







 
   
     
       
         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.
           
        
         
      
    
  

