about it : there is not a Word to be found in the Bible , of Three Hypostases or Persons in the Godhead . The Father is in a thousand places called God , distinctly from the Son ; nay the only true God. The Holy Ghost is no where stiled God. And the Son is so called in a few places , as it were by the way , and in such manner as plainly shows , that the Title [ God ] is bestowed on him , upon the same account as upon Moses , even because of the Dignity and Power , to which he was exalted by the Father's Liberality . Indeed it can have no other meaning . The Holy Scripture teaches us , that there is but one God , the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . But if so ; How can the Son be that one God , the Father ? Of this we are sure , by the whole tenor of the Gospel , that Christ was a Man. The Gospel is nothing else but the History of Christ's Birth , Life , Death , Resurrection , and Ascension into Heaven . Who would have thought , that a Man should be accounted the Supream God , without any such intimation from Scripture , nay against the whole current of it ? We find in the Gospel , that there is one God , the Father of our Lord Christ ; one Son of God , sent into the World to be the Revealer of his Father's Will , and a Mediator between God and Man , even Christ ; and one Holy Ghost , who distributes and works all sorts of Miraculous Gifts , for the confirmation of the Gospel . The Father of Christ is the One true God ; Christ is only his Minister and Interpreter ; the Holy Ghost ( whether it be God's Power , or his ministring Angel , or Angels ) the Instrument which he makes use of to work Miracles . None certainly but Men blinded or prejudiced could think , that God's Minister and Ambassador were God himself ; and that two so opposite Beings as God and Christ , should be one and the same Thing . It is just as if one should say , there is one King William ; and one Vice-Roy in Ireland , the Lord Sidney ; and the Vice-Roy is that one King William . Indeed this is a Doctrine so unreasonable and contradictions , and so opposite to Holy Scripture ; that I think , had there been no such thing as Platonick Philosophy , the Trinity should never have been heard of . I desire therefore the Trinitarians , to abate a little of their Confidence : Let them examine with an unprejudiced Mind , upon what Foundations they build the belief of a Trinity ; and they will soon perceive how weak and frail it is . Let them at last confess , that the Scripture does not threaten eternal Damnation to those who disbelieve a Trinity : And then , if themselves won't part with their darling Opinion ; let them abstain from persecuting others . Thirdly , Trinitarians lay so much stress upon the Tradition of the Church concerning the Trinity , that I think it worth while to undeceive them ; by shewing , that there never was so great a Variation in the Church , as about this Point . I shall divide into three Periods all the Ages of the Church . The First reaches to the Council of Nice : The Second from the Council of Nice , to the Schoolmen : And the Third from the Schoolmen , to our time . And one that is never so little acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the three first Centuries , cannot deny , if he be but sincere ; that those Fathers follow the Ideas of Plato concerning the three Principles , and therefore speak rather like Arians than Orthodox . They tell us , that the Son and Holy Ghost have each of them his own Nature and Essence , whereby they are distinguish'd from each other ; and that the Son is subordinate and inferior to the Father , both in Nature and Power ; as likewise the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son. If any one desires to see some undeniable Proofs of what I assert , I refer him to the Quaternio of Curcellaeus , whereby he will be fully satisfied . The succeeding Fathers finding fault with this Notion , brought into the World a new Interpretation of the three Principles . They won't have them to be subordinate , but equal both in Nature and Power . However they acknowledg them to be three Essences , or Collateral Beings . If you ask them , how they can avoid admitting a Plurality of Gods ? They will answer , That those three Beings are but one God , as Peter , James and John , are but one Man. If you deny that Peter , James and John , are but one Man ; they will tell you , that you are mistaken ; because in Propriety of Speech , this term Man ought not to signify an Individual , as Peter , or James , or John ; but a specifical Nature common to them all ; so that thô they be three Individuals , or three Persons ; yet they are but one Man , being Partakers of the same specifical common Nature . This they apply to their three Principles : They are indeed ( say they ) three Hypostases or Persons , yet they are but one God : This term God denoting not an Individual Hypostasis , but a Nature common to the three Persons of the Trinity , whereby thô they are three , yet they are said to be but one God. Thus they made shift , as well as they could . It was indeed a very unsufficient way of explaining the Unity of God , and did by no means resolve the difficulty . They made an abstract specifical God , ( as the Heathens might equally have done ) but there were still three Individual or Numerical Gods ; as Peter , James and John , may be said to be by Abstraction one specifical Man , because they have the same specifical Nature ; but however they are still three Individual Numerical Men. Therefore the Schoolmen disliking this Notion , as favouring Polytheism , found out a new one more agreeable ( as they thought ) to the Unity of God. They won't have the three Persons of the Trinity to have each of them his own Essence and Nature . No , this too plainly destroys the Unity of God. There is , say they , but one Divine Essence . Right ! but then they must not part with three Persons of the Trinity : Therefore , what are those three Persons ? They are Three Subsistences ; Three Modes ; Three Relations ; Three I know not what 's . This is meer Nonsense : for a Person is an Intelligent Being , and Three Persons must needs be Three Intelligent Beings . So true it is , that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead ( if he takes the Word in its proper sense ) must admit Three Gods : Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid , who says they are Three distinct Minds , Three substantial Beings , Three intelligent Beings ; therefore unavoidably Three Gods. Now is it fair to boast so much of the Tradition concerning the Trinity , as if it had been constant and unalterable in all the Ages of the Church , when the contrary appears to any sincere Reader ? The Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice , speak , like Platonic Philosophers and Arians ; the Nicene Fathers like Tritheists ; and the School-men like Mad-men . Where now is that unchangeable Tradition , so much cried up ? Considering the ridiculousness of those Men , who in their respective Ages set up new Notions of the Trinity ; I am apt to say , contrary to Averroes his Wish , Let not my Soul be with the Philosophers . To conclude this Chapter , those great Boasters of the ( pretended ) Tradition , should do well to apply themselves to the confuting the Quaternio of Curcellaeus before mentioned ; which when they have fully and truly performed , we may perhaps begin to think of parting with Tradition , which indeed is not the Foundation whereon we build our Faith , Knowing only the Scriptures which are able to make wise unto Salvation . CHAP. II. Containing an Examination of the Doctor 's Answers , to the Arguments against the Trinity in the History of the Unitarians . HAving premised this general Observation ; I come to examine , what Answer the Doctor returns to the Arguments alledged against the Trinity , by the Author of the Brief History of the Vnitarians . But I must first consider his Reflections , concerning the use of Reason in expounding Scripture . This is ( saith he ) an Impudent Argument , which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings , to say , such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture , because it implies a Contradiction ; whereas a modest Man would first inquire , whether it be in Scripture or not ; and if it he plainly contained there , he would conclude , how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him , that yet there is no Contradiction in it , because it is taught in Scripture . p. 141. But is this Impudence , to say , Transubstantiation cannot be contained in Scripture , because it implies a Contradiction ? I hope not . Well then , if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation ; why can't we say , that it cannot be contained in Scripture ? We say , Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture , because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason ; but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason ; why shan't we be allowed to say , that it cannot be contained in Scripture ? I think both Consequences are right . But saith the Author , A modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not ? But we have already made such an Inquiry , and cannot find the Trinity in Scripture . We never could read there , that there are Three Persons in one Numerical God. Indeed , how could we ? We might as well find there , that the Bread of the Sacrament is Transubstantiated into Christ's Body . But he goes on ; And if it be plainly contained there , he should conclude , how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him , that yet there is no Contradiction in it , because it is taught in Scripture . I beg the Author's pardon ; there is a vast difference , between Vnintelligible and Contradictions . He should not have said , How Unintelligible soever , but how Contradictions soever : And thus his Words ought to run ; He should conclude , how Contradictions soever it appeared to him , that yet there is no Contradiction in it , because it is taught by Scripture . I perceive , the Author found it too harsh to say that , how Contradictions soever a thing appears to be , that yet there is no Contradiction in it , because it is taught by Scripture ; and therefore he puts the word Vnintelligible , instead of the word Contradictions . In effect , we do not say , that every Unintelligible Thing contained in Scripture , is a Contradiction . We acknowledg , the Resurrection plainly set down in Scripture , does imply no Contradiction , how Unintelligible soever it be ; because we do very clearly conceive , that God is able to raise our dead Bodies . We don't apprehend the manner of this Resurrection ; how it shall be performed , is a thing Unintelligible to us ; but however 't is altogether free from a Contradiction . Were the Trinity as clearly set down in Scripture , and as free from Contradiction ; we would not disbelieve it , how Unintelligible soever it appeared to us , no more than we disbelieve the Resurrection . But the Trinity being not only Unintelligible , but Contradictions ; we deny it is taught in Scripture , which is altogether free from Contradiction . Let us hear the Author a little farther ; We must not indeed ( saith he ) expound Scripture contrary to common Sense , and to the common Reason of Mankind , in such Matters as every Man knows , and every Man can judge of ; but in Matters of pure Revelation , which we have no natural Idea of , and know nothing of them but what is revealed ; we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions , to reject the plain and express Authority of Revelation . For 't is impossible to know , what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things , whose Natures we do not understand . We must not indeed expound Scripture , contrary to common Sense , and the common Reason of Mankind , in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of . I grant it ; but what if the Trinity doth contradict the common Reason of Mankind ; and is of such a Nature as every Man knows , and every Man can judge of ? Then certainly it cannot be contained in Scripture , according to this Author himself . Indeed we cannot fathom the Essence of an infinite Being , no more than ( as this Author saith ) the Essence of any created Being ; yet as we have a distinct knowledg of some Properties of a Finite Being , so we have a clear Apprehension of the Attributes of God. We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three ; we are most certain , that One is not Three , and that Three are not One. The most simple Men have a clear Apprehension of those two Numbers , and therefore are able to judge of them . Now the Scripture plainly tells us , that there is but One God ; and every one knows that One God is One Intelligent Infinite Person , and therefore cannot be Three such Persons . He that has an Idea of One , and an Idea of Three , must needs perceive that it implies a Contradiction , that One be Three , and Three One ; that one God be Three Intelligent Infinite Persons or Beings , and Three Intelligent Infinite Beings One God ; This every one can judge of . Therefore we must not expound Scripture ( saith the Author ) contrary to common Sense , and the common Reason of Mankind ; in such Matters as every Man knows , and every Man can judge of : Therefore ( say I ) all being capable of judging , whether One may be Three , and Three One ; and finding it a plain Contradiction to the common Reason of Mankind ; all may be assured , that it cannot be contained in Scripture . But ( saith the Author ) in Matters of pure Revelation , which we have no natural Idea of , and know nothing of 'em but what is revealed ; we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions , to reject the plain and express Authority of Scripture and Revelation ; for it is impossible to know , what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things , whose Natures we do not understand . Now what does the Author mean by the plain and express Authority of Revelation ? Does he mean , that he has found somewhere in Scripture in plain and express Words , that there are Three Persons in one Divine Nature or Godhead ? If it be so , let him shew us it . I doubt he calls plain and express Authority , some false Consequences , which he is pleased to draw from Scripture , and which none but prejudiced Men would ever think of . I wish we could shew a Chinese , the Gospel well translated into his own Language ; and ask him , after a serious reading of it , what he thought Christ to be ? It is very likely , I think , that he would not take him to be the supream God ; and if any Man should tell him , he had overseen so great a Mystery ; he would undoubtedly answer , that he is sure there is no such thing in the Gospel which he read , unless there he another Gospel wherein such a Notion is contained . I confess there are some Matters of Revelation , which we have no natural Idea of ; and know nothing of them but what is revealed ; such is the Resurrection of the Dead : But then those Matters imply no Contradiction , and therefore ought not to be rejected . This first ( the Resurrection ) may be discovered to us by the Light of Revelation ; and discovering no Contradiction in it , we ought to believe it . The second ( the Trinity ) clashing altogether with our natural Ideas , can be no Matter of Revelation , and therefore ought not to be believed . The Resurrection is such a Thing , as we could never have discovered by the Light of Nature ; yet as soon as we come to know it , we assent to it , because we clearly perceive the Possibility thereof , and are sure it implies no Contradiction at all : but it is not so with the Trinity ; such a Mystery can never be revealed to us , because Revelation cannot be contrary to Reason ; and therefore the Trinity being contrary to this , cannot be the Matter of that . God indeed may reveal to us such Objects , as are unknown to Humane Reason ; but let them be never so much above our Reason , they will never contradict it . It is impossible to know , what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things , whose Natures we do not understand . Right ! But we know so much of the Nature of God , that He is One , and not Three ; and this is sufficient to show that the Trinity is a Contradiction to the Nature of God. What I say , is so clear and so notorious a Truth , that the Author himself is forced to acknowledg it ; He saith , p. 147. We must not expound Scripture to such a Sense , as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of natural Reason : For though God reveals such Things to us , as natural Reason could not discover , and cannot comprehend ; yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason ; for Truth cannot contradict it self ; what is true in Revelation , can never be false in Reason ; and what is true by natural Reason , can never be false in Revelation . All this he grants , only he saith , that we must be sure there is such a Contradiction ; it must be evident and express , and not made out by uncertain Consequences , which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things , but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge . This I grant too ; But the Author won't allow the Trinity to be such a Contradiction ; and endeavours to prove it : Let us hear him . He soon perceives the difficulty , and therefore brings it in by way of an Objection . Yes , you 'l say , that there should be Three Persons , each of which is God , and yet but One God , is a Contradiction . But what Principle of natural Reason does it contradict ? Reason tells us , that Three Gods cannot be One God ; but does Reason tell us , that Three Divine Persons cannot be One God ? If my Reason be like other Mens , I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it , does neither affirm nor deny it . Is not this an admirable Argument , which consists only in an Interrogation , and in a meer denial of the difficulty proposed in the Objection ? What Principle of natural Reason does it contradict ? Does Reason tell us , that Three Divine Persons cannot be one God ? Here is the Interrogation or Query . To which I answer ; Yes , it does contradict a plain Principle of natural Reason , even this , that Three cannot be One. If my Reason be like other Mens , I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it , doth neither affirm nor deny it . Here is a meer denial of the difficulty : I judge the Author's Reason must needs be very weak and corrupted , seeing it likes well this falshood , that Three are One ; and finds no fault with it . Those unquestionably have a better sight , and a more sound Reason , who discern , it implies a Contradiction , that Three be but One ; because they perceive and acknowledg that Three is three times One , and therefore cannot be only once One. Well ( saith the Doctor , pleading for his Adversaries ) if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons , each of which is God , we must believe Three distinct Gods. I hope not , when we profess to believe but One God : Yes , whatever we profess to believe , Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods. Now this we deny , and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so . Natural Reason teaches Nothing about the Personality of the Godhead : it teaches One God , but whether this One God be One or Three Persons , it says not , and therefore He may be either , without contradicting the natural Notions we have of One God ; and then there is free scope for Revelation ; and if Revelation teaches there is but One God , and that there are Three Divine Persons , each of which hath ( in Scripture ) not only the Title , but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to him , then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity , Three Persons and one God. For what the Scripture affirms , and Reason does not deny , is a proper Object of our Faith ; and then this Objection against this Faith , that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods , if each of them be God , is sensless and ridiculous . I have transcribed this whole Paragraph , because it deserves some particular Reflection . 1. I observe , that it contains no positive Proofs , but a meer denial . The Author is extreamly confident and bold ; and yet all his reasonings may be resolved into I hope not , and this we deny . Indeed this is a very short way of answering Objections ; and as easy as to burn Books that are unanswerable . There lies an Objection cross in his way , that if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons , we must believe Three distinct Gods. To this he answers , I hope not , when we profess to believe but one God. Is this a direct Confutation ? must we be satisfied with such an Answer : because Trinitarians profess that Three Divine Persons are but one God ; does it follow , that it is true , and cannot be doubted of ? He hopes not , and he denies it , therein lies the strength of his Argument and Answer . 2. I should have added , he challenges ; for this is his third way of confuting Objections . He challenges us to produce any plain Principle of Reason , to prove that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three Gods. But we have a plain Principle of Reason at hand , to answer his Challenge , to wit , that it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One. 3. Here is a most absurd and ridiculous Paradox , as I ever heard of ; Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of God or the Godhead ; it teaches One God ; but whether this One God be One or Three Persons , it says not . What ? If Reason tells us that there is One God ; He must be One Intelligent Being . Now according to Reason we have no other Idea of Unity , but such as we have of a Man , a Beast , and a Tree . Therefore as Reason teaches that a Man is one Person , because he is one Intelligent Being ; so it follows that according to Human Reason , God is but one Person , being but one Intelligent Being . Reason does not tell us that the Unity of God is different from the Unity of a Man : it produces in our Minds the same Idea of both ; which being applied to God as well as to Man , must needs denote One Person or Intelligent Being in opposition to Two or Three . Nay , if Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead ( which the Author does not think fit to prove ) what Idea can we have of the Vnity of God by Reason ? As long as we are ignorant , whether God be one or three Persons ; our Idea of him must needs be more imperfect than of any other Being , in that very Notion which is so familiar to us , and which God himself has so much urged , viz. his Unity . This is so false a Principle , and so contrary to the Dictates of Reason , that there never was any Man , taught by Reason that there is but one God , but did believe at the same time , that He is but one Person . The Author should not have ventur'd abroad such a Philosophy , contrary to the Reason of all Mankind ; but ought to have kept it for himself . Now I find that the Scripture doth perfectly agree with Reason . This tells me that there is but one God , who is but one Person ; That teaches me the same , and also that the Father of our Lord Christ is that one God : both of them contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity . 4. He saith ; that there are Three Divine Persons , each of which have ( in Scripture ) not only the Title , but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them . But where is the Holy Ghost called God in Scripture ? He is indeed called the Spirit of God , but never God himself ; and being the Power of God , 't is no wonder that such things are ascribed to him , as are ascribed to God himself . Thus it is ordinary to ascribe to a Man's Courage , what he has done himself ; and yet his Courage is no Person , nor distinct from him . This I say only by the way , to shew the strangeness of his Consequences . But I shall say nothing here of the Son : and indeed seeing he brings no particular Instances of what he advances , there is no need to insist any longer upon it . CHAP. III. I come now to examine his Answers , to the Objections against the Trinity in the brief History of the Unitarians . THE First Objection , p. 154. If our Lord Christ were himself God ; there could be no Person greater than He , none that might be called his Head or God , none that could in any respect command him . Let us hear , How the Doctor answers this Objection . Now ( saith he ) this Argument is fallacious ; for tho Christ be God himself , yet if there be Three Persons in the God-head , the Equality and Sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of the Persons : A Son is Equal to his Father by Nature , but Inferior to him as his Son. Now where is the Fallacy , but in the Author's Answer ? His Comparison of a Father with his Son , is short of his purpose : for tho a Son be equal to his Father by Nature , yet he is not equal to him in Authority and Power ; and therefore a Father is truly greater than his Son , is his Head , and can command him . This is not meerly a Subordination of Order , but of Power and Authority also . But it is not so with the Father and Son in the Trinity : they are not only equal by Nature , in the Author's Hypothesis , but in Power and Authority ; as they have the same Nature , so they have the same Attributes , whereby they are equal to one another in all Things . Now if it be so ; how can the Father be said to be greater than the Son , who is as great as himself ? How can he be called his Head , which imports some Authority over Christ . As appears from 1 Cor. 11. 3. But I would have you know , that the Head of every Man is Christ ; and the Head of the Woman is the Man ; and the Head of Christ is God. It appears by this place , that God is the Head of Christ , as Christ is the Head of every Man , and the Man the Head of the Woman . Now Christ's being the Head of every Man , imports some Power and Authority over every Man , as the Man's being Head of the Woman imports a Power and Authority over the Woman ; and consequently God's being the Head of Christ , must import an Authority and Power over Christ ; else the Comparison would be unreasonable , fallacious and impertinent . But , I say , how can God be called the Head of Christ , in such a Sense ? if Christ be as Great , and have as great Power and Authority as God has , how can God be called his God ? To be ones God , is as much as to be his Benefactor and his Protector , according to the stile of Scripture ; but Christ being All-mighty and self-sufficient , how can the Father be stiled his God , that is , his Benefactor and Protector ? I ascend to my Father and your Father , to my God and your God , John 20. 17. My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me ? Mat. 27. 46. How could Christ say these things , on the Doctor 's Hypothesis ; for being God as well as the Father , He must no less forsake himself , than the Father forsook him ; and he might as well call himself his own God , and complain of himself that he had forsaken himself : Nay , being himself Almighty God as well as the Father , and being able to comfort himself in his Sufferings ; how comes he to invoke the Father , or to call him his God ? for those Words plainly shew , that He expected and desired from the Father the Assistance which He could not perform to Himself . Furthermore , how can we forbear conceiving Two Gods , according to this Hypothesis ? Christ , who invokes the Father , is God ; the Father , whom He invokes , is God also ; consequently there are Two distinct Gods. Can he that invokes , and he that is invoked , be one and the same Being ? I always thought that this supposed two several Beings . Lastly , If our Lord Christ were himself God , how could any command him ? He has all the Power and all the Authority , that the Father has ; He is no more subject to the Father , than the Father to him ; nay the Father and He are but One God. The Author goes on ; If the Father , as I have explained it , be original Mind and Wisdom ; the Son a Personal subsisting , but reflex Image of the Father's Wisdom ; thô their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same , yet the Original is Superiour to the Image , the Father to the Son : And therefore thô I know such Texts as he alledges , My Father is greater than I ; The Head of Christ is God ; I ascend to my Father and your Father , to my God and your God ; are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's humane Nature ; yet I see no Inconvenience , in owning this to be true , with respect to his Divine Person , and his Relation to the Father : For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity ; and therefore the Father may be called his God. Let us consider this Paragraph . The Son is a Personal Subsisting , but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom . What Gibberish is this ! Has the Doctor found any where in Scripture , that the Son is a Personal Subsisting , but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom ? Why does he not speak the Language of Scripture ? If his Words have any Sense , he means , that the Father reflects upon his own Knowledge and Wisdom : but how comes he to fancy , that a reflected Wisdom , or to reflect on ones own Wisdom , is a Divine Person and an Intelligent Being ? One would think it only an Act of God , to reflect upon his own Knowledg , or other Perfections , without dreaming of a Divine Person ; but Metaphysicians , it seems , have a clearer Sight than other People : what is to others only an Act of God , the Metaphysician discerns to be a Divine Person . 2. The Original , saith the Author , is Superiour to the Image , the Father to the Son. But the Superiority in the Trinity is only a Superiority of Order , which can admit of no such Expressions as Greater than Christ , the Head of Christ , the God of Christ ; as I shewed before . He sees , he saith , no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to Christ's Divine Person , and his Relation to his Father ; because the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity . I will shew more particularly , the ridiculousness of this Assertion , by insisting upon the first of the Passages before cited , as I have done upon the two others . Our Saviour seeing his Disciples sorrowful , because He had told them , that He was going to his Father ; and being willing to comfort them , and to lessen their Sadness ; tells them ( John 14. 18. ) If ye loved me , ye would rejoyce , because I said , I go unto the Father ; For my Father is greater than I. One would think that Christ's meaning is , That the Disciples should be glad to hear that he leaves the World to go to his Father ; because his Father being greater than He , would undoubtedly crown his Obedience with an immortal Glory , and a Name which is above every Name . But this Author has found out another Sense , which is worth the observing ; If ye loved me , ye would rejoyce , because I said I go to the Father ; for the Father is greater than I ; that is to say , the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity . This would have been a very unsignificant Comfort ; Be not sorrowful for my leaving this World and going to the Father ; For the Father is the first Person of the Trinity . Yet this ought to be the Interpretation of this Passage , if the Author's Assertion be true . Now I think the true meaning of this Phrase , the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity , should be this , the Father is the first God ; as the Son is the second God , and the Holy Ghost the third God. This Author may say so , if he pleases ; I shan't contradict him , for that 's the Consequence that flows naturally from his Principles . But I shall deny , that the Father may be called the God of Christ : if Christ be the supream God as well as his Father , how can the supream God have a God over him ? The term God relates only to Creatures ; God cannot be said to be the God of any but Creatures ; this , common Sense and the whole Current of Scripture teaches . Yes , you 'l say , the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity . I answer , therefore you may in your Hypothesis call him the first God ; but by no means the God of the Son or Spirit , to whom He is not Superiour in Power , Authority , or other Divine Attribute . The Author speaks an unintelligible Jargon in his following Paragraph , which ( I think ) there is no need to insist on : Therefore I shall here leave it to every rational Man to judge , whether we ought to rest satisfied with such a trifling Answer to the propounded Objection . The second Objection , p. 155. If our Lord Christ were indeed God , it could not without Blasphemy be ( absolutely and without Restriction ) affirmed of him , that He is the Creature , the Possession , the Servant , and the Subject of God. To this the Author answers thus ; That Christ is called a Creature , he proves , because He is the First-born of every Creature , Col. 1. 15. But here he should have remembred his Absolutely , and without Restriction ; for Christ is so the First-born of every Creature , that He is the Image of the Invisible God , and therefore no Creature . Surely , an absurd Consequence : I say on the contrary ; Christ is the Image of the Invisible God , and therefore a Creature . Let us see which of us is in the right . Every one may plainly see that , when St. Paul calls Christ the Image of the Invisible God , he means , that He is a Visible Image of an Invisible God ; and therefore he added the Epithet Invisible ; which otherways had been useless , not to say ridiculous . For then the Sense of the Apostle's Expression must be this ; Christ is the Invisible Image of the Invisible God. Now the Nature of an Image is to be visible to every ones Eye ; or else it is no Image : But if Christ is called the Image of the Invisible God , because He is the second Person of the Trinity ; this second Person being as Invisible as the first , it follows that Christ is an Image of God as Invisible as the Original ; which is ridiculous . No , no ; the Man Christ is the Image of the Invisible God , by reason of his unspotted Holiness , and of the supream Power and Authority conferred on him . He is the Brightness of God's Glory , and the express Image of his Person ; but such an Image as was Visible while He lived upon Earth ; and may now be seen of all the Inhabitants of Heaven . Besides , it does plainly appear by the Context , that St. Paul calls Jesus Christ Man , the Image of the Invisible God. Who ( the Father ) saith he at Ver. 13. has delivered us from the Power of Darkness , and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son. Ver. 14. In whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood , even the forgiveness of Sins . Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God , the First-born of every Creature . There you see , that He who is the Image of the Invisible God , is that dear Son in whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood ; but He who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men , must be Jesus Christ Man ; therefore Jesus Christ Man is the Image of the Invisible God. Now let any unprejudiced Man judge , which of these two Consequences is right , either this of the Author , Christ is the Image of the Invisible God , therefore no Creature ; or mine , Christ is the Image of the Invisible God , therefore a Creature . He goes on . He is so born before all Creatures , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies , that by him were all things created , that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth , — and He is before all things ( which is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Begotten before the whole Creation , and therefore no part of the Creation ) and by him all things consist . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all things were not only made by him , but have their Subsistence in him . Now let us suppose , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to signify born before all Creatures : I deny that , therefore Himself is no part of the Creation . The plain meaning of born before all Creatures , is , that Christ was born before any other Creature : As these Words , Adam was born before all Men , do not signify that he is no Creature , or no Man , but only that he was the first Man created . Therefore , I say , supposing that these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are well translated by born before all Creatures , I may with great reason draw a Consequence contrary to the Author's , thus ; Christ is born before all Creatures , therefore He is part of the Creation Himself . The Author is very unhappy at drawing Consequences . Here is another as false as the former ; That this does not relate to the New Creation , as the Socinians would have it , is very plain . For , 1. In this Sense Christ ( if He were a meer Man ) was not the First-born of every New Creature . For I hope , there were a great many New Creatures , that is , truly Good and Pious Men , before Christ was born of his Virgin Mother . What ? supposing the New Creation by the Gospel , is here meant ; can't Christ as a meer Man be the First-born of every New-Creature ; being the Messias , the Author and first Preacher of the Gospel , the Head of the Church , the Fountain from which the Holiness of every New Evangelical Creature does spring ? In a Word , being the Author of this New Evangelical Creation , can't He also be the First-born of every New Evangelical Creature ? Those Socinians that he speaks of , by the New-Creation mean nothing else , but the New-Creation wrought by Christ and his Gospel : and therefore , either this Author imposes on them ; or is not fully acquainted with their Opinions ; or has no great Skill in Reasoning . I see , the Author does not understand the above-cited place . Therefore I think it worth while to explain it ; the rather , because 't is one of the strongest Holds of the Trinitarians ; and to show , that instead of favouring their Opinion , it overthrows it . In order thereunto ; 1. I will prove , that the Old Creation , that is the Creation of the World , is not intended in that Text. 2. I will set down , what I take to be the true Sense of that whole Context . 1. That the Creation of the World is not there meant . This I shall prove by Four Arguments . 1. He who is the First-born of every Creature , is the same who shed his Blood ( ver . 14. ) for the Redemption of Men ; as I noted before . Now he who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men , can be no other but Jesus Christ , Man : but this very Jesus Christ Man is there stiled the First-born of every Creature , by whom all things were created , &c. as we translate the Words ; Therefore this cannot be meant of the Creation of the World , which is the Work of God , not of a Man. Yes , you 'l say ; for He is God as well as Man ; and therefore may be said to have created the World. I answer ; Where have you found in Scripture , that Christ is God as well as Man ? I know He is called Man in the Writings of the New Testament ; but I could never find him there stiled God-Man , as He should have often been , if He was both . Does the Apostle make a distinction between his two Natures ? does he say , we have Redemption thrô his Blood , as He is a Man ? and that He is the First-born of every Creature , and has created all Things , as He is God ? Not at all ; but only tells us , That the same Jesus Christ , in whom we have redemption thrô his Blood , is the First-born of every Creature , and by whom all Things were created , &c. Why should we contrive a distinction of our own , when the Apostle makes none ? But 2. I cannot but wonder , that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ , since we have no Warrant from Scripture for it : I mean , that the Scripture does never say in express Words , that Christ has created Heaven and Earth , ( which is the proper Description of the Old Creation , or of the Creation strictly and properly so called ; and the Description usual in Scripture when it speaks of that Creation ) as it is said that God the Father of Christ has . I do observe so great a difference between the Expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning the Creation of the World by God , and those Expressions which are supposed to import the same Creation by Christ ; that I cannot forbear alledging some places concerning both . I omit those of the Old Testament , which are so many ; and will insist only upon some taken out of the New. God ( saith St. Paul , Acts 17. 24. ) that made the World and all things therein , seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth , dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands . And Acts 4. 11. Lord , thou art God , which hast made Heaven , and Earth , and the Sea , and all that in them is . Acts 14. 15. We — preach unto you , that ye should turn from these Vanities , unto the Living God , which made Heaven , and Earth , and the Sea , and all things that are therein . And Rev. 14. 7. Fear God , — and worship him , that made Heaven and Earth , and the Sea , and the Fountains of Water . This is the true and proper Description of the Creation of the World. Were it ascribed to Christ in such express Terms , we could not doubt that Christ had created the World : which if the Apostles had believed , they would undoubtedly have taught us so great a Truth , and that both in express and plain Terms , and often . No , Christ is never said to have created Heaven and Earth , the Sea , and all that is therein . In this very place the Apostle does not say , that the First-born created Heaven and Earth ; but All things that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth : and the All Things of which he speaketh , he limiteth to all Thrones , Dominions , Principalities and Powers , visible and invisible ; which shall be explained hereafter . This second Reflection , that this Text contains not the proper Description of the Creation of the World used in Scripture , being added to the foregoing , that this Context speaks of Christ as Man ; ought to perswade any unprejudiced Man , that the Creation of the World is not here attributed to Christ . The Primitive Christians were so far from believing , that Christ created the World ; that , as the Father only is called God in the Apostles Creed , so He only is stiled Maker of Heaven and Earth . 3. As the Epistle to the Galatians is an excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans ; so the Epistle to the Ephesians must be made use of , for the right understanding of the Epistle to the Colossians . The Design and Scope of those two Epistles is the same ; so that we must look into the Epistle to the Ephesians , to find out the true Sense of this controverted Text in the Colossians . Now he that seriously compares these two Epistles with one another , will find that Coloss . 1. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18. must be interpreted by Ephes . 1. 20 , 21 , 22. and Ephes . 1. 10. is a true Commentary on Coloss . 1. 20. Coloss . 1. 18. runs thus , And He is the Head of the Body , the Church : who is the Beginning , the First-born from the dead , that in all things he might have the preeminence . To which answers part of the 22d verse in the Ephesians , in these Words ; And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church . Col. 1. 15 , 16 , 17. runs thus ; Who is the Image of the invisible God , the First-born of every Creature : for by him were all things created ( as we translate the Word ) that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth , visible and invisible ; whether they be Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers : all things were created by him and for him : and he is before all things , and by him all things consist . To these Verses do answer the 20 , 21 , and part of the 22d verse of Chap. 1. to the Ephesians , in these Words ; He ( God ) raised him from the dead , and set him at his own right Hand in the Heavenly Places , far above all Principality and Power , and Might and Dominion , and every Name that is named , not only in this World , but in that which is to come : and hath put all things under his Feet . Now in the Epistle to the Ephesians , we see , there is not the least intimation of the Creation ascribed to Christ ; but only of his exaltation above all the Orders of Angels , and all earthly Powers : which plainly shows , that the Apostle meant not the Creation of the World in the forecited Verses of the Epistle to the Colossians . Nay , were it so , he would speak Non-sense . In the Epistle to the Colossians , he would tell us that Christ has created all the Orders of Angels , the visible and invisible Thrones , &c. which plainly shows that He is thereby as far above them , as the Creator is above his Creatures : but in the Epistle to the Ephesians he would tell us , that Christ has been exalted far above all the Orders of Angels , and all Earthly Thrones and Powers ; which undeniably proves , that He was not so before . Now what is a Contradiction , if this be not , to say that Christ created them , and that the Father set him far above them ? We must therefore of necessity explain the Context of the Colossians , by that of the Ephesians ; and put such a Sense upon it , as imports no true and proper Creation . 4. Coloss . 1. 19 , 20. being interpreted by Ephes . 1. 10. is a Confirmation of what I have said hitherto . The former ( Coloss . 1. 19 , 20. ) runs thus ; For it pleased the Father , that in him should all fulness dwell ; and ( having made Peace through the Blood of his Cross ) by him to reconcile all things to himself ; by him , I say , whether they be things in Earth , or things in Heaven . To which answers the other Text ( Eph. 2. 10. ) in these Words ; That in the Dispensation of the fulness of time , he might gather together in one all things in Christ , both which are in Heaven , and which are in Earth , even in him . No Man , I hope , will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistle to the Colossians , which we render to Reconcile , ought to be interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text of the Ephesians , which signifies to gather together in one , or to sum up . So that the meaning of both places is this , that it pleased God in the fulness of time , to unite both Angels and Men under one Head , even Christ , whom he set up Lord and King over them . Now this does perfectly agree with what St. Paul says to the Ephesians , concerning Christ's exaltation above all the Orders of Angels , and his being Head of the Church : for his Argument runs thus ; God has exalted Christ above all the Orders of Angels , and made him Head of the Church , for he had decreed , in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head , Christ . But if the Text of the Epistle to the Colossians , is meant of the Creation of the World ; this will be perfect Non-sense ; for thus it ought to run : Christ has created all Orders of Angels , and all Powers on Earth , and was made Head of the Church ; for God had decreed , in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head , Christ. No Man in the World can speak greater Non-sense than this would be , were the Creation of the World ascribed to Christ in the controverted Text. I desire the Author to reconcile his explication of these Words , that in all things he might have the preeminence , with what follows . That is ( says he , at p. 157. ) that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the First upon all accounts , before the Worlds , and the First-born from the dead . So the whole Argument ( according to the Author ) must run thus ; Christ was the First upon all accounts , before the Worlds , and the First-born from the Dead ; for God was pleased , in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under Christ , as their Head. Could any thing be said more absurd and ridiculous ? The Author's Skill in Scripture and Reason is , I think , alike . 2. Having thus proved that the Old Creation , or the Creation properly so called , is not ascribed to Christ in this Context of the Colossians ; I come now to explain its true Sense , as clearly as possibly I can . Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God , the First-born of every Creature . The meaning of these last Words is not , that Christ was begotten before all Creatures , as this Author would have it , but that He is the Lord and King of every ( Intelligent ) Creature ; in Allusion to the First-born of a Family , who is Heir of all Things . This I prove by the 17 and 18th Verses ; Ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And He is before all things , is the Explication of the First-born of every Creature ; and signifies , not that He is before all Creatures in order of time , but of Dignity and Power , being by God set over all the Orders of Angels , and over the Church , as their Head and King. But if you don't rest satisfied with this parallel Place , the 18th Verse will afford an undeniable proof of what I say : There you find , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is rightly rendred in our Bibles , That in all things He might have the Preeminence , both in Heaven and in Earth , among Angels and in the Church . I say now , these last Words ought to be the Explication of the two before-mentioned Expressions ; to be the First-born of every Creature , and to be before all Things , ought to be interpreted by his having the Praeeminence in all Things : so that He is the First-born of every Creature , is this , He hath the Preeminence over every Creature . Thus by the Context it self , we find out the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which in the English we translate First-born of every Creature : And thus too are these Words interpreted by the principal Critics among the Orthodox , ( as they are called ) Gomarus , Camero , Piscator , Drusius , Vorstius , Davenant , Dally , Grotius , ( for they will have him also to be Orthodox ) Hammond . I come now to the next Verse , For by him were all Things created . I have fully proved , they cannot be understood of the Old Creation , the Creation of Heaven and Earth , and the Sea , and of the Things in them , which is the Creation properly so called ; therefore to reconcile this Verse with the foregoing , and with the Words before cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians , ( He [ God ] set Him at his own Right-Hand , far above all Principality and Power , — and every Name that is named ; ) The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we render Created , ought to be rendred Modelled , Disposed , or Reformed into a new Order . So that the Sense will run thus ; Christ is the Lord of every Creature , for by him are all both Visible and Invisible Creatures , even all Men and Angels , Modelled or Disposed into a new Order , being subjected to Him and His Commands : As for Angels , all the Orders of them , whether they be Thrones or Dominions , none of them are exempted from his Power and Authority ; he rules over them , ( which is the meaning of Ver. 17. ) and they are all as it were compacted in one Body under his Conduct ; as for Men , as He is the Beginning and the First-born from the Dead , so He was also made Head of the Church his Body ; so that in all things He has the Preeminence , He rules in Heaven and on Earth , over Angels and over the Church , which is the Sense of Ver. 18. This I hope makes a clear Sense , agreeable to the whole Context , and to the Text in the Ephesians . I observe that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or He is before all Things , is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Or He is the First-born of every Creature : So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or and by him all Things consist , or are compacted into one Body , ought to be the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or by him were all Things ( not created , as 't is rendred in the English , but ) Modelled or Reformed . I know not , why Dr. Sherlock has called this a Socinian Explication ; as if it were devised by them , to serve their Hypothesis ; the truth is , the chief of the Orthodox Interpreters , have thus explained this Context of the Colossians . Among the Ancients , St. Cyril , Fulgentius , Procopius , Gazeus , and even Athanasius himself : Of the Moderns , Salmero , Montanus , Grotius , and many more . Before I put an end to this , I must observe ; that our Author is greatly mistaken in his Explication of Col. 1. 18. The Apostle ( says he ) proceeds from Christ's Creation of the natural World , to his Mediatory Kingdom : Which proves , that He did not speak of that before . I see the Author does not observe his own rule ( p. 146. ) To consider , in expounding Scripture , what goes before , and what follows . It was no hard matter to see , that the Apostle at Ver. 16. speaks , First in the general of Things that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth , Visible and Invisible : but then afterwards he explains , what he meant by the Things that are in Heaven , viz. all the Orders of Angels ; this he doth in the latter part of the same Verse ; and what he means by Things that are on Earth , He tells us fully at Ver. 18. viz. the Church . The 18th Verse , being an Explication of some part of Ver. 16. it appears not to have been Paul's Design , to proceed from Christ's Creation of the World to his Mediatory Kingdom . Thus I have done with the famous Context of Col. 1. 15 , 16 , &c. The Author of the Brief History had proved , that Christ was God's Minister and Servant , because He was appointed or made by God , the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession . To this the Author , I am now considering , Answers ; But here is a Restriction to his being High-Priest , and therefore no danger of Blasphemy , tho He be God. For we may observe , that thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man , yet he was a type of an High-Priest who is more than Man , even the eternal Son , or Word of God ; as some of the Learned Jews acknowledge . This is indeed an admirable Answer ; Christ has been appointed by God an High-Priest , which seems to prove , that Himself is not God. No , says the Doctor , you are mistaken ; for thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man , yet He was a Type of an High-Priest more than Man , of an High-Priest who is the eternal Son of God. How does he prove it ? As some , says he , of the Learned Jews acknowledge . And what then ; if some Learned Jews have spoken non-sense , must we speak non-sense too ? One would expect , the Author should prove by Scripture , and not by Jewish Writers , that the Jewish High-Priest was a type of an High Priest , who is the eternal Son and Word of God. The Jewish High-Priest being a Type of Christ , was a Type of an High-Priest more eminent and greater than Himself in all respects , thô he were not God. He goes on . For the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father . If you ask him , why ? he will answer ; Philo Judaeus , who often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest , says so ; and shows that the Garments of the High-Priest were Figures of Heaven and Earth . Which seems to signify that the eternal Word which made the World , is the true High-Priest . Here comes upon the stage , one of his Learned Jews , Philo ; by whose Testimony he proves , that the second Person of the Trinity is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father . But Philo being Plato's Follower , did not believe such a Trinity as the Doctor teaches . Sure there is a great difference between Plato's three Principles , and the Doctor 's Trinity . But if there were not ; must we believe Philo Judaeus , rather than St. Paul , who plainly tells us ( in direct opposition to Philo ) that as there is One God , so there is One Mediator between God and Men , the MAN Christ Jesus , 1 Tim. 2. 5. As for the Garments of the High-Priest , which Philo will have to be a Figure of Heaven and Earth ; and our Author's Story about Jaddus ; both which our Author alledges as Arguments , at least as Congruities , whereby to prove the Divinity of Christ ; I shall so far trust the Judgment of the meanest Reader , as to take no notice of them . That which follows , is no less ridiculous ; I am sure ( says the Author ) the Apostle distinguishes Christ from High-Priests taken from among Men , and makes his Sonship the Foundation of his Priesthood , Heb. 5. 1 , 6. The contrary to both these is true , and evident also in the Text he cites . The Priesthood is the Foundation of the Sonship ; and Aaron and Christ are there made Instances of High-Priests taken from among Men. The Objection therefore remains still ; that Christ being an High-Priest appointed and made by God , cannot Himself be God. He goes on : As for his next Objection ( from 1 Cor. 3. 23. ) Christ is God's . I know not what he means by it ; for there is no doubt but Christ is God's Son , God's Christ , God's High-Priest , serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory ; and what then ? Therefore he is not God : by no means ! he may conclude that He is not God the Father ; because He acta subordinately ; not that therefore He is not God the Son. The Author of the Brief History meant ( I suppose ) this ; that as [ you are Christ's ] in that Text , signifies Men are subject to Christ ; so [ Christ is God's ] must signify , Christ is subjected to God , and therefore not Himself God. This I think is good Sonse , and a good Argument . But can it be said , that the second Person of the Trinity , who is the supream God ; nay , One God with the First , is God's Son , God's Christ , God's High Priest , serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory ? All these Titles denote a dependance upon the Father , and a real subjection to Him ; which cannot agree to any Person who is indeed Himself a Supream God. Here is another sensless Answer , to a good and strong Objection . P. 158. His next proof is ; That God calls Christ his Servant in the Prophet Isaiah . But it is his Servant in whom his Soul was pleased ; which is the peculiar Character of his Son ; and is that very Testimony which God gave to Christ at his Baptism , This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased . I desire here the Reader to observe the Doctor 's accurate way of reasoning . This is the Objection ; Christ is called God's Servant , therefore He is not God. No , this is a mistake , says He ; for Christ is God's beloved Servant . P. 159. He says in answer to the Objection from Phil. 2. 8 , 9. Because He voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature ; does He forfeit the Dignity of his Nature ? But I ask ; can it be said of the Supream God , with whom is no Variableness , neither Shadow of turning , that He has condescended below the Dignity of his Nature ? P. 159 , 160. He goes on in a florid way of Speech to show , how inconsistent it is that Christ , were He a meer Creature , should be advanced to that Power and Authority , whereunto He has been promoted . Hereupon I observe ; 1. The Dignity conferred upon Christ ought not to be called , the Supream Government of the World ; as this Author has stiled it : For He acts and governs in Subordination to his Father . 2. When the Scripture speaks of this Advancement of Christ , it extends it especially over Angels and Men. 3. It is no Indignity to Angels , as our Author pretends , to be ruled and governed by a Man , whom God has exalted above them . Angels indeed have some natural Prerogatives above Men , whereby they are more excellent Creatures than Men : but if it pleases God of his free Gift , to invest a Man with greater Dignity , Power , and all other Excellence , than any Angel has ; why can't He be set over them , as their Lord and Ruler , in Subordination to God ? There is no Incongruity in it . 4. That , contrary to the Author's Assertion , a meer Creature may be a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal and Prerogative . Acts of Government or Power . Thus Saul and David were set over the Israelites , to govern and rule over them by God's Appointment , in Subordination to him . Nay we do commonly say , That the King is the Lieutenant and Representative of God. 5. God communicated to Christ such Wisdom and Power , as is necessary to enable him to exercise the Dignity conferred on him . In all this , there is not the least Inconsistency . But notwithstanding his foregoing Objections , he confesses , the Difficulty remains . P. 161. If He be by Nature the Son of God , and Natural Lord of the World ; how is He said to be exalted by God , and to receive a Kingdom from him , as the reward of his Righteousness and Sufferings ? He was before possessed of it , ever since the Foundation of the World ; being natural Lord of all his Creatures : He had no need to receive that which was his own , or purchase what was his natural Right , by such mean and vile Condescension as suffering Death on the Cross . Now to reconcile this , he makes a long Discourse concerning the Mediatory Kingdom of Christ ; which ( saith he ) hath been bestowed on the second Person of the Trinity , and is peculiar to Him , and distinguished from the Natural Government of the World , which He has in Conjunction with the Father . This Chimerical System I may overthrow , I think , by that single Text of St. Paul already cited ; There is one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , the MAN Christ Jesus . If Christ is a Mediator , and has the Mediatory Kingdom , as He is the second Person of the Trinity , that is , as He is God ; why does the Apostle tell us , that He is a Mediator bearly as He is Man ? At least he should have told us , that the Mediator is the God-Man Jesus Christ . It is unaccountable that the Apostle , who in all his Epistles sets forth the Excellency and Glory of Christ , in the most expressive Terms ; should tell us that the MAN Christ Jesus is the Mediator between God and Men , if the Mediatory Kingdom is exercised by the Divine Person or Nature , and if ( not Christ Man , but ) Christ God is the Mediator . But let us examine the Grounds our Author goes on . He tells us , ibid. A Mediatory Kingdom was necessary , to reconcile God and Men ; to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature : and this Power and Dignity God bestowed on his own Son ; who had the most Right to it , and was the best qualified for it , being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father . Now one would expect , he should cite some Texts of Scripture , to prove this Assertion ; but he could find no place to rely on . But Christ must , says he , first become Man , and perform the whole Will of God , and then He shall be exalted . Whereupon he makes this Observation ; ( pag. 162. ) All the Power Christ is invested with , is as Head of the Church : God has put all Things under his Feet ; and given him to be Head over all Things to the Church ; which is his Body , the Fulness of him that filleth all Things ; Eph. 1. 22 , 23. That is , saith he , God has made him Governour of the World , as Head of the Church . I observe two Things upon this place . 1. That this Text is not well interpreted . The first part of it relates to the foregoing Verse , and ought to be explained by it : God , saith the Apostle , at Ver. 21. Set Christ at his own Right-Hand in the Heavenly Places , far above all Principality and Power , and every Name that is named , not only in this World , but in that which is to come . Ver. 23. And hath put all Things under his Feet . What Things ? Those that are before mentioned , all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Powers . And then follows ; And gave him to be Head , &c. This is the sense ; not , that Christ was made Governour of the whole World , as Head of the Church . 2. But , what if all the Power Christ is invested with , is as Head of the Church ? Will it not follow , that all the Power He is invested with , is as a Man , not as God ? And this also I prove by Col. 1. 18. And He is the Head of the Body the Church , who is the Beginning , the First-born from the Dead . He who is the First-born from the Dead , can be no other but the MAN Jesus Christ ; but He who is the First-born from the Dead , is the Head of the Church , as that Text expresly saith : therefore the MAN Christ Jesus is the Head of the Church . Thus the Apostle very plainly telling us ; that the Mediator and Head of the Church is the Man Christ Jesus , destroys our Author's Notion of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom , or that it is grounded on and exercised by his Divine Nature or Person . Further , if Christ God is the Mediator , if the Mediatory Kingdom belongs to and is managed by the second Person of the ( supposed ) Trinity , I don't see , how the Government of Israel can be a Type of this Kingdom , as this Author says at p. 162 , 163. For the King of the Israelites was between God and his People , and was really diverse from both ; but Christ in our Author's Hypothesis , is God himself , One with the Father and the Holy Ghost ; so that he must be a Mediator between himself and Men , which besides that it is contrary to the Notion of a Mediator , does wholly destroy the Parallel . He says at pag. 164 , 165. that , We certainly know from the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles , that the Prophets spake of Christ under the Names of Lord , God , and Jehovah . But I desire him , to reconcile these Texts with his Opinion ; Heb. 1. 1 , 2. God , who at sundry Times and in divers Manners , spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets ; hath in these Last Days spoken unto us by his Son. Heb. 2. 2 , 3. For if the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast ; — How shall we escape , if we neglect so great Salvation , which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord ? Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels , in the Hand of a Mediator , i. e. by the Intervention of Moses . Acts 7. 53. Who have received the Law by the Disposition of Angels . Ver. 38. This [ Moses ] is He who was with the Church in the Wilderness , with the Angel who spake to him in Mount Sinai . These Texts do more than sufficiently prove , that the Son of God is not meant by the Prophets and other Writers of the Old Testament , where they mention the Lord , God , and Jehovah . But to return to Christ's Mediatory Kingdom . He says pag. 167. The Son has a Kingdom of his own , which is peculiarly his ; and administred in his Name , and by his Sovereign Authority . But , how is this consistent with what we read pag. 168. The Power indeed whereby he administers his Kingdom , is the Power of the whole Trinity , of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : for they being essentially one God , have but one Energy and Power , and therefore can never act separately . How can the Son , or the second Person of that Trinity , have a Kingdom of his own : if whatever he does , is also done by the Father and Holy Ghost ; have not they hereby as great a share in this Kingdom , as the Son ? This therefore is a plain Contradiction , and perfect Non-sense . Let us hear him further , pag. 169 , 170. The Power is not taken out of God's Hands , that is impossible : Father , Son and Holy Ghost govern the World still , by one individual Act and Power ; but as in the Natural Government of the World , the exercise of this Power begins with the Father ; so in the exercise of this Mediatory Kingdom , it begins with the Son , and is directed by his Mediation . That is , God governs the World now , not meerly as a Natural Lord , by the Rules of Natural Justice ; but with respect to the Mediatory Power and Authority of his Son , and to serve the ends of his Mediatory Kingdom . This Chimerical reasoning will not free the Author 's System from Contradiction . For as in the Natural Government of the World , tho ( as he dreams ) the exercise of the Power begins with the Father , yet the Son and Holy Spirit acting in conjunction with the Father , by an individual Act ; it cannot be said that the Power or Kingdom is peculiar to the Father : so in the supposed Mediatory Kingdom , tho the exercise of the Power begins with the Son ; yet as long as the Father and Holy Spirit act together with him , and can never act separately ; it cannot be said , that the Son has a Kingdom of his own , or that he is the Mediatory King , more than the Father or Spirit . Yet by the help of this contrived Mediatory Kingdom , our Author undertakes ( at pag. 173. ) to overthrow the Fourth Argument in the History of the Vnitarians ; even this , because God doth all things in his own Name , and by his own Authority , but Christ comes in the Father's Name , does his Will , and seeks his Glory . This only proves ( says he ) that he is not the Father but the Son , and the King of God. For this Mediatory Kingdom ( as he says at pag. 172. ) is erected by the Father ; and by him given to the Son. But I ask , is not the Son equal to the Father , both in Energy and Authority ? How then can he be said to be sent by his Father , to receive his Commands , and to seek his Glory ? Can all this be ascribed to the Supream God ? Nay , if the Father together with the Son and Spirit , be but one God ; is it not absurd to say that the Father sends the Son , and the Son does the Will of the Father ? Why not rather , in his own Mediatory Kingdom , does his own Will , seeks his own Glory ? I think , I could as soon believe White is Black , as swallow the Absurdities of our Author 's Mediatory Kingdom . But 't is plain to every discerning Reader , that he has often not understood what he said . Having thus shown the Absurdity of his Hypothesis , concerning Christ's Mediatory Kingdom : I will set down in a few Words , what I take to be the true Notion of Christ's Kingdom . God had promised to David , that he would establish his Throne for ever ; and there should never be wanting one of his Seed to sit thereon ; Psal . 89. 3 , 4. I have made a Covenant with my Chosen , I have sworn unto David my Servant ; thy Seed will I establish for ever , and build up thy Throne to all Generations . And again , vers . 29. His Seed will I make to indure for ever , and his Throne as the Days of Heaven . Again ver . 35 , 36 , 37. Once I have sworn by my Holiness , that I will not lie unto David : his Seed shall indure for ever , and his Throne as the Sun before me ; it shall be establisht for ever as the Moon , and as a faithful Witness in the Heavens . Now that this Promise does not relate , only or chiefly , to David's Successors in the Political Government of Israel , without any respect to the Messias , who was also the Son of David ; does plainly appear by the Event : for the Political Kingdom of David has been destroyed for several Ages , and the Series of Successors in the Davidical Line is utterly broken off . This Promise therefore had its full Accomplishment in our Messias Jesus Christ , who is the Son of David , and the King of Israel . But this Kingdom of Christ is both more ample and more durable than David's was . For all Power is given to him , both in Heaven and Earth , Mat. 28. 18. And ( 1 Cor. 15. 25 , 26. ) He must reign , till he has put all Enemies under his Feet ; the last Enemy that shall be destroyed , is Death . Thus his Throne shall indure as long as the Sun and Moon . He may be called , with greater reason than David was ( Psal . 89. 27. ) God's First-born , Higher than the Kings of the Earth : for he is ( Rev. 19. 16. ) King of Kings , and Lord of Lords ; ( Rev. 1. 5. ) Prince of the Kings of the Earth . But his Power reaches not only over Men , but over Angels too ; ( 1 Pet. 3. 22. ) He is on the right hand of God , Angels , and Authorities , and Powers being made subject to him . This is God's Anointed , whom he has invested with the Power of enacting Laws for the good of his Subjects . When God did not so immediately govern Israel , as during the Theocracy , but by Kings ; David , as God's Deputy and Vicegerent , appointed Musick , Singers , Porters ; and made such other Regulations , as were fit in the Worship of God : So Christ , who is a King immediately appointed by God , by virtue of the Power and Instructions given to him , took away the Ceremonial Law , set up a Spiritual Worship ; and being a King over the Gentiles as well as over the Jews , made such Laws as were able to unite them into one Body , in the Worship of one God ; that there might be but one Flock , and one Shepherd . Christ's Kingdom is not only Spiritual , but Temporal ; I mean , he has so much Power over all Creatures , as is necessary to enable him , to perform the ends of his Spiritual Kingdom . Nor is this contradicted by our Saviour's Words , at John 18. 36. The Original has it not , My Kingdom is not of this World , but from this World. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. My Kingdom is not owing to Men , but to God's own appointment : I am a King indeed , but this Kingdom I received from God's own Hands : My Kingdom is not from hence , as he explains it , but from above . Acts 2. 36. God has made that same Jesus , whom ye crucified , both Lord and Christ , i. e. King. And chap. 17. 31. He has appointed a Day , in which he will judge the World in Righteousness , by the MAN whom he has ordained . 1 Cor. 15. 24 , 28 , Then cometh the end , when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God , even the Father . — Then shall the Son be also subject to him , that put all things under him , that God may be all in all . This , I take to be the true account of Christ's Kingdom , according to Scripture . Thus God performed the Oath , which he sware to David ; even by raising up an Horn of Salvation in his House , Luke 1. 69. Thus the Kingdom of Christ , who is the Seed of David , shall last as long as the Sun and Moon . But we no where find in Scripture , that this Kingdom is bestowed upon him , as he is the Eternal Son of God , and Second Person of the Trinity . St. Paul was so far from believing that ; that discoursing of the principal Act of Christ's Kingly Power and Authority , viz. his judging the World ; he says , that God has appointed a Day to perform this , by the MAN whom he has ordained , Acts 17. 31. In a Word , as Christ has been exalted by God , and has received a Kingdom from him : So when the appointed End cometh , he shall deliver it up to God , and remain SUBJECT to him , as St. Paul expresly teaches , 1 Cor. 15. 28. These two things demonstratively prove , that Christ is a King , barely as a Man ; and that his Mediatory Kingdom , so much spoken of by our Author , is a Chimera . I proceed now to his other Answers , to this Objection , That Christ knows not the day of Judgment . He replies ( pag. 177. ) Christ in that Text speaks of himself as Man : St. Matthew does not mention the Son , which shews that the Son is included in St. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , None , or no Man ; and therefore these Texts must speak of Christ only as a Man. I answer , so they do , for he is no more than a Man. St. Mark tells us , that Christ as the Son ( of God ) knows not that Day and Hour . Now our Author will have Christ's Sonship founded in his Eternal Generation from the Father ; and that he is the Son not as he is Man , but as he is God , so he saith at pag. 166. and elsewhere . This is indeed a very easy distinction , were it but true : but Trinitarians are the Authors of it , not Scripture . In St. Mark 's Gradation Christ is named after Men and Angels , to shew his present Excellence and Exaltation above them : but in St. Matthew , that very Son of God , who is above Men and Angels , is included in the None , or no Man. Thus this glorious Title of the Son of God , denotes here Christ Man. As the Father in St. Mark is God ; so the Son of God , who knows not that Day and Hour , is Christ Man , who is so stiled in all the New Testament without any respect to a second Nature . CHAP. IV. THE sixth Argument in the Brief History runs thus : God giveth what , and to whom He pleases ; He needs not the aid of any other ; He intreateth not for Himself or his People ; He cannot die ; and deriveth his Power from none but Himself : But 't is certain , that the Lord Christ could not himself , without the previous Ordination of the Father , confer the prime Dignities of Heaven , or of the Church . He placed his Safety in his Father's Presence and Help ; he prayed often and fervently to the Father , both for himself and for his Disciples ; he died , and was raised from the Dead by the Father ; after his Resurrection he received from another , all that great Power which he now injoys . To this he answers ; Christ interceeds with no Creature , receives Authority from no Creature , &c. nor from any God neither , who is separated from himself : For he is One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost . That he interceeds with the Father , proves indeed that he is a distinct Person from the Father ; not , that he is not one God with him . But why , I pray , does it not prove that , he is not one God with the Father ? For if he intercedes with God , can he be that very God with whom he intercedes ? if he is , what need is there for him to intercede ? Besides ; this Author says before ( pag. 167 , 169 , 170. ) The Three Divine Persons can never act separately , they have but One Energy , and whatever is done they do it by one Individual Act. Now I hope he will grant , that Prayer and Intercession are real Acts or Actions : I infer , therefore when the Son intercedes , the Father and Holy Spirit must intercede too . Thus Intercession and Prayer are not peculiar to the Son ; but there are in the Godhead three Intercessors , three Beseeching Persons . Whom , what Person or God , does this Trinity beseech ? Good God! how long shall it be , that Men will love Darkness rather than Light ; and prefer a Novel and Unintelligible Gospel , before the old , plain and easy One ? Pag. 183. He says ; For God to make a Creature , Advocate and Mediator , is to give a Creature Authority over himself ; which cannot be : for it is a Debasement to the Divine Nature , and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom ; it is as if God did not better know , how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy , than any Creature does . But why so ? has our Author forgot , or is he to learn , that Moses , thô a meer Creature , was a Mediator between God and his People ? I am sure , St. Paul calls him so in these Words , at Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels , in the Hand of a Mediator . And at Deut. 5. 5. He stood between the Lord and them , to shew them the Word of the Lord. And the same Apostle tells us , that the MAN Jesus Christ is a Mediator between God and Men. Does not the Scripture mention Moses his Intercession with God ; and that God was moved by his Intreaty ? Why then does this Author affirm ; that to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator , is above the Nature and Order of Creatures ? To the next Argument ; viz. That Jesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of , as a distinct and different Person from God ; and described to be the Son of God , and the Image of God. He answers , This we own , and he had no need to prove it : This is a wonderful Argument to convince those , who acknowledg Three distinct Persons in the Godhead ; that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father ; for so according to the Language of Scripture , God signifies God the Father , when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit ; as all Men grant . Let the Author abate a little of his Confidence . Is an Ironical Answer sufficient , to confute a good and a strong Argument ? This is a wonderful Argument , says he , to prove that Christ is not God. When St. Paul says in his Salutations , Grace be to you , and Peace from God the Father , and from the Lord Jesus Christ ; who would guess , that Jesus Christ is God as well as the Father ? he , nor any other sacred Writer ever says , that there are Three Persons in the Godhead , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; he calls only the Father , God , and distinguishes the Lord Christ from him . If the Lord Christ is God as well as the Father , the Apostle should have framed his Salutation thus ; Grace be to you , and Peace from God the Father ; and from the God Man Jesus Christ . But according to the Language of Scripture , says he , God signifies God the Father , when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit . I answer ; that is a Demonstration , that the Father only is God ; else the Title God could not be appropriated to him , when he is distinguished from the Son and Spirit . And to discern so much , a Man can lack nothing but common Sense . But I observe farther to this Answer ; that supposing Christ were but a Man , the Apostle could have expressed himself no otherways ; from whence it follows , that either the Apostle did indeed so think , and so teach ; or this Author must charge him , as not knowing how to speak correctly and properly . 'T is impossible , saith the Brief History , that the Son or Image of the One true God , should himself be that One true God ; as impossible as that the Son should be the Father , or the Image that very Thing whose Image it is . This is meer Sophistry , saith our Author ; for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God ; they are the same One true God , and yet the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father . I appeal to the Reader , whether this be not a mear denial of the Difficulty , not an Explication or a Solution of it ? The Son , saith the Historian , can't be the One true God , because he is the Son and Image of the One true God ; for the Son cannot be the Father , nor the Image the very Thing whose Image it is . Yes , says our Answerer , God and the Image of God are the same One true God. The next Argument of the History is , that Many Texts expresly declare , That only the Father is God. In answer to this , says our Author : This would be a Demonstration , could he produce any one Text which asserts , that only the Father , in opposition to the Son and Holy Ghost , is God : for then the Father must signify the Person of the Father , in opposition to the Person of the Son , and the Person of the Holy Ghost . But has not the Historian produced such a Text ? John 17. 3. Father , — this is Life Eternal , to know Thee [ the ONLY true God ] and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent : Or , Jesus Christ thy Messenger . Here , the Father , to whom the Son directs his Prayer ( as appears by Ver. 1. ) is called the only true God ; and the Son , Jesus Christ whom he hath sent , or his Messenger . Here the Father as the Sender , is opposed to the Son as the Messenger ; and the First called the ONLY true God , the Other an Apostle or Messenger . Our Author adds ; But when the Father is called the only true God , only in opposition to all the false Gods , which the World then worshipped ; there Father does not signify Personally , but that one Godhead or Divinity , of which the Father is the Source , the Fountain and the Original . So soon has this Author forgot his own Observation and Rule of Interpretation , that , according to Scripture , God signifies God the Father , whenever he is distinguished from the Son or Spirit . Is not he , to whom Christ here directs his Prayer , called God ? and is he not distinguished from the Son , who is called the Messenger ? why then should he not signify here Personally , God the Father , as well as in other places ? why must Father here signify , not the Father ; but one Godhead , of which the Father is the Source ? Thus either his Observation is false ; and then he is overthrown by the Texts to which he opposes it : or it is true ; and then in this Text , the only true God is affirmed by our Saviour himself to be the Father only , in opposition to all other Persons whomsoever . I cannot but admire this Author's way of expounding Scripture . One while , he founds Christ's Sonship on his eternal Generation ; so that the title Son denotes begotten Wisdom the second Person of the Trinity : as soon as this notion will not serve the turn ; as when the Son is ( in St. Matthew and St. Mark ) denied to know the Day and Hour of Judgment ; then the Son shall signify Christ Man. Again , when God is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit , he signifies Personally God the Father ; this Notion shall serve us against many Socinian sayings of Scripture , against all the Texts in the seventh Argument of the History : But when John 17. 1 , 3. and the like Texts are urged ; then on the contrary , God the Father must not signify the Father Personally , but one Godhead , or Divinity , of which the Father is the Source . Certainly , were his Hypothesis true , there would be no need he should thus turn himself into all Shapes to defend it . When the Father is called , the one God , and the only true God ; in opposition to all false Gods : is he not so called in opposition to the Son also ? Most certainly he is . In these two Texts , John 17. 3. 1 Cor. 8. 6. we have no warrant from Reason or Scripture , to understand by the Father Three Persons , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . Is it not absurd and senseless to say , That the Father signifies also the Son and Holy Ghost , in those very Texts where he is distinguished from them ? I always thought the Father signified , the Father only ; and the Son , the Son only , and Holy Ghost , the Holy Ghost only . I always thought that the Language of Scripture , was agreeable to the Language of Men ; because otherways it cannot be understood by Men : and therefore that Father must not be understood to be Father and Son , and a third Person distinct from both . But Trinitarians , better sighted than other People , have found , it may . When we read in Scripture , ( 1 Cor. 8. 6. ) To us there is but one God , the Father : It sounds as if the Apostle had said ; There is but one numerical infinite Being , the Father of Jesus Christ , and of all the World ; because this is the natural Idea we have of one God , the Father . But this Author tells us , we are grosly mistaken ; for one God signifies three infinite Minds , three substantial intellectual Beings or Persons . Again , we should think that the Father here signifies the Father only : but this is ( it seems ) another foul Mistake ; for it signifies besides the Father , a Son and an Holy Spirit different from both . Nay , we must not think that the very express Words ( at Mat. 24. 36. ) the Father only , do indeed signify the Father only ; but the Father , the Son , and another Person ; even thô the Son is there expresly said not to know the Day and Hour of Judgment , and that the Father only knows it . These are some of the Illuminations with which our Author and his Party has blest the World. He goes on , and says ; the Dispute must end here , whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost ; for if so , when the Father is said to be the only true God , and the one God ; the Son and Holy Spirit are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead . I answer , the Dispute may be soon ended ; for when the Father is called the one God , and the only true God , even in those places where the Son is mentioned : This alone is a clear Demonstration , that the Scripture does not teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost . Were the Son and Holy Ghost God with the Father , the Prayer of our Lord ( at John 17. 1 , 2 , 3 , &c. ) must have been thus framed ; This is Life Eternal , to know Thee ( Father ) and Me and the Holy Ghost to be the only true God. And Paul to the Corinthians should have said ; But to us there is but one God , the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost . But this is the Language of Scripture , no where . Pag. 186. His other Texts , saith our Author , prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God ; not , that Christ is not one God with the Father . Let us hear the Texts themselves , 1 Cor. 15. 24. Then cometh the end , when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God , even the Father . James 3. 9. Therewith bless we God , even the Father . Rom. 15. 6. That ye may with one Mind , and one Mouth glorify God , even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is an affected blindness and perverseness , not to discern and own , that in these Texts , God even the Father , is as much as to say , God , that is to say the Father . No plainer or more express Words could be used by a Socinian or other Vnitarian , to declare his Notion of the Unity of God. What hope is there of convincing those , with whom the Father only shall not signify the Father only ? And again , God , that is to say the Father , shall be two others besides the Father . CHAP. V. THE next Argument . If Christ were indeed God as well as Man ; or ( as Trinitarians speak ) God the Son Incarnate ; it had been altogether superfluous , to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature , as a Director and 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 ? To this he answers : The account of this is plain and short ; for the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power , and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra : what the Father does , that the Son does , and that the Holy Ghost does by one Individual Act. But the Sanctification of all Creatures ( and such is the Human Nature of Christ ) is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit . But if the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power , the Sanctification of Christ's Human Nature ( or of any other Creature ) can by no means be peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost ; why to the Holy Ghost rather than to the Father , or than to the Divine Word , or Son dwelling ( as they say ) after a peculiar manner in Christ ? But the matter is plain , the Holy Ghost is the Power of God , of which Christ stood in need , for performing the Will and Works of the Father , and which God bestowed on him for that very end ; but if Christ had been indeed God , there had been no need he should receive any such Gift ; for as God he would have had it , in his own Person . Our Author adds , He might as well have asked , why the Sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Spirit ? But the Historian had no reason to ask such a Question : for no one pretends that the Church is God ; or is Personally united either to the Father or Son , as Trinitarians say the Human Nature of Christ is . It is after the same slight and insignificant manner , that he answers the next Argument , even this ; The Miracles of Christ are attributed always , either to the Father , or the Holy Spirit dwelling in him . He answers ( pag. 188. ) Father , Son and Holy Spirit act together . I say now , supposing this which he says ; yet if Christ were God , why should we never ascribe his Miracles to himself ; why always to the Father , or to the Holy Spirit which is the Power of the Father ? why has he concealed a matter of so great importance to be known ? Or why do we seek to make him greater than he ever said he was ? Besides , in the very Texts , in which he ascribes the Miracles he did , to the Father , or the Spirit and Power of the Father dwelling in him ; I say in those very Texts he denies , that he doth them himself : which is directly contrary to what our Author affirms , that the ( pretended ) three Divine Persons have but one Energy , and act by one Individual Act. If that were so , our Saviour could not have said , John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self . John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me , he doeth the works . Let us hear the account which St. Peter gives , Acts 10. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost , and with Power , who went about doing good , and healing all that were oppressed with the Devil : for God was with him . Here St. Peter teaches , that Christ wrought all sorts of Miracles , not because ( as Trinitarians say ) he was God , but because God was with him , i. e. God helped and assisted him , by anointing him with the Holy Ghost , and with Power . The next Argument is , Had our Lord Christ been more than a Man , the Prophecies of the Old Testament in which he is promised , would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman , the Seed of Abraham , a Prophet like unto Moses ; the Servant and Missionary of God , on whom God's Spirit should rest . The Historian by a particular Induction of Texts , shews this to be the Character of Christ in the Prophecies of the Old Testament . Our Author thinks fit to answer this Objection , in another place . I come now to his Answers , which he makes to the Arguments against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost . The First Argument in the History , is this ; The Holy Ghost or Spirit , and the Power of God , are in Scripture spoken of as one and the same thing . Our Author answers , at pag. 189. It is as easy to prove , that the Father and Son are no Persons , as that the Holy Spirit is none . But if he can make good this Assertion , erit mihi magnus Apollo . The Father has in the New Testament the Title of God , therefore because God is most certainly a Person , no Body can doubt that the Father is a Person . As for the Son , the same Gospel often says he is a Man ; every Man being a Person ; the Son being a Man , must be also a Person . But it is quite otherways with the Holy Ghost , for the Scriptures call it the Power of God ; and Power is a Faculty , not a Person . Acts 10. 38. God has anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost , and with Power . Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee , and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee . What is more plain than that , the Power of the Highest in these Texts is the explication of the Holy Ghost ? Again , Acts 6. 5. They chose Stephen , a Man full of Faith , and of the Holy Ghost . Ver. 8. And Stephen full of Faith and of POWER , did great Wonders . Here again the Holy Ghost at ver . 5. is explained by Power at ver . 8. He says further ; He is the Spirit of God , which searcheth the deep things of God ; and he who knows all things in God , must be a knowing Mind . In answer to this , I must explain the Text to which he alludes , 1 Cor. 2. 10 , 11. and which he cites too , pag. 192. Ver. 10. But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit ; for the Spirit searches all things , yea the deep things of God. The Apostle speaks here of the Doctrines of the Gospel , its Precepts and Promises , which before were hidden , but now are revealed to Men ; as appears by ver . 7 , 8 , 9. He meaneth this ; God has revealed to us Apostles these Doctrines , this ( formerly ) hidden Wisdom , by his Inspiration ; for this Spirit or Inspiration in us searcheth out ( i. e. finds or discovers ) these deep or hidden things of God. Deep , I say , and hidden ; not to us , but to the World , and the Princes of the World. The Apostle illustrates his Discourse with a Comparison , ver . 11. What Man knoweth the things of a Man , save the Spirit of a Man which is in him ? Even so the Things of God knoweth no Man , but the Spirit of God. As if he had said , As no Man knows the things that belong to Human Life , but by his own Spirit or Mind : So no Man knows these things of God , but by God's Spirit or Inspiration , whereby he is enabled to know them . This Interpretation perfectly agrees with what follows , at ver . 12. Now we have not received the Spirit of the World , but the Spirit of God , that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. This is the true Sense of this place . For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate no Man , must either be understood exclusively of God ; or so as to include God also . If it includes God too , it will follow , that the Holy Spirit or Third Person of the Trinity , knows the Things of God , and that the Father and Son are altogether ignorant of them ; which Consequence , I am sure , they will not allow . But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no Man here ( as most certainly it does ) then the Spirit of God is to be understood of , the Man who has received that Spirit or Inspiration ; by assistance whereof he may attain to the knowledge of the most secret Counsels of God ; as the Apostle explains it , in the very next Verse . The Author grants , that Charity may be said to suffer long , and to be kind , because a charitable Man does so : then the Spirit of God may be said to know the Things of God , because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , He that is Spiritual ( as St. Paul stiles him , Ver. 15. ) he that has the Spirit of God , does so . This Vorstius rightly understood in his Notes upon this place . By the Spirit of God ( saith he ) we must understand that Spirit which is given us of God ; that is , our Selves as Spiritual : thus ( John 3. 6. ) That which is born of the Spirit , saith our Saviour , is Spirit . This I hope may be enough to clear the sense of this Text. But the Author cannot allow of Power and Inspiration , distinct from God , and yet not God ; for what are Faculties in us , are Persons in God. If this be true , then there are more than Three Persons in the Godhead ; for Power is a Faculty in us , and being in God too , it must be another Person in him . Thus not only Wisdom and Love , but Power also are Persons in God. Nay , there being Three knowing Minds in the Godhead , each of which is ` God , as the Author tells us ; it cannot be said , that the Father only has Wisdom , Love , and Power . The Son and the Holy Ghost must have them too ; else they should not be God. But if Wisdom , Love and Power , being Faculties in us , ought to be Persons in God : then there are Nine Persons at the least , in God , viz. Wisdom , Love and Power in the Father , who is an Infinite Mind distinct from the Son and Holy Ghost ; Wisdom , Love and Power in the Son , who is an Infinite Mind distinguished from the Father and Holy Ghost ; Wisdom , Love and Power in the Holy Ghost , who is an Infinite Mind distinct from the Father and Son. Moreover , he tells us , that the Son is a Person , because He is the Father's Reflex knowledge . But the Son being an Infinite and most Perfect Mind , is undoubtedly able to reflect upon his own Wisdom and Knowledg , and thus ( as well as the Father ) to beget a Son. And this second Son in the Trinity may by the same Means and Reason beget another , and so onwards to Infinity . Thus according to this Maxim , that what are Faculties in us , are Persons in God ; there may be , nay there must be , an infinite number of Persons in God. Apage ! This is certain ( says he ) all Personal Acts belong to a Person ; and therefore whatever has any Personal Acts , we must conclude is a Person : unless we know by some other means , that it is no Person ; and then , that proves the Expression to be Figurative . But we know , that the Holy Ghost is no Person ; and therefore we may affirm , that whenever Personal Acts are ascribed to it , it is to be figuratively taken . That the Holy Ghost is not God , we most certainly know ; because the Scripture plainly tells us , there is but one God , the Father . That the Holy Ghost is not a created Person , is made probable by several places of Scripture , which teach us , that it is God's Power and Inspiration ; by explaining the Holy Ghost by the Power of God , and putting one for the other . According to these two Principles , which the Scripture affords us ; viz. That the Father only is God , and that the Holy Ghost is God's Power ; we dare affirm , that when Personal Acts are ascribed to it , it is a Figurative Expression . Thus we can easily conceive , that the Holy Ghost may be said to work Miracles ( pag. 190. ) to raise the Dead , to comfort , to convince , to sanctify the Church , to dwell in the Church : because God by his Power works Miracles , raises the Dead , comforts , convinces , sanctifies , and dwells in the Church . Thus we do not prove that the Holy Ghost is no Person , only because Personal Acts are sometimes Figuratively attributed to that which is no Person ; as this Author mistakes : But having proved by Scripture , that the Holy Ghost is no Person , we say that Personal Acts are figuratively ascribed to it , as they are to Charity , Wisdom , and other Things , both in Scripture and in Prophane Authors , and in common familiar Speech . 2. The second Argument , against the Spirit 's being God , is this ; A manifest Distinction is made , as between God and Christ ; so also between God and the Holy Spirit , or Power and Inspiration of God : so that 't is impossible , the Spirit should be God himself . To this our Author answers , pag. 191. This Holy Spirit is either a Divine subsisting Person , or nothing but a Name . If this Spirit were a Divine Virtue or Power ( as he would have it ) then it is not distinct from God , but is God himself : As the Powers and Faculties of the Mind , thô they may be distinguished from each other , yet they can't be any thing distinct from the Mind , but are the Mind it self ; and therefore if the Spirit , as he says , be represented in Scripture , as so distinct from God , that 't is impossible he should be God himself ; then he must be a distinct Divine Person , and not the meer Power of God , which is not distinct from God himself . To this I answer ; the Holy Spirit is neither a Divine subsisting Person , nor a meer Name . In order to the clearing of this , I must observe , that the Holy Ghost signifies in Scripture , sometimes the Power of God , sometimes the Effects of that Power , or all miraculous extraordinary Gifts . In the first sense , we read ( Luke 1. 35. ) The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee , and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee . Here it is evident that the Holy Ghost signifies the Power of God ; whereby he effected the miraculous Conception of our Blessed Saviour . In the latter sense , we read ( Gal. 3. 5. ) He therefore that ministreth to you the Spirit , and worketh Miracles among you ; doth he it by the Works of the Law , or by the hearing of Faith ? Here the Spirit is plainly meant of the miraculous Gifts , bestowed upon the first Christians ; and the meaning of the Apostle's Question is this ; whether the Galatians had been indued with that Spirit , and those extraordinary Gifts , by submitting to the Ceremonial Law of Moses , or only upon their imbracing the Gospel ? In the first sense , the Holy Ghost is only an Attribute of God , and so is not a meer Name ; nor is it a Divine subsisting Person ; which to say , were ridiculous , and contrary to the Notion of an Attribute . This Attribute may be distinguish'd from God , in such manner as Attributes are wont to be distinguish'd ; that is , God may be said to act by his Power , as he is said to act by his Wisdom . But he saith , If this Spirit were a Divine Vertue or Power , then it is not distinct from God , but is God himself . I answer , if this be all our Author contends for , that the Holy Spirit ( or Power ) of God is God , in such sense as other Vertues and Faculties of God may be called God himself ; the Socinians never denied it : and this is all that his Argument proves . Secondly , He ought to know , the Holy Spirit is not distinct from God , as one Person from another , but is distinguished from God as his Attribute . This is easy and plain , and agreeable to Reason and Scripture : and is a full answer to what he adds , in these words ; A Power which is distinct from God , and is not God himself , as ( he says ) the Holy Spirit is , if it has any Personal Acts , must be a distinct Person : and if these Personal Acts are such , as are proper only to God , it must be a distinct Divine Person . He goes on . He says this Spirit is the Inspiration of God ; be it so . This Inspiration then , is either within God himself ; or without him , in his Creatures who have this Inspiration . If it be within God himself , it must be a Person , or else it cannot be distinct from God ; and a Divine Person , unless any thing be in God , which is not God. If this Inspiration be without God , in the Creatures who are inspired by him ; how is it the Spirit of God ? For the Spirit of God must be in God , as the Spirit of a Man is in a Man ? I answer . If every thing that is in God be a Person , then there must be as many Persons in the Godhead , as there are Attributes or Immanent Acts in God ; which to say , is too sensless and ridiculous , to need Confutation . God's Inspiration as 't is an Act , is in God ; as 't is an Effect , 't is in Creatures ; and is called the Spirit of God , because 't is an Effect of that Spirit , Energy or Power , which God uses to make his Will known to Men , by inward Suggestion or Inspiration . He desires to know ( pag. 192. ) how the Spirit of God differs from his Gifts and Graces ? I answer ; As the cause from its effects : so that there are Diversities of Gifts , but the same Spirit , 1 Cor. 12. 4. The same Cause produces several effects , out of the same Power spring several Gifts . 3. The next Argument is ; The Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers , therefore it self is not God. This he pretends to answer by his Old Sophism , that One Divine Person may send and give another ; which has been already confuted . He adds ; The Spirit gives himself , and is asked of himself ; for the Divine Persons in the Trinity do not act separately : but as the Father and the Son give the Spirit ; so the Holy Spirit gives himself in the same Individual Act. But how can this be the same Individual Act ? The Father and the Son , says he , send the Holy Ghost , and the Holy Ghost gives himself . Can sending another , and giving one's self , be one and the same Act ? Farther ; If the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost cannot act separately , when the Holy Ghost gives himself , Father and Son must give themselves too ; or else it will not be the same Individual Act. But were it so ; this would not be made peculiar to the Holy Ghost , who only is said ( in Scripture ) to be given and obtained of God. But the thing is plain and easy , if by the Spirit we understand God's Power and Inspiration ; which ( with their Effects ) are communicated to those that pray for them . CHAP. VI. 4. THE next Argument is against a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead ; Which ( saith the Historian ) is contrary to the whole Scripture . For that speaks of God , but as one Person ; and speaks of him , and to him by Singular Pronouns ; such as I , Thou , Me , Him , &c. He cites also Heb. 1. 2. where Christ is called , the express Image of God's Person . Our Author returns this Answer ; It is plain that the Person , of whom the Son is called the express Image , is the Person of God the Father ; and the Father indeed is but one Person . But here he takes for granted , that the Son is the second Person , of the Trinity ; contrary to the Apostle , who speaks only of the Person of God , not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son. If the Person , of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image , is only the Person of the Father ; then the Person of the Father only , at sundry Times and in divers Manners , spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets , Ver. 1. for ( Ver. 2. ) the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only , is not the true God , in the Author's Hypothesis ; therefore he must conclude , that the true God spake not to the Fathers : which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle ; who says , that God ( undoubtedly the true God ) spake to the Fathers . Farther , by God who spake to the Fathers , we must understand either Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , or the Father only . If Father , Son , and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers ; it could not be here said , that Christ is the Image of that God's Person , for he is Three Persons . If the Father only spake to the Fathers , then the Father only is the true God ; for the true God spake to the Fathers ; also then God is but one Person : Which are the things we contend for . He goes on ; As for his Singular Pronouns , I , Thou , &c. They prove indeed that there is but one God ; as we all own : not , that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead . But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons , in all Languages ? When therefore they are applied to God , they show that he is a Singular ( that is , but one ) Person ; unless they will say , that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others : but this is false ; for being written to Men , the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them , are the same as in all other Languages ; and otherways the Scripture would not be given us , to instruct us , but to pervert and deceive us . 5. The fifth Argument . Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God ; this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed . He answers ; Had not the Son been God , and also the Holy Ghost , they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed ; no more than the Form of Baptism , which is the Original of the Apostles Creed . But why not ? Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God ; since the Gospel was preached by the One , and confirmed by the Other ; why may not they be put into the Creed , as well as the Catholic Church , by whom the Gospel is to be believed ? If our Creed only mentioned God , the Father Almighty , Maker of Heaven and Earth ; it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian : therefore a Christian Creed , as such , must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost , thô they are not Gods or God. A Christian , as such , must profess in his Creed , that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty ; but also in his Son Jesus Christ , who was sent by him to preach the Gospel ; and in the Holy Ghost , by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it : By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man. He adds . That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost , we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith ; but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed , before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church . 'T is plain , our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks . And whereas he says , there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed ; 't is very marvellous to me , that there should be no reason to express an Article , which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation ; and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not . But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed ; but I say , had the Article been necessary , ( or so much as true ) the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed , to make room for a necessary Article ; an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church , and other Articles there expressed . Besides , what Inlargement would it have been , what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory , to have added twice this single and short Word , God : And in ( God ) ▪ the Son , Jesus Christ our Lord , &c. I believe in ( God ) the Holy Ghost , &c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days ? It is plain therefore , that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason , why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity , and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost ; no other , but that they believed it not . But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 , 23 , 24. was it too hot , or to heavy for him ? Lastly ; he says , It needed not to be added ; because the Son of God must be by Nature God ; and the Spirit of God is as essentially God , as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man. But must he that is the Son of God , be also by Nature God ? St. Luke says of Adam , who was the Son of God , Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God ? Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God ? and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God , in the Language of Scripture ? Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying , that the Spirit of God is as essentially God , as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man : If one had leisure , there might be Answers enow made to it ; all that I say , is , I pray prove it . 6. The Historian concludes , That , The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith ; but that of the Trinitarians is absurd , and contrary both to Reason , and to it self , and therefore not only false , but impossible . On the contrary , our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge . 1. It ridicules the Scriptures . 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy . 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion . 4. It justifies , at least excuses , both Pagan and Popish Idolatries . If it be so , my Masters , the Socinians are ill Men indeed : but let us do them this Common Right , to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment . CHAP. VII . 1. THE First pretence is , That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture , by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it , unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired . He instances in some Expositions of Scripture , which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians . For Example , The Historian , in answer to Psal . 45. 6 , 7. which the Apostle ( at Heb. 1. 8. ) applies to Christ , says , In the Hebrew and in the Greek 't is , God is thy Throne ( i. e. thy Seat , Resting-place , Establishment ) for ever . Neither the Translation nor the Interpretation is the Historian's , but by him taken out of Grotius , whom no Man thinks to have ridicul'd the Scripture . But let us suppose , contrary to Grotius , that the Hebrew Elohim ought to be taken in the Vocative Case , thus ; Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever : Yet the Interpretation of Grotius , and of the Historian , affords neither an absurd nor a trifling Sense . The Words in the Psalms are ( by confession of the ablest Trinitarian Interpreters ) spoken of Solomon , and are applied or accommodated to Christ , by the Apostle : and I think 't is very good Sense to say , that God was the Resting-place , Seat , or Establishment , both of Christ and Solomon . But ( as I said ) let us grant , that the Words should be thus rendered and interpreted , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever : I draw from thence this Inference , If Solomon , tho but a Man , is here stiled God ; then Christ , who is a greater Man , may be called so too . But when he is here called God , it is not meant that he is the Supream God , unless the Supream God can be said to be anointed with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows , which is plainly inconsistent with the Notion of a Supream God. Besides , he who is called God in this place , is said to have a God , by whom he is anointed ; which can by no means agree to the Supream God : for he can have no God above him , by whom he may be exalted , being himself the most High. The Apostle in the following Verses , cites another Passage out of Psal . 102. 25 , 26 , 27. which ( says our Author at pag. 201. ) is a plain Testimony of the Divinity of our Saviour . The Words are these , And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth ; and the Heavens are the works of thy Hands : they shall perish , but thou remainest , and they shall all wax old as does a Garment , and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up , and they shall be changed : but thou art the same , and thy Years fail not . Now , I say , that the Creation of the World cannot be ascribed to Christ in this place . This , I prove , by the Scope of the Apostle in this whole Chapter , which is not to shew the Excellence which Christ has of himself , but that which he obtained by Donation , whereby he was made better than Angels , as appears by ver . 4. the Words are these , Being MADE so much better than Angels , as he has by Inheritance obtained ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) a more excellent Name than they . The Greek Word which we translate obtained by Inheritance , signifies no more than barely obtained ; the Words by Inheritance are useless and dangerous , and false too , for the Name Christ has obtained , came to him by free Donation , not by Inheritance . And therefore it is that the most Famous Criticks render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by obtinuit , sortitus est , he gained or obtained . I say therefore , the Apostle's Scope is to show the Excellency that Christ obtained , not by Nature , or of Himself , but that which he had by Donation ; and whereby he was made by God better than the Angels . Whereupon in this whole Chapter he opposes the Glory which Christ had been indued with , to the Glory of Angels ; and shews that His is more excellent and greater than Theirs . So that suppose Ghrist had indeed created the World , yet the Creation cannot be ascribed to him in this Place ; for if he had created the World , he should have done it by a Power proper and essential to himself , not by a Power received from another . But the Apostle designs in this Chapter , not to speak of what is natural or essential to Christ , but of what he has received from God , whereby he was made greater and more excellent than Angels . Having thus shown , that Christ is not said here to have created the World , I must now declare , in what Sense this Text of the Psalm is applied to him . The preceding Words , spoken of Solomon , are accommodated to him , to express the Glory and the Duration of his Kingdom : its Glory , because God has anointed him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows ; its Duration , because his Throne is for ever and ever . By which glorious and lasting Kingdom , Christ has been made much better than Angels , and obtained a more excellent Name than they : which ( as I said before ) is the thing , the Apostle in this Chapter intended to teach us . Now to the same purpose he applies to Christ another place , taken out of Psal . 102. and separated from the other only by the Word And : by this other place ( or rather , in the Words and Terms of this other place ) he confirms what he said before concerning the Duration of Christ's Kingdom ; and shews that tho all things be subject to change and alteration , yet Christ's Kingdom shall be immutable and last for ever . They ( the Heavens and the Earth ) shall perish , but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as does a Garment , and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up , and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same , and thy Years fail not . These Words are used as a Confirmation of what went before , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever . As for ver . 10. Thou Lord in the beginning has laid the Foundation of the Earth , &c. The Apostle does not cite it as spoken of Christ , or with intention to accommodate it to him ; but because it was necessary for explaining the word , They ( They shall perish ) in the following words , which he had occasion to use for expressing the Duration of Christ's Kingdom . And now I appeal to any Reader , whether this be an absurd Sense ? Is not this Explication clear , and agreeable to the Scope of the Sacred Writer ? But is not the Sense which the Author would put upon this place , both absurd and inconsistent ? Can it be said that Christ is made better than Angels , and obtained a greater Name than they , because he created Heaven and Earth ; that is , being so before by Nature , and from all Eternity , he is afterwards made better , and has a more excellent Name than theirs bestowed on him ? The next place he examines , is Psal . 68. 18. Thou hast ascended on high , thou hast led Captivity Captive , thou hast received Gifts for Men : Which St. Paul applies to Christ . Whereupon our Author says , The single Question is , Whether Christ be that God of whom the Psalmist says , that He ascended on High ? &c. If he be not , St. Paul has abused us , for he applies that to Christ , which was not said of him . Here indeed is a very rash Conclusion . Were this true , it would follow , that the Sacred Writers of the New Testament have abused us , as often as they have cited any place of the Old Testament by way of accommodation . Thus St. Paul has again abused us , when he applies ( at Rom. 10. 18. ) to the Apostles these Words , Their sound went out into all the Earth , and their Words into the ends of the World ; which every one knows and confesses are meant ( at Psal . 19. 4. ) of the Heavens and other Works of God , which ( as it were ) preach his Wisdom and Power and Goodness to all Nations . And thus St. Matthew ( at Mat. 13. 35. ) puts a Trick upon us , when he applies to Christ the Words of Psal . 78. 2. I will open my Mouth in Parables : Which the Psalmist speaks of himself , not of Christ . Is our Author so little acquainted with the Writers of the New Testament , as to be ignorant , that they very often cite the Texts of the Old , not as Testimonies and Proofs of what they say , but by way of Allusion and Accommodation ? Such is the place in question , the Apostle thought fit to accommodate the words of the Psalm , to the matter he was treating of ; which was an elegant way of writing , and very much practised by the Antient Jews , as may be seen both in the Talmud and Rabbins . Let us hear J. Calvin on this place ; Lastly , says he , we must not be too scrupulous about the Literal Sense of this Psalm ; seeing the Apostle only alludes to the Psalmist's words : even as he applies a place of Moses , to the matter in hand at Rom. 10. 6. God himself can be no Type , says our Author , pag. 203. for the Type is always less perfect than the Anti-type ; and therefore whatsoever is said of God , must belong to his Person , and cannot belong to any other . But what then ? We do not say that God is a Type of any other in this Text ; nor did the Apostle cite the Words as such : we only say , that what is spoken of God in the Psalm , is by the Apostle applied to Christ by way of Accommodation ; as several other Passages of the Old Testament are , both by him and other sacred Writers ; as is confest by all Interpreters . The next Place is Heb. 1. 6. When he bringeth the First-begotten into the World , he says ; and let all the Angels of God worship him : Which last Words are commonly thought to be quoted out of Psal . 97. 7. To this Allegation the Socinian Historian answers ; The Apostle does not quote the Words of the Psalmist , as if they were spoken of Christ ; but only declareth the Decree of God ( known to him by the Spirit ) for subjecting the Angels to Christ , in the same Words that the Psalmist had used on another Occasion . This is a very sound and judicious Answer ; yet our Author cannot rest satisfied with it , for he answers ; But he proves this Decree of God by no other Revelation , but the Words of the Psalmist , nor pretends any other ; and if that don't prove it , we have no other . Yes , we have ; for we know from Christ himself , that all Power is given to him , both in Heaven and Earth , and consequently that he is exalted above all the Orders of Angels : this the Scriptures often teach , and it was believed by all Christians in the time of the Apostles . So that when this sacred Writer sets before the Hebrews the eminent Glory of Christ ; he does it , only to keep them in mind of it , and to perswade them never to depart from the Doctrine of so great and glorious a Master . As if he should have said ; You are not ignorant of the Glory Christ now injoys in Heaven ; how Thrones , Powers , Dominions , &c. are subjected to him : for when God brought his First-born and beloved Son into the Heavenly World , he said concerning him , what had been said upon another Occasion , Let all the Angels of God worship him ; let them honour , serve , and be subject to him . This is the true and natural Sense of this Place ; to which I must add , ( what has been already observed by others ) that it is probable this Place is quoted out of Deut. 32. 43. according to the Lxx ; and not out of Psal . 97. For there we find the very Words of the Apostle , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And let all the Angels of God worship him . But in Psal . 97. we find only , Worship him all ye Gods. If this be true , as I think it is , our Author's Objection will fall of it self . For those Words in Deut. are not spoken of God , but of God's People , the Israelites . And if this can be said of God's People ; I hope it may be said of Christ too , without concluding from thence , that he is the Supream God. The next Place is Isa . 45. 23. I have sworn by my self ; Vnto me every Knee shall bow . Which Words of God are applied to Christ at Rom. 14. 10 , 11. We shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ ; for it is written , Every Knee shall bow to me , and every Tongue shall confess to God. To this the Historian answers ; In bowing and confessing to Christ at the last Judgment , we are said to bow and confess to God ; not because Christ is God , but because Christ then and there holds the place of God , representeth him , and acteth by his Commission . So Men are said to appear before our Soraign Lord the King , when they appear at the Bar of his Judges ; because the Judges act in the King's stead , and by his Commission . To this our Author replies ; But why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the last Judgment ? St. Paul , indeed gives this as one Instance , but does not confine it to this ; but in the Epistle to the Philippians makes it as large , as the Exaltation of our Saviour ; Wherefore God hath highly exalted him , &c. And one may plainly see , that the Historian does not confine the bowing of the Knee to the last Judgment ; He only explains the Words of the Apostle which relate to it . But what then ? The Apostle makes the bowing of the Knee as large as Christ's Exaltation , Phil. 2. What follows from thence ? That Christ is God! By no means . It follows only , that we ought to pay Christ an Honour proportionable to the Dignity bestowed on him ; in a word , that every Tongue confess that he is Lord , to the Glory of God , the Father . In which Words the Apostle plainly teaches us , that the Honour we pay to Christ , is subordinate to God , and designed to promote God's Glory . If then , says he , we must bow to the Person of Christ , and confess him to be the Lord , and this can be an Accomplishment of God's Oath , Vnto me every Knee shall bow , and every Tongue shall swear ; then Christ is that God , who in the Prophet Isaiah swore , That every Knee should bow to him . This is just as if one should say ; If then the Irish must how to the Person of the Vice-Roy in Ireland , and confess him to be the Lord ; and this be the Accomplishment of the King's Will , Vnto me all the Irish shall bow , and swear Allegiance ; then the Vice-Roy is that King , who will have all the Irish to swear Allegiance to him . This is a ridiculous Argument ; for as the Irish may bow to the Person of the Vice-Roy , and look upon him as a Lord established by the King to govern Ireland ; so this they do in compliance with the King's Will , and to shew thereby that they are his loyal and faithful Subjects : and he who bows to the Vice-Roy , may be said to bow to the King ; because the Vice-Roy represents the King , and acts in his Name . So that it would be non-sense to say , the Vice-Roy is King , because they pay him that Honour . Let us apply this to Christ ; we must bow to him , and confess him to be the Lord ; and by so doing , God's Oath is accomplished , Vnto me every Knee shall bow , &c. Does it follow from thence , that Christ is that God , who swore in the Prophet Isaiah ? Not at all ; because when we pay this Honour to Christ , it is , to obey God's Commands , and to acknowledg his Power and Authority over us . He who honours the Ambassador , honours him that sent him ; he who honours Christ God 's Anointed , honours God who anointed him . In a word , He who bows to Christ tho a Man , bows to God also . The next place , is Rom. 9. 33. As it is written , Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-Stone , and Rock of ossence ; and whosoever believeth on him , shall not be ashamed . Part of these Words are taken from Isa . 28. 16. and because they are spoken of God in the Prophet , and applied to Christ by St. Paul and St. Peter , as several other Texts of the Old Testament are : They conclude , Christ must be that God , spoken of in the Prophet . But the Historian answers ; that Neither Peter , nor Paul , cite the Words of the Prophet , as spoken of Christ ; but only as in some sense applicable to him , namely , because Christ also was to many a Stone of stumbling . To this our Author replies , like a Man very little acquainted with Scripture : that This is nothing else , but to charge the Apostles with abusing Scripture ; and producing Proofs , which are no Proofs . This I have answered before . But he tells us , that Paul alledges this Prophecy to prove , that the Infidelity of the Jews , and the Offence they should take at Christ , was foretold in Scripture . Here I must tell him , he is mistaken . For the Words are no such Prophecy ; but are spoken of the Times of Sennacherib , who was to make War against the Inhabitants of Jerusalem , whom God promises to protect and defend , if they will but keep within the Walls of the City , and stick close to his Law. The Author adds a considerable Reflection ; And thus these Men , rather than they will allow the Scripture proofs , that Christ is God , destroy all the Old Testament proofs of the Truth of Christianity ; and yet if such Texts as these , must pass only for Accommodations and Allusions , I know not where they will find any proofs . Alas ! I perceive the Author would be a very unfit Man to convert Jews . When I read first this Passage of his Book ; I could not but wonder , how it came from a Christian . He knows not where we may find any proofs of Christianity , besides those of the Old Testament . Are then the Miracles of Christ , and of his Apostles , nothing ? Is Christ's Resurrection no Proof , or but a weak one , of his being sent by God , and the truth of his Message ? Must we account as nothing , the Purity of the Gospel , and its swift Propagation thrô the whole World ? I always thought , with other Christians , that these were invincible Arguments for the Truth of our Religion . So they are indeed , and by them we ought to convince the Jews : and then we are able to give them a reasonable Account of all the Texts of the Old Testament , that are quoted in the New. The first place in the New Testament , quoted by our Author , is Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations ; Baptizing them in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . This the Author of the Brief History explains , after this manner : To be Baptized in the Name of a Person or Persons , is a Rite by which one delivers himself to the Institution , Instruction , and Obedience of such Person or Persons . So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; is to prosess to be led and guided by them : or ( as Grotius expresses this matter ) 't is to declare , we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion , but what proceeds from these ; that is , Nothing but what is commanded by God , or the Father , and has been delivered by his Son the Lord Christ , and consirmed ( externally , by the Miracles ; and internally , by the Witness and Testimony ) of the Spirit , that is , of the Power and Inspiration of God. Now all this our Author grants ; only he says , that Baptism being a Religious Rite , it is a Religious Profession of this ; a Religious Devoting our selves to them : and therefore we give up our selves to their Institution and Guidance , not as Creatures , but as to God ; who is both the Author and Object of our Faith and Worship . But what is the meaning of all this ? We do not deny , that Baptism is a Religious Rite , and a Religious Profession of our Faith : we only deny that , because we are Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost , as well as in the Name of the Father , that therefore the Son and Holy Ghost , are Two Divine Persons , and God as well as the Father . We religiously profess in Baptism , to believe no other Doctrine but what is derived from the Father , taught by his Son , and confirmed by the Holy Ghost ; and the being Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost , is so far from proving , that they are God ; that supposing they are not , yet we must of necessity be Baptized in their Name . When the Apostles made Proselytes , had they Baptized them only in the Name of the Father ; such a Eaptism had been no distinction of Christians from Jews ; for the Jews believed in the true God , as well as the Christians . So that supposing Christ and the Holy Ghost are not God , yet since the Gospel was first preached by the One , and confirmed by the Other ; it was necessary that he who imbraced the Gospel , should be Baptized in the Name of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost : to profess thereby , that he was neither a Jew nor a Pagan , but a Christian ; and that he admitted no other Doctrine , but that delivered by the Son , and confirmed by the Holy Ghost . This was so essential to the Baptism of a Christian , that we never read in the Acts of the Apostles , that Proselytes were baptized in the Name of the Father , but only in the Name of the Son : of which we can give a reasonable Account ; for all that believed in God , did not believe in Christ ; but whoever believed in Christ , believed in God too . One might believe and trust in God , without being a Christian ; but whoever believed in Christ and was Baptized in his Name , was both a Worshipper of the true God , and a Christian . He who was Baptized in the Name of the Son , did publickly profess this Belief , that he was sent from God , and had his Doctrine from him ; and by such an Acknowledgment he profest at the same time , that God bare testimony to this Doctrine by the plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost : So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and to be Baptized only in the Name of the Son ; are one and the same thing . I shall conclude this , with the Words of the Learned Mr. Limborck , Theol. Christ . pag. 645. Dominus Jesus ritui , &c. In English thus ; To this Rite before practised by John Baptist , the Lord Jesus added another Signification ; viz. the Profession of his Name , and the Publick Reception of the Doctrine he had preached . Therefore he ordered that Baptism should be administred in the Name of the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , Mat. 28. 19. That those who should receive the Rite of Baptism , might thereby give up themselves to the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost ; and profess themselves Disciples of that Doctrine , which is originally derived from the Father , revealed and preached by the Son , and confirmed by the Holy Ghost , with divers Miracles , Signs , Prodigies , and Distributions of Gifts . So that the Reception of Baptism , was a publick Profession of the Doctrine of Christ : Therefore it is , that the Faithful are said every where , to be Baptized in the Name of Christ ; that is , to profess by their being Baptized , that they receive his Doctrine as Divine , and will be called by his Name , as being their heavenly Master and only Saviour . The Historian adds , that , 'T is in vain , not to say ridiculously pretended ; that a Person or thing is God , because we are Baptized unto it , or in the Name of it . For then Moses , and St. John Baptist also , would be Gods. 1 Cor. 10. 1 , 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized unto Moses . Acts 19. 3. Vnto what then were ye baptized ? And they said , unto John 's Baptism ; that is ( say the Generality of Interpreters ) unto John , and the Doctrine by him delivered . He replies pag. 212. I confess he had answered this Argument ; could he have shewn us , that the Jews were baptized in the Name of God , and in the Name of Moses , for that had joined Moses with God , as our Saviour joins the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father in the form of Baptism . But if the Jews were baptized in the Name of Moses ; who can doubt , that they were baptized in the Name of God too ; as those who are baptized in the Name of Jesus , are thereby baptized also in the Name of God , as has been before shewed ? It is plain , the Apostle compares Moses with Christ ; and tells the Corinthians , that , as they were baptized in the Name of Jesus the Son and Messenger of God , so the Fathers had been baptized in the Name of Moses the Servant of God. But we can afford the Author some places of Scripture , wherein Creatures are joined with God. Thus , Exod. 14. 31. it is said ; And the People feared the Lord , and believed the Lord , and his Servant Moses . In the Hebrew 'tis , in the Lord and in Moses his Servant . Here Moses the Man is joined with God ; and the Jews are said , to believe in him , as they believed in God. So 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God , and the Lord Jesus Christ , and the elect Angels , that thou observe these things , &c. Here elect Angels , thô Creatures , are ranked with God in so great and important a Matter , and act of Religion , as an Obtestation . Again , Rev. 1. 4. Grace be to you and Peace from him , which is , and which was , and which is to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his Throne . If Moses and Angels may be joined with God , in Acts of Faith , of Obtestation , and of Benediction ; why not the Son and Spirit in Baptism , thô neither of them is God himself ? We plainly see by St. Paul's Words to the Corinthians , that to be baptized in the Name of One , does not import that he is God. 1 Cor. 1. 14 , 15. I thank God , says he , I baptized none of you , but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should say , that I had baptized in my own Name . He plainly intimates , that a meer Man may baptize in his own Name ; and if any of the Corinthians had thought so of the Apostle , I hope they would not have concluded from thence , that he was God , or made himself God. He adds ; It is plain , that to baptize unto Moses , is a Figurative and Allusive Expression ; and does not and cannot signify , that they were baptized in the Name of Moses ; because it is not true . Indeed the Jews were not baptized as Christians are ; but still they were baptized . Let the Author call it a Figurative and Mystical Baptism , or what else he pleases ; it was still a Baptism , as St. Paul assures us . And to be baptized into Moses , is the same with being baptized in the Name of Moses ; as in the New Testament to be baptized into or unto Christ , is the same with being baptized in the Name of Christ . This was rightly understood by Vorstius , who paraphrases this place thus ; Scitis etiam , &c. i. e. You know also , that they were all baptized in the Doctrine of Moses , as the Messenger of God ; as the Cloud , and the Passage thrô the Red-Sea were designed for a Confirmation of the Ministry of Moses . But he denies , that , to be baptized into Christ , and baptized in the Name of Christ , signify the same thing . But he mistakes as grosly , as he uses to do ; for any one may observe it , that compares the Texts , where these Phrases are used . Thus , John 3. 18. He that believeth on him ( in the Greek , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in , or into , or unto him ) is not condemned ; but he that believeth not , is condemned already ; because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. So at Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. to be baptized into Christ ; and at Acts 2. 38. and 8. 16. to be baptized in the Name of Christ , are used as equivalent terms . Indeed , the plain meaning of Rom. 6. 3. is this ; Know ye not , that so many of us as were baptized in the Name of Christ , and profest to obey his Doctrine , lay thereby under an Obligation of a Spiritual Conformity to his Death ; in dying to Sin , as he is dead ; and living to God , as he is raised from the dead and lives with God. So that the first words , contrary to our Author's Assertion , relate to the form of administring Baptism in the Name of Jesus ; and the latter to the effect of it . This we may apply also to Gal. 3. 27. He further denies , That to be baptized unto , or into John 's Baptism , signifies to be baptized in the Name of John : for ( says he ) John did not baptize in his own Name ; but made Proselytes to the Messias . But I hope he will not deny , that to be baptized into Christ's Baptism is all one with being baptized in the Name of Christ . And if this be so , to be baptized into John 's Baptism , must also signify to be baptized in the Name of John. John indeed made Proselytes to the Messias ; but he preached the Doctrine of Repentance , and he who was baptized by him , was baptized into the Profession of the Doctrine taught by him ; and therefore , whoever profest in his Baptism , to follow the Doctrine of John , might be said to be baptized to the Doctrine of John , or in the Name of John. Lastly , He asks , Whether it be not very absurd , that the Power or Inspiration of God , which is not a Person , should be joined in the same Form with the Father and Son , who are Persons ? I answer ; I see no absurdity , in being baptized into the Profession of a Doctrine , which not only comes originally from God the Father , and is revealed by his Son , but is confirmed by the Power or Spirit of God. The next and last Place of the New Testament , which our Auther considers , is the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel : Which , says he , pag. 215. gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ ; and a plain Demonstration of the incurable Perverseness of Hereticks . I will examine this High Pretence ; and shew these three Things . 1. The Absurdity of the Author's Explication of this Chapter . 2. The Inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the Context . 3. The true sense and meaning of this so much controverted Place . 1. The Historian said , that the Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictious , and that it is this ; In the Beginning , i. e. from all Eternity . But , How ( saith the Historian ) can in the Beginning , be from all Eternity ? From all Eternity is before the Beginning , or without Beginning , not in the Beginning . To this our Author replies , That No Man expounds in the beginning of Eternity . But he should not be so bold in his Assertions ; for Mr. Calvin expounds it so . He adds ; When St. John tells us , In the Beginning was the Word ; we say this proves the Eternity of the Word : for that which was , when all things began which had a beginning , was it self before the beginning and without beginning . I answer , had the Evangelist designed to teach us the Eternity of the Word ; he would undoubtedly have done it by the same Characters , that are used in Scripture to express the Eternity of God. Now this Expression , in the Beginning , is so far from denoting Eternity , that it is never applied to God in that Sense . We read in Scripture , That In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth , Gen. 1. 1. Heb. 1. 10. a plain Demonstration that In the beginning cannot be applied to him that is God , but only to Creatures ; and as plain a Demonstration that God himself is from all Eternity ; for he who created all things , must needs be ( not only before all things , but ) from Eternity . But we never read God was in the Beginning , in all the Descriptions which the Scriptures afford us of his Eternity : nay , they rather declare it or describe it by , Before the beginning , Psal . 90. 2. Before the Mountains were brought forth ; — even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Here Eternity is described by before the beginning . This is the Scripture-Notion of Eternity : therefore if St. John had intended to shew the Eternity of the Word , he should not have said In the beginning was the Word ; but as 't is said of God , In the beginning the Word created the Heaven and the Earth . Nor will it avail any thing to say ; The Word was so in the beginning ; that all things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made . For as the foregoing Words , In the beginning was the Word , are no true Description of Eternity in Scripture ; so neither are these , All things were made by him , &c. the Scripture-Description of the Creation . There is no mention here made either of the Heaven , or the Earth , or the Sea , which are never omitted in the Descriptions we have in Scripture of the first and true Creation , a I shewed before ; and therefore there is no need to insist longer on this Phrase in this place . The Historian goes on . Was the Word , i. e. was God the Son ? But where in Scripture , says he , is the Word called God the the Son ? Our Author replies : This Word indeed is God the Son ; but we do not paraphrase it so in this place , In the beginning was God the Son : but , In the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word . But I pray , what is the meaning of this ? For if the Word is indeed God the Son , one may paraphrase it here , In the beginning was God the Son ; as well as , In the beginning was that Divine Person called the Word : the one is as fit , and as good Sense as the other . But it seems , our Author is asham'd to paraphrase the Word , by God the Son : this is a Modesty in him , which is but seldom found in his Book . Histor . The Word was God , i. e. The Son was with the Father . Answ . It seems then that God in this Clause , is the Father . But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost , and is not he too ( according to Trinitarians ) God , or a God ? If he is , why does St. John only say , the Son was with the Father ; and how comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God , to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost ? To avoid the strength of this Argument , our Author replies ; By God , the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom , that Supream and Soveraign Being , whom all Men called God , without making a Distinction of Persons in the Godhead . But if God in this place does not signify the Father only , but the Three Persons of the Trinity ; he should not tell us , that the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom , but those Three Minds whom all Men called God ; for we are taught all over his Book , that God is Three infinite Minds ; and consequently Three Wisdoms , for an infinite Mind cannot be without Wisdom : Neither should he say , That Supream and Soveraign Being , whom all Men call God , but those Three Supream and Soveraign Beings : for he often tells us , that God is Three infinite and substantial Beings ; therefore he is Three Supream and Soveraign Beings . It is a plain Contradiction , to say in one place , God is Three Minds and Three Beings ; and in another , that he is but one Mind and one Being . Furthermore , when the Evangelist says , The Word was with God , if by God he means not the Father only , but the Three Persons who are that God ; this will make a very trifling sense . For then , the Word was with God , must signify , thē second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity , and consequently with himself ; which is not only trifling , but ridiculous . The Apostle adds ; And the Word was God. Our Author to serve his Hypothesis , puts here another or a new sense on the word God : for he saw it was inconsistent with his Opinion ; that in this Clause God should be interpreted , as it was in the foregoing . Indeed it would be strange Non-sense ; for then the Word was God should signify , the second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity . Therefore in his Hypothesis , the Word was God , signifies , the Word was a Divine Person in the Godhead , pag. 216. But this Interpretation is no less absurd than the other ; for by the Word , he understands a Divine Person who is called the Word , and by God too he means a Divine Person in the Godhead . Therefore his Interpretation of these Words , the Word was God , amounts only to this , the Divine Person , who is called the Word , was a Divine Person . But to give us a right and full understanding of this place , he thought sit to paraphrase it thus ; In the Beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God ; that is , In the Beginning of all Things was the Divine Person , whose Name and Character is the Word ; this Word was inseparably united to that Supream Being , whom we call God , and was himself God , a Divine Person subsisting in the Unity of the Godhead ; not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man. I hope the Author will not take it ill , if I paraphrase his Paraphrase , to make it clearer to vulgar Understandings . In the Beginning of all Things , was the second Divine Person of the Trinity , whose Name and Character is the Word ; this second Divine Person of the Trinity was inseparably united with the Three Persons of the Trinity , whom we call God , and consequently with himself ; and this second Person was a Divine Person , not a Power and Faculty , as Reason is in Man. Our Author was so taken with this sense of the Words of St. John , that he could not for bear breaking out into these Words , Can any thing be more easy and obvious , and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity ? I confess , 't is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity . 2. Thô I have shown already the inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis , with the First Chapter of St. John's Gospel , by confuting the Author's Explication ; yet I intend to make it appear farther , by these few Considerations : ( 1. ) That to be in the Beginning , cannot here signify , to be from all Eternity , has been proved already ; because the Scripture does never describe Eternity by such an Expression , nor does the Expression in its own Nature denote Eternity : St. John would not have expressed so great a Mystery , and so necessary to be believed by All , in improper and unsuitable Words . ( 2. ) For the Word to be with God , and to be God , can never bear the sense which the Trinitarians put upon it . When John says , the Word was with God ; if by God we must understand the Three Persons of the Trinity , and by the Word a Divine Person in that Trinity ; this Interpretation makes , as I have shewed , this absurd sense ; The second Divine Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity , and consequently with himself . But if by God we must understand the Father only ; why does St. John omit the Holy Ghost , who is God as well as the Father , and with whom the Son was no less than with the Father ? In a word ( as the Historian speaks ) How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God , to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost ? ( 3. ) The Word was God , must signify in this Hypothesis ; That Divine Person who is called the Word , was a Divine Person . ( 4. ) All Trinitarians confess , that St. John in the Beginning of his Gospel , speaks of the New Creation wrought by the Gospel , as well as of the Old ; and thô they do not agree among themselves about the place , where he begins to treat of this New Creation or Regeneration ; yet they do all grant , that he discourses of it before , Ver. 14. And the Word was made Flesh . They all take those words , He came unto his own , Ver. 11. to be meant of Christ's conversing among Men , and teaching them the way of Salvation . But if the Word was made Flesh , at Ver. 14. signifies Christ's Incarnation , as Trinitarians pretend , it is unaccountable that St. John , writing the History of Christ's Life , should first tell us what Christ Incarnate has done , and then that He was Incarnate . This is just as if one , writing the Life of Alexander , should say , he overcame Darius ; and then , that he was begotten by Philip King of Macedon . Or , that Christ was tempted of the Devil ; and then , that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost . Indeed it cannot be denied , that the Evangelists do not very much observe the order of time , in relating several Discourses and Miracles of Christ ; but this is of no great moment , and does not destroy the proper and essential order of History . The former has been done by the Evangelists , as well as by other Historians ; but never the latter . They never tell us , that Christ went about to preach the Gospel ; and then , that he was born : or that , he was raised from the dead ; and then , that he died . This would be to invert the true order of History , and make Non-sense of it : And therefore it sufficiently proves that these words , The Word was made Flesh , coming after He came unto his own , cannot be meant of Christ's Incarnation . Thus Ver. 6 , 7. John is said to bear witness of Christ , and then that he was Incarnate . The like we may observe on Ver. 10. He was in the World , and the World was made by him ; if those Words , The World was made by him , are to be understood in a proper sense of Creation , the Apostle should have said first , that the World was made by him , and then that He was in the World. ( 5. ) This Evangelist plainly tells us ( Chap. 20. Ver. 21. ) the design he aimed at when he wrote his Gospel ; These Things are written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God ; and that believing , ye might have Life thrô his Name . It was not therefore to teach the Divinity and Consubstantiality of Christ , as Trinitarians pretend . He wrote , that we might be sure that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God , not that he was God. How comes he then to forget the most essential Thing , which induced him to write and publish his Gospel , viz. the asserting of Christ's Divinity ? No , no , it is plain , he only designed to teach and prove , that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God. And the Son of God can no more be God , than a Son can be his Father . Thus I think it appears clearly , that this Beginning of St. John's Gospel does not favour the Trinitarian Opinion ; but from Ver. 1 , to Ver. 15. is only an Abridgment of his whole Book . Were the Trinitarian Hypothesis clearly set down in other places of Scripture , I would not wonder to see Men lay so much stress upon this place : but since the Scriptures throughout teach us , that Christ was but a Man ; it stands to reason , that we should explain one obscure place by a thousand that are plain and easy . 3. I come now to assign the true Sense of this famous Context . Vers . 1 , 2. In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God : The same was in the beginning with God. PARAPHRASE . When Jesus , who is called the Word , because he was the Messenger and Preacher of God's Will and Word , and ( as it were ) the Mouth by which God pronounced his Oracles , began to preach the Gospel ; he was intimate to the most secret Counsels of God , like one who is in the very Bosom of his Father ; and he was in the form of God , and like God , by reason of the Glory and Majesty that did shine in him . 1. That the Man Jesus may be called the Word , or the Word of God , no Body will deny who reads Rev. 19. 13. where Jesus is thus described ; He was clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood , and his Name is called The Word of God. He who is here called the Word of God , who is clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood , must be the Man Jesus . Our Lord calls himself the Way , because he teaches us the way to Salvation ; and the Light , in this very Chapter , because he is the bringer of it : therefore why not also the Word of God , because he was the Revealer , Bringer , and first Preacher of it ? 2. It appears by the second Verse , that the Evangelist did not design to make a real Distinction , between to be in the beginning , and to be with God ; for what was distinctly spoken in the first Verse , is put together in the second , thus , The same was in the beginning with God. In effect , the meaning of the Apostle is not , that Christ was , when he began to enter upon his Prophetick Office ; this would be no great wonder : but that , when he began to preach the Doctrine of the Gospel , he was admitted into the most intimate Counsels of God , or made partaker of his most secret Will. This I think to be the reason of the Repetition contained in the second Verse ; besides that we may observe , that Repetitions are very frequent throughout the whole Gospel of St. John , and more used in that Book than in any other of the New Testament . Thus when the same Apostle says , 1 John 1. 1. That which was from the beginning , which we have heard , &c. he does not pretend really to distinguish those two things , and to say that the Gospel was in the beginning of the Gospel ; but that what he had seen and heard of the Gospel from the beginning of it , that he declared unto Men. 3. I have proved before , that In the beginning cannot signify the beginning of the World : but that it is here used for the beginning of the Gospel , the place last quoted ( and several others ) do sufficiently prove . 4. To be with God , and to be in the Bosom of the Father ( at ver . 18. ) are equivalent Terms . If therefore we know the true Sense of the latter Expression , we shall have a right understanding of the former . The Words at ver . 18. run thus ; No Man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son , which is in the Bosom of the Father , he has declared him . Now to see God in St. John's Stile , is to know the Decrees and Will of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel . Those words therefore ought to be thus paraphrased ; No Man knew at any time the Will and Decrees of God , concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel : the beloved Son of God , who was admitted into his most secret Counsels , has fully discovered them to us . The Word Only-begotten , is put here for Beloved , by way of Excellence ; and so it is used very often , both in Profane and Sacred Authors . And to be in the Bosom of the Father , is not here an Interpretation of Only-begotten ( that is , Best-Beloved ) but it is brought in as the reason of the full knowledg that Christ had of God's Will , and of the discovery he made of it . Christ , saith our Evangelist here , has fully declared the Will and Counsels of God to us . How so ? Because he was intimate and admitted to the most secret and hidden Counsels of God ; which he expresses by the Son 's being in the Bosom of the Father . This is then the true Sense of this Phrase , The Word was with God , viz. God discovered to him the whole extent of his Will , he kept nothing secret from him , he filled him up with the Treasures of , Wisdom and Knowledg . 5. We may easily understand the true meaning of the Word was God , if we compare them with Phil. 2. 6. where Christ is said to be in the form of God , and equal with God , or rather like God , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred . Christ was in the form of God , and like God ; by reason of the Power and Authority bestowed upon him , whereby he wrought all sorts of Miracles ; raising the Dead , curing the Lame , restoring sight to the Blind , stilling the Winds and the Sea , &c. This we may apply to the words of St. John. Jesus was not only in the Bosom of God , Partaker of his most secret Counsels ; but he was besides invested with such Authority and Power , as made him like God. So that Christ is by St. John called God ( or rather , a God ) by reason of that Power and Authortiy , whereby he became in some manner like unto the true and most High God. But this Appellation does no more prove him to be the true and most High God , than Solomon , or the Judges , in the Psalms , will be the True God , because this Name God is given to them , Psal . 82. 6. and 45. 6. Ver. 3. All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made , that was made . PARAPHRASE . All things , necessary to the Propagation of the Gospel , were performed by him , the Author and first Preacher of it . And without his Direction , there was not any thing performed that was performed . That this relates not to the Creation of the World , but to the Dispensation of the Gospel , is very plain from the following words , In him was Life , and the Life was the Light of Men , &c. In these words the Evangelist teaches us , how all things were made by Christ , because in him was the Life and Light of Men ; which all Men may discern , to be spoken of the Gospel by him taught ; which is the Light of Men and their Life , as it leads them to Eternal Life . Ver. 10 , 11. He was in the World , and the World was made by him , and the World knew him not . He came unto his own , and his own received him not . PARAPHRASE . He was conversing among Men , to teach them the way to Salvation ; some of them were reclaimed by him , but the greater part rejected him . He was sent to his own Brethren , but most of them would not receive him . It does sufficiently appear by these words , and the World knew him not , that the Apostle speaks only of Men , who only are capable of knowing ; not of this visible World : As indeed the 11th Verse is a plain Explication of Verse 10. St. John expresses in this Chapter the same thing several ways : He was in the World ; He came unto his own ; The Light shined in Darkness ; these are equivalent Expressions . So also , The World knew him not ; His own received him not ; the Darkness comprehended it not ; signify one and the same thing . Thus , the World was made by him , is explained at Ver. 12. thus , But as many as received him , to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God ; and by Verse 4 , and 9. So that in all this , there was no Intention to saythat the Old Creation was the work of Je , sus Christ . CHAP. VIII . HIS second Charge is , That Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable , pag. 231. because if Christ were no more than a meer Man , the Anti-type should fall very short of the Types contained in the Old Testament . The Tabernacle and Temple , says he , was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence ; and was so contrived , as to be the Figure both of Heaven and Earth ; for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us , the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven . — But we must all confess , that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony , for God , who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence , to dwell in an House made with Hands , — had it not prefigured something more Divine and Mysterious . — The Temple then was a Figure , and we must inquire , what it was the Figure of ? Now a Typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence , and God's Personal dwelling among Men : for Presence and Habitation can signify nothing but Presence , and a Figure must be a Figure of some thing that is real ; and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God , but a personal visible Presence . He goes on , and applies this to Christ , who ( at John 2. 19. ) calls his Body a Temple ; which ( says our Author ) was that in Truth and Reality , which the Temple was but a Figure of , that is , God's Presence on Earth , which he explains of his being personally united to Christ's Humane Nature . But if Christ be not Incarnate , adds he , if the Divine Word be not personally united to the Humane Nature ; the Body of Christ is but a figurative Temple , as the Temple at Jerusalem was : and then one Figure is made a Type of another ; which is as great an Absurdity in Types , as a Metaphor of a Metaphor in speech . I do not remember I ever saw so much trifling , so seriously urged in a weighty Question : but I have undertaken the drudgery of making Reflections on it ; and therefore will consider what he has offered . — 1. That the Temple was a Figure both of Heaven and Earth , I am content to admit ; the Apostle to the Hebrews may be interpreted to that purpose . But that it was also a Type of Christ's Body , we have no colour from Scripture to affirm it ; and the Author has offer'd no other ground for it , but his own wandring Fancy . The Author to the Hebrews , who inlarges upon the Temple , does not give the least Intimation of this : why then should we contrive Types and Figures of our own , without any reason for it ? If this be allowed , we may make Types of any thing ; and increase Figures to an infinite Number . If the Author is in love with cold and groundless Allegories , every Body is not of his Mind , and therefore he should keep them to himself . But why should the Temple be a Figure of Christ's Body , rather than the Ark ? God is said , all over the Old Testament , to dwell between the Cherubims ; it was the proper Seat of God , where he gave forth his Oracles , and made his Glory to appear by affording sensible Signs of his Presence . If therefore such Allegories had any Signification of future Times and Things , it would be more probable that the Ark was a Type of Christ's Body , than the Temple : the rather , because we know already by a Divine Testimony , that the Temple was a Figure of some-thing else . But he will say , that Christ calls his Body a Temple . What then ? so St. Paul calls the Corinthians ; Ye are , says he , the Temple of God. Was the Temple at Jerusalem a Figure or Type of the Bodies of the Corinthians ? Or does our Saviour say , that he calls his Body a Temple , because it was the Anti-type of the Temple of the Jews ? 2. Tho the Temple were not a Figure of Christ's Body , yet it would be no unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony , for God to dwell in an House made with Hands ; to appoint this the place of his Worship , &c. which our Author thinks to be inexplicable without admitting his Doctrine of the Trinity . Who knows not , that the Israelites were given to Idolatry ; and that the pompous way of Worship used among the neighbouring Nations , agreed so much to their Fancies , that it was necessary to comply with them in this thing , that they might be kept from worshipping other Gods , and the current of Idolatry be restrained . Thus God in his infinite Wisdom thought fit to set up among his People a carnal and sensible Worship ; and to appoint an House where he would dwell after a particular Manner , and afford visible Symbols of his Presence . All this he did to accommodate himself to the gross genius of the Israelites , and to perswade them to forsake Idols , and to acknowledg no other God but himself . This was the true reason of the Temple , of God's dwelling there , and the Glory with which it was sometimes filled : and to affirm that all was done , to prefigure Christ's Body , is a Fancy which the Author might better have kept to himself . 3. But suppose the Temple was a Type of Christ's Body ; yet there is no need God should be incarnate in Christ's Body , to answer that Type . The Scriptures tell us , God was with Christ , and in Christ ; which I hope might be done without an Incarnation or Personal Union , as he was in the Temple . As God spake in the Temple , so he spake in and by Christ . But besides all this , Christ was greater than the Temple ; because God was always present with him , which cannot be said of the Temple , where the Signs of God's Presence were not always visible . God's Dwelling in Christ was always conspicuous by the Oracles which he delivered , and the Miracles he wrought . But he objects a place of Scripture . To this , says he , St. John plainly alludes ; The Word was made Flesh , and dwelt amongst us , and we beheld his Glory , the Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father , full of Grace and Truth . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tabernacled amongst us ; fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem , by his dwelling Personally in Humane Nature . This Argument , or rather Congruity , is grounded on two false Suppositions . The first is , that The Word was made Flesh , is meant of Christ's Incarnation . The second , that in these Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we render he dwelt amongst us ; St. John alludes to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle . I begin with the first . It cannot be denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred was , as well as was made . Thus it is taken , Luke 1. 5. and 24. 19. and even at Verse 6. of this Chapter . Nor can it be doubted that the word Flesh signifies not only Humane Nature ; but very often Humane Nature as subject to Infirmities and Afflictions . Now is it not more agreeable to Reason and Scripture , to interpret these words thus ; And the Word ( Jesus ) was a Man like unto us in all things , Sin excepted ; having the same Mortal Nature , being exposed to the same Miseries and Afflictions : than to say , The Word was Incarnate , which is a Language unknown to Scripture ; wherein we never find , that God made himself Man ; and altogether repugnant to Reason ? And this I confirm by Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood ; He likewise himself took part of the same , that thrô Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death , even the Devil . Here Christ is said to be Partaker of Flesh and Blood , as pious Men are ; which cannot be meant in a sense of Incarnation , for pious Men are not said to be Incarnate : but the one and the other are Partakers of Flesh and Blood , that is , of Infirmities and Sufferings . This he explains farther at Verse 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren : but his Brethren were not Incarnate . But at Ver. 10 , and 18. he expresly expounds this of Christ's Sufferings : Ver. 10. It became him for whom are all things , and by whom are all things , to make the Captain of their Salvation , perfect through Sufferings . Ver. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered , — he is able to succour them that are tempted . Mr. Limborck saw and confessed this that I have been saying ; his Words are these , Theol. Christ . pag. 226. The true sense of this place , is , that the Word was Flesh : That is , a true fleshly Substance , subject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh ; that is to say , He was Mortal , Vile and Contemptible . Which appeared more especially in the days of his Passion and of his Death , which are called at Heb. 5. 7. The days of his Flesh . 2. Our Author , charmed with Allegories and mysterious Interpretations , has found out , that St. John alludes here to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle ; and this he thinks God did , to make the Anti-type answer the Type , Christ's Body to the Tabernacle or Temple . Since he is so much in love with Allegories , it may be I may do him a kindness to help him to one , which I have ready at hand ; it is this : As the Tabernacle in the Wilderness had no fixed place to stand in , as the Temple afterwards had , but was carried from one place to another ; according to the several Incampments of the Israelites : So Christ , to fulfil that Type , was always wandring with his Disciples , having no where to lay his Head ; Mat. 8. 20. This Allegory is as probable , and more natural than his ; without supposing an impossible Incarnation . I cannot tell , whether the Author will like it better than his own ; I am sure , I like neither of them . No , no , there is no Mystery in the Greek Word : Our Version renders it well , He dwelt among us : So does Seb. Castalio , Et apud nos , Gratiae Veritatisque plenus , habitavit ; And he full of Grace and Truth dwelt among us . And the same word is thus used without any Mystery , Rev. 12. 12. and 13. 6. where it is applied to the Inhabitants of Heaven . By way of conclusion , I will set down the sense of the whole Verse , which is an Abridgment of the Life of Christ : The Word was Flesh , a mortal Man , obnoxious to Sufferings and Death : here is his Priestly Office. He dwelt among us full of Grace and Truth ; here is his Prophetic Office. We have seen his Glory ; here is his Kingly Office. Thus therefore we ought to paraphrase the whole ; Jesus Christ was a Mortal Man , Partaker of Flesh and Blood , subject to the same Infirmities that we are ; in a word , like unto us in all things , but Sin. And he dwelt among us , preaching the happy News of Reconciliation with God , and the Doctrine and Truth revealed to him by the Father . But thô he were a Mortal Man , a Man of Sufferings and Griefs ; yet we have seen his Glory , shining in his Miracles , his Transfiguration , his Resurrection , his Ascension into Heaven , &c. Such a Glory as was well becoming the beloved Son of God. Having spoken of the Temple , he comes to discourse of Sacrifices , and tells us ; The true meaning of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World , is not meerly that he was slain in God's Decree ; for what God has decreed to be done , is not therefore said to be done , before it is done . But this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures , from the Foundation of the World ; ever since the fall of Adam , in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall , which were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ . But , 1. Where has he found , that those early Sacrifices were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ ? The Scripture is silent about it ; and the Apostle to the Hebrews , who inlarges on the Sacrifices of the Mosaical Law , does not so much as mention those that were offer'd before ; which is unaccountable , if they were Figures of the Sacrifice of Christ . 2. But he says ; He knows no Principle of natural Reason , that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts to God ; and therefore he must think , the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution . But suppose those early Sacrifices were an Institution , does it follow from thence , that they were instituted to be Types of the Sacrifice of Christ ? By no means : God might have other Reasons for such an Appointment . But since the Scripture does not mention the appointing of those Sacrifices ; we have good reason to believe , that they were of Humane Institution : for had God appointed them , it would not ( it should seem ) have been omitted in Scripture . 'T is reasonable to think , that Abel and Cain thought fit to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God ; to shew by such visible Marks , the Sense they had of God's Majesty ; and to express the Reverence they ought to pay to him . 3. To deny , that the Lamb was slain from the Foundation of the World meerly in God's Decree , because what God has decreed to be done , is not therefore said to be done before it is done , is no very accurate reasoning in a Divine ; because 't is contrary to the stile of Scripture . Is there any thing more usual with the sacred Writers , especially with the Prophets , than to speak of things to come , as if they were come to pass already , by reason of their certainty and the immutable Decree of God ? And why then cannot the Lamb be said to be slain from the beginning of the World , meerly because God had certainly decreed it should be so ? 4. But if he is not satisfied with this Explication , here is another for him . There is a Transposition in the words of this Verse , which also may be observed in many other Texts of Scripture ; so that the Verse may be read thus , Whose Names are not written from the Foundation of the World , in the Book of Life , of the Lamb slain . This reading is confirmed by Chap. 17. Ver. 8. Whose Names are not written in the Book of Life , from the Foundation of the World. So the sense of the controverted Text , is ; The Names of those who worship the Dragon were never written in the Book of Life of the slain Lamb ; that is , in the Book of the Martyrs and Confessors of Christ , who were destined to eternal Life from the Foundations of the World. Pag. 237. He desires some of the learned Reasoning Socinians , honestly to tell him ; what account they can give of the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices , which is becoming God. Why should God he propitiated by a Man , subject to the same Sins and Infirmities , and very often guilty of them , that other Men are ? Why innocent Beasts must die , to expiate the Sins of Men ? The thing he aims at , is to prove that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Jewish Oeconomy . How so ? The Jews Sacrifices , says he , were Typical of Christ's Sacrifice . We grant it ; for so the Apostle to the Hebrews intimates : we say only , that this was not the chief and primary end for which they were instituted . But what then ? The Death of Christ was therefore a Sacrifice . So it was . Then he was not a Metaphorical Priest . No more he was . Then he was the Divine Word Incarnate . How so ? This he should prove , but he takes it for granted . I want the Author's Spectacles , how to draw this Consequence , therefore the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Jewish Oeconomy , from that Argument . Now to this Question , concerning the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices , I answer with St. Paul , Gal. 3. 19. The Law ( the Ceremonial Law , the Law of Sacrifices and other external Rites ) was added because of Transgressions : i. e. by reason of the Idolatry of the Israelites , which could not be restrained but by such a Method . Had not the Jews been inclined so much to Idolatry , by seeing the Worship of their Neighbours round them ; God would not have put on their Necks this Yoke , which ( as St. Peter says ) they were not able to bear . God himself says this , Jer. 7. 22. I spake not unto your Fathers nor commanded them , in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt , concerning Burnt-Offerings or Sacrifices : But this thing commanded I them , saying , Obey my Voice , and I will be your God , and ye shall be my People . Here we may plainly see , that God at first required nothing from his People , but to own him , and obey his reasonable Laws , the Moral and Political Laws he designed for them : but he was , as it were , constrained to institute Sacrifices , and other external and pompous Rites , by their Idolatrous Inclination . I refer our Author , about this matter , to Learned Dr. Spencer , the best Writer on the Ceremonial Law. This then is the true and primary Reason of God's appointing Sacrifices ; and very well becoming both his Wisdom and Goodness . And it hinders not , but those Sacrifices might be also Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ : they were so , secondarily . God who appointed Sacrifices to stop the progress of Idolatry , did also by them prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ . But a meer Man , says he , can be no more than a Metaphorical and Typical Priest and Sacrifice . This , I think , deserved to be proved . A Metaphorical or Typical Priest and Sacrifice are here opposed to a true Priest and Sacrifice ; yet he tells us , that tho the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law were Typical , they were true and proper Priests and Sacrifices ; and made a true and proper expiation for Sin , as far as they reached . But if the Priests of the Law were true and proper Priests , and the Sacrifices true and proper Sacrifices ; much more will the Sacrifice of Christ be a true and proper Sacrifice , tho he also was a Man. This Consequence the Author himself has afforded us . Now because the Anti-Type , as he says , ought to be greater than the Type ; what remains , is only to inquire , Whether Christ be a more excellent Priest and Sacrifice , than the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law ? The Priests of the Law were but ordinary Men , distinguished from others only by the Dignity of their Priesthood : but Christ was the Messias , the Son of God , intrusted with his secret Will , indued with an in mense Authority and Power , and made ( as it were ) God by the unspeakable Gifts of God his Father . The Priests of the Law were called to their Priest-hood in an ordinary ways but Christ by God's immediate appointment . The High-Priests of the Law entred only into a Tabernacle made with Hands , and but once a Year into the most Holy Place ; but Christ into a Tabernacle whose Builder and Maker is God , and is to continue there for ever . Surely therefore , tho he is a Man only , this Anti-Type is more excellent than the Types , and Christ a more excellent High-Priest and Sacrifice than those of the Law. So that here is no ridiculing the Jewish Oeconomy , by the Socinian Hypothesis : but our Author by such ungrounded Charges , and weak Proofs , has written a Book very fit to confirm Socinians in their Opinions . CHAP. IX . III. HIS Third Charge is , Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion , makes it a very mean and contemptible Institution . He tells us , That The Fundamental Mystery of the Christian Religion is the stupendious Love of God in giving his own Son , his only-beloved Son , for the Redemption of Mankind . But how comes this Love of God to be called a Mystery still ? It was a Mystery , or Secret , before the Revelation of the Gospel ; but since it was revealed , it ceases to be a Mystery or Secret : unless a Secret discovered be a Secret still . This , says he , our Saviour lays great stress on ; That God so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting Life . By this , one would have thought , that Christ had been the Son , the only begotten Son of God , before God gave him . Now this is a very ambiguous way of expressing himself ; for he professes to believe that Christ was the Son of God , nay the only begotten Son , before he gave him ; but he differs from Us and from Common Sense in this ; that by the Son of God , he means God himself ; and by before , he means from all Eternity . This is a very hard Language ; for who can fancy , that the Son of God should be God himself ; and that before , should signify Eternity ? Yet this is the Sense he puts upon it , when he says ; If Socinianism be true , God did not give any Son he had before ; but made an excellent Man , whom he was pleased to call his only begotten Son. When our Saviour says , God so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son , &c. I desire our Author to tell me , what is meant by the Word God , Whether the whole Trinity , or the Father only ? If the whole Trinity , the Sense will come to this ; The Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost so loved the World , that they gave their only begotten Son. Which is false ; for in the Trinitarian Hypothesis , the Son is not the Son of the Second or Third Persons in the Trinity . If by God be meant the Father only ; How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God , to the Exclusion of the Son and the Holy Ghost ? How is he only said , to love the World ; for the Son and Holy Ghost love it as well as the Father ? Thus they are not the Socinians , but the Trinitarians that ridicule the Christian Religion , by putting on it an absurd and unnatural Sense . But , says he , God's Love in giving his only-begotten Son for our Redemption , which our Saviour fixes on as the great Demonstration of God's Love , is not so wonderful ; if this giving his Son signifies no more , than making a Man on purpose to be our Saviour . What then ? Does it follow from thence , that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion ? It only follows , that the Socinian Doctrine makes the Love of God less wonderful than the Trinitarian . For in it self it is a wonderful Love , that God should raise up a Saviour , to Apostate and Rebel Mankind ; tho this Saviour was not God himself . But why should we call a Chimera a more wonderful Love ; for the Son of God cannot be God himself , and therefore God could not shew his Love by giving such a Son. To conclude ; as the Love of God in redeeming Offenders , is wonderful , be the means what they will : So his Love in giving for them his Beloved Son , tho but a Man , cannot without Impiety be denied , to be wonderful to a Miracle . The ridiculing is only on the side of our Author , not on the Vnitarian ; and I am apt to think , that if I were not an Vnitarian already , his Book ( made up of bold Charges , inconsequent Reasonings , and arrogant Definings of what he understands not ) would make me one . In the next place , says he , at pag. 239. the Apostles mightily insist on the great Love of Christ in dying for us , and his great Humility in submitting to the condition of Human Nature , and suffering a shameful and accursed Death , even the Death of the Cross . He cites 2 Cor. 8. 9. and 5. 14. and Phil. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. And goes on thus ; Supposing Christ to be but a meer Man , who had no being before he was born of the Virgin ; who knew nothing of his own coming into the World , or for what end he came ; whose Undertaking was not his own voluntary choice , but God's appointment ; Where is the great Love , where is the great Humility of this ? The meaning of all this is , that were not Christ the Supream God , whatever he has done on our behalf , would be no great Argument of his Love , or his Humility . If Codrus and Decius devoting themselves to Death , for the Good of their respective Countries , have been accounted by all Men , great Lovers of their Countries ; Shall not Christ's dying for the Eternal Salvation of Mankind , pass for an Argument of wonderful Love ? Is it nothing for Christ to lead a wandring poor and miserable Life , to expose himself to all the Injuries and Fury of Implacable Adversaries , to undergo a painful and infamous Death ; and all this to make Men partakers of everlasting Life : Must all this be accounted nothing , unless the Person so doing be the Supream God ? How did he become Poor , says he , who was never Rich ? But I ask him , How the Supream God can become Poor ; How God can make himself of no Reputation , or humble himself and become obedient unto Death ; all which things he imputeth to a Person who is God ? I would know , How it comes that Christ's Love and Humility is described by such Characters , as can only be applied to a Man ; if we must not be allowed to believe , that the Love of Christ-Man was wonderful ? He insists much on 2 Cor. 8. 9. where our Translation says , Christ became Poor . But he might know , that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to become Poor , but to be Poor ; and so Castalio renders it . So the Sense of that place is this ; Tho Christ was Rich and Glorious , by reason of the Authority and Power conferred on him : yet he was willing to lead a poor Life , that by his Poverty ( as by one means ) we might obtain Eternal Riches and Glory . The Historian explains being in the Form of God at Phil. 1. 6. by being made Like to God , by a Communication to him of Divine and Miraculous Power over Diseases , Devils , the Grave , the Winds , the Seas , &c. To this our Author replies ; This dwindles the Form of God into just nothing ; for according to them , he had no power to do this , but God did it at his Word , as he did for other Prophets . And therefore this is no Form of God , no likeness at all : For Christ did not work Miracles as God does , by an inherent Power ; but God wrought Miracles for him . Christ indeed could not work Miracles by an inherent or proper Power of his own , since he was not God ; but to conclude that therefore there was no form or likeness of God at all in him , is a very bad Consequence . When we say , that Christ was in the form or likeness of God ; we exclude thereby an equality with God , and we mean only , that he was in a manner like God. This may be explained by a Comparison . It may be said , that a Vice-Roy is like a King ; but this does not signify , that he is the King himself , or is equal to the King ; but only , that by reason of the Power and Authority conferred on him , he is in a manner like the King : So that thô he does not act by a Power of his own , yet he may be truly said to act like a King. To conclude from hence , that this dwindles the likeness of the Vice-Roy with the King , into just nothing , would be meer Impertinence : for then a Porter would be as like a King as the Vice-Roy himself ; which no Man in his Senses will affirm . When therefore Christ , by the Power bestowed upon him , cast out Devils , cured all sorts of Diseases , raised the Dead , commanded the Winds and the Seas ; He was indeed in the likeness of God , and it was a great Humility in him , that he was so far from making an ostentation of his Glory and Greatness , that he became like a Servant , humbled himself , and underwent all sorts of Sufferings , even the Death of the Cross . But , says the Author , pag. 241. How did he take this Form upon him , which signifies his own free and voluntary Choice ; when he did not take it , but was made so ! What ? when the Apostle says , that Christ took upon him the Form of a Servant ; must we say , that he did not ? Is it not a plain Contradiction to the Apostle ? He adds ; And what Humility was this , for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God ; and so great a Minister as to be in the Form of God , that is ( as he says ) to be glorious for Miracles , and admired as the great Power of God : especially , when he was to be exalted unto Heaven for it , and advanced above all Principalities and Powers ? This is such Humility , as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most , glorious Angel . Shall we not call Humility what St. Paul calls so ? He tells us , that the same who has been advanced above all the Orders of Angels , humbled himself . All the Glory that Christ has been crowned with , doth not hinder the Apostle from praising and extolling his Humility . Because Christ's Sufferings have been remunerated with a transcendent Glory ; must they not be accounted Humility , but Pride ? On the contrary , the more that he who humbles himself is great and glorious , the greater is his Humility . Seeing therefore Christ had received from God more Glory than ever any Man had , it follows , that his Humility was the most stupendious and unparallel'd that ever was . But according to our Author's way of reasoning , there is no such thing as Christian Humility . For every Christian who humbles himself , endeavours thereby to fit himself for the Kingdom of Heaven : but all our best Actions are not worthy to be compared with that Glory which shall be revealed in us ; and therefore will our Author say , Humility is but a Chimera , because he who is said to humble himself , expects to get by the means an Eternal Glory . Indeed if the most bitter Sufferings of Christ , are not to be accounted Humility , because they were to be rewarded with a more excellent Glory : I cannot see , how any Christians may be said to be humble ; for they expect a glorious and transcendent Reward . Pag. 242. After Christ was come into the World , there was no place ( saith our Author ) for his Choice and Election ; he could not shew either his Love or his Humility , in choosing Poverty or Death : and therefore if it was matter of his free Choice , and a Demonstration of his great Humility and Love , as the Apostle says it was ; he must and did choose it before he came into the World. But all this is contrary to the place of the Apostle , wherein he speaks only of what Christ has done since he came into the World , and does not so much as mention what he had done before . Which has forced several Trinitarian Interpreters to acknowledg , that this Text does not relate to the Incarnation . I desire our Author to tell me the meaning of these words , Who being in the Form of God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with God. For if to be in the Form of God , signifies , to be the true God ; then the sense will be this ; Christ being the true God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with the true God. Which is just as if one should say , Leopold who is Emperour does not think it Robbery to be equal with the Emperour . Is it possible , Men should put such a trifling sense on the words of an Apostle ? Besides , how can it be said here , that the Supream God made himself of no Reputation ? In a word , of all the things spoken of Christ in this place , not one of them can be applied to the Supream God : which plainly shews , that the Man Christ Jesus only did humble himself ; and that this Humility is so far from proving that Christ is God , that it demonstrates , he was only a Man. He goes on ; The Faith and Worship of Christ , is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion . That the Faith of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion , I grant ; but I deny , that the Worship of Christ is so too . I suppose , by the Worship of Christ , he means only the Worship of Christ's Divine Nature ; for he tells us in the following words , that both the Natural and Mosaical Religion condemn the Worship of any Creature ; therefore Christ's Humane Nature being a Creature , ought not to be worshipped . Of the Worship paid to Christ , I have said enough already ; but because our Author gives occasion for it , by repeating his Charge of Idolatry , I will consider what he has offered , in its proper place . Only here I shall mind him ; that the Compilers of the Apostles Creed have made no mention of the Worship of Christ , but only of Faith in him . At pag. 245. He goes on to prove , that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion ; Because it does not ascribe to Christ such Knowledg as is proper to the Supream God. His first Proof , is John 2. 25. He knew what was in Man. To which the Historian had before answered thus ; The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had , or now in his State of Exaltation hath , of the Secrets of Mens Hearts , is the pure Gift of , and Revelation from God ; and the Divine Word abiding on him . Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants . Our Author would elude the strength of this Answer , thus ; This ( saith he ) is a plain abuse of the Text and the Reason of it . He knew what was in Man , is the Reason assigned why he needed not external Information , or Testimony of Man. He needed not that any should testify of Man , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he himself knew what was in Man , and knew all Men. Which according to the propriety of Words , signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg ; in opposition to any external Manifestation , and therefore to Revelation it self . For he always knew all Men , which cannot be done by Revelation ; which is particular and occasional . Here one may plainly see , what strange shifts Men are put to , when they oppose Truth . Who denies that those Words , He knew what was in Man , signify inherent Personal Knowledg ? Can any Man know any thing but by his inherent Personal Knowledg ? He that knows , knows with his own Mind , and therefore has an Inherent and Personal Knowledg . But does it follow from thence , that such a Knowledg is not from Revelation ? I hope it may be said of a Man inlightned by Revelation , that he knows , as well as of any other ? And yet thô such a Man be inspired , he has an inherent Personal Knowledg ; for his own Mind knows inwardly what he did not know before . But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , says our Author , he himself knew ; which according to the Propriety of Words , signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg in opposition to Revelation . No surely . For then the Prophet Elisha was God , for he knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber , 2 Kings 6. 12. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he himself knew what the King of Syria spake : yet this was certainly by Revelation . If our Author should reply , that it is well known that Elisha was but a Prophet , and could know no such thing but by Inspiration or Revelation . I answer , It is likewise well known , that Christ knew not all things , and particularly not the Day of Judgment , Mark 13. 32. therefore he could not be God , for God knows all things . Besides , the Scripture assures us , that God gave to Christ his Revelation , Rev. 1. 1. which proves that all his extraordinary Knowledg was derived from God. But he always knew all Men , saith the Author , which cannot be done by Revelation ; which is particular and occasional . Why not ? God's Revelation may be perpetual , if he pleases . There is no Contradiction or Impossibility in it . But how has he perverted the first Verse of St. John's Revelations ? The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants things , which must shortly come to pass . This , says he , doth not signify that this was a Revelation made to Jesus Christ , but that Revelation which Christ made ; for thô God is said to give to him , it is to shew unto his Servants ; that is , by appointment of God , Christ shewed this Revelation unto John. Alas , if our Author was not able to answer this place , he should not have studied to clude it . If Christ made this Revelation , because he is God , how is it said to be given to him , which can in no sense agree to him who is true God ? He received it , says our Author , to shew unto his Servants . But of whom can the true God receive , either Knowledg , or Authority to dispense it ? But here are two Arguments against our Author's Doctrine : 1. That God gave to Christ a Revelation . But he that is God can need no Revelation ; because himself knoweth all things . 2. That He is appointed to shew this Revelation to others . Which no more can agree to one who is God , than Revelation does . He concludes ; that He desires a Mediator , who knows more , and in a more perfect manner . But I think , 't is fit we should be contented with such a Mediator , as God was pleased to give us . IV. His last Charge is ; that Socinianism justifies , at least excuses , both Pagan and Popish Idolatries ; at least as it is taught by those Men , who allow of the Worship of Christ ; which it is certain too , the Christian Religion teaches . In answer hereto ; I will , 1. Shew in what consists the Worship or Honour due to Christ . 2. Compare this Worship , with the Worship which Pagans exhibited to their false Gods , and Papists to their Saints . 1. I observe that in the Unitarian Hypothesis , the Worship or Honour due to Christ , is not a supream Worship ; such as we ought to pay to God. Christ being a Creature , can never be worshipped as God is . Thô he be never so great and glorious , a supream Worship is proper only to Almighty God , and can never be bestowed on any Creature . 2. As it cannot be denied , that there are divers Orders of Creatures ; so the Honour paid to them , ought to be proportionable to their Greatness and Dignity . Thus , in a Kingdom those , who by reason of their Dignity , are above the common sort of Men , deserve a greater Respect and Honour than others ; and the King , who is above them all , has an Honour paid to him which is incommunicable to the rest of his Subjects . By the same reason Angels , who are more excellent than Men , are worthy of greater Honour . But Christ , who has been exalted above both Men and Angels , since he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords , hath a proper Worship due to him , which can never be given either to Angels or Men. He is God's Beloved Son by way of Excellence , all Power is given to him in Heaven and Earth , he is at the Right-hand of God , having all things put under his Feet ; he deserves therefore an Honour , so much greater than theirs , as he is greater . Phil. 2. 9 , 10 , 11. God also hath highly exalted him , and given him a Name above every Name ; that at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow , of things in Heaven , and things in Earth , and things under the Earth ; and that every Tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord , to the Glory of God the Father . The Apostle does not say , that every Knee ought to bow at the Name of Jesus , because he is the Supream God ; but because God has exalted him above Men and Angels ; because he has obtained ( of God ) a Name above every Name , the most eminent and glorious Dignity that ever was . This is the true ground of the Honour which is due to Christ . This St. Paul teaches ; and this the Unitarians profess to believe , and perform . 3. When we worship Christ , it is to the Glory of God the Father , as the Apostle speaks . The Honour we pay to Christ , is terminated in God : we worship him as God's Ambassador and Image . As he who believes in him , believes in God also ; so he who honours him , honours God also . 2. Let us compare the Worship of Christ ( the Reader will remember , we mean not thereby a Supream Worship ) with the Worship of False Gods among Pagans , and of Saints among Papists . Pagans were guilty of Idolatry ; because , First they had no Divine Command for such Worship : but even our Author confesses , there is such a Command for the Worship of Christ . To worship Creatures without the Warrant of God , is Usurpation on , and Contempt of God. Secondly , They worshipped and served Creatures more than the Creator , as St. Paul says . They set up an infinite number of Gods , who had been meer Men ; and ascribed to them such Power as did not belong to them , and such Worship as was infinitely above them . They offered Sacrifices to them , consecrated Temples to their Honour , prayed to them ; in a word , they paid to them such Worship , as was terminated in them , and so made True Gods of Men. But it is not so with the Worship of Christ . We ascribe to him no other Power , but what we know from the Scriptures God has bestowed on him ; and no other Honour but what is proportionable to that Power , to the Dignity of his Person , and what God himself commands us to pay him . This may be applied to the Papists . Let them show us any Text of Scripture , which obliges us to worship St. Peter , St. Paul , St. Francis. Were they content to keep within the bounds of Respect and Honour , due to glorified Saints , they should be guilty of no Fault . But to pray to them , as many do , as Mediators both of Intercession and Merit , to dedicate Churches to them , to kneel down before their Images and to their Images , nay to their vilest Relicks ; this approaches too near to Idolatry . Our Author therefore mistakes , when he says ; The greatest hurt ( on the Vnitarian Hypothesis ) seems to be , that they ( Pagans and Papists ) lose their Labour , but according to these Principles they do no Injury to God. What then ? Is it all one , to worship Christ by God's Appointment , and to worship False Gods and ( Apocryphal ) Saints , without any Warrant from God ? Is it all one , to pay to Christ such Honour as neither exceeds his Power , nor is greater than his Dignity , and honour False Gods and Saints , in such manner as exceeds both their Power and Merit ? That , is Obedience to God's Will ; the Other , detestable Usurpation and Rebellion . I conclude therefore , that the Vnitarians by the Worship they pay to Christ , cannot be said to justify or excuse Pagans or Papists . Which if it had not been an invidious Charge , is so apparently False , that it would not have deserved any notice . And thus I have done with that part of the Doctor 's Book , which I undertook to answer . It may be , the Historian himself might , upon some Texts , and to some of our Author's Objections , have either explained or defended himself , otherways than is here done : and that we may , it seems , shortly see ; unless Dr. Sherlock thinks sit to own , that he desires it not . In the mean time , it may be the Historian is satisfied ; that in these Papers , I have done wrong neither to him , nor to the Inviolable Truth of God. God be pleased to Inspire Christians , with the Spirit that leads into all Truth ; and with that Infallible Note of true Disciples , to love one another , John 13. 35. Now to him that is of Power , to establish us according to his Gospel , and the preaching of Jesus Christ ; to God only wise , be Glory through Jesus Christ for ever . Amen . FINIS .