A DIVINE ANTIDOTE Against a Devilish poison, OR, A Scriptural Answer to an antiscriptural and Heretical Pamphlet, entitled A designed End to the Socinian controversy; Written by JOHN SMITH.  
Answered by FRANCIS GREGORY, D. D. and Rector of Hambleden in the County of Bucks.  False Teachers shall privily bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2.1. Be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Eph. 4.14. Homines bonae fidei non credunt Haereticis, said quid eis respondeant, diligenter inquirunt. Augustinus de Genesi contra Manichaeos. Tom. 1, p. 180. {αβγδ}. Epiphanius Haer. 75. p. 904. 
LONDON: Printed for Rich. Sare, and Ios. Hindmarsh, at Gray's Inn Gate in Holborn, and at the Golden Ball over against the Royal Exchange in cornhill. 1696.   

TO THE Christian Reader.  
WHAT St. Paul  told his Converts in the Church of Corinth, might, 
1 Cor. 11.19.  with equal certainty, be said to all Churches whatsoever, There must be Heresies among you: 
Matth. 24.11.  Our Lord's prophesy must be fulfilled, Many false Prophets shall rise, and deceive many. 
2 Pet. 2.1.  St. Peter also tells us, There shall be false Teachers among you. So long as there shall be a malicious Devil in Hell, and Men of corrupt Judgments on Earth, the Providence of God for wise Ends so permitting, there will never be a want of fit Instruments to raise Heresies, Sects, and Factions, and to defend and spread them too.  
The Words, heresy and Sect, were at first of a middle and indifferent use, signifying any Profession or Opinion, whether good or bad. By these names the whole Christian Religion hath been styled, and that by very judicious Men; 'tis called by Eusebius, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 5. tart. ad Scapul. c. 1. p 68. Cyprianus in Praefat. l. 3. ad Quirin. p. 260. August. in Praefat. ad l. de Haer. T. 6. p. 3.  {αβγδ}, the Faith of the Christian heresy; and the Profession of this Faith Tertullian calls, Hanc Sectam, this Sect. Sectam nostram, our Sect; so St. Cyprian.  
But in process of time both these words came to be used in an ill Sense only; and so by the word, heresy, is meant, as St. Austin tell us, Non omnis error, not every mistake in matters of Religion; but as Ravanellus well defines it, Pertinax error labefactans aut evertens fundamentum fidei, such an error, as, being obstinately defended, tends to shake or overturn some Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith.  

Aug. de Civit. l. 18. c. 51.  Accordingly St. Austin describes heretics thus, Qui in Ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque rapiunt; si correpti resistunt contumaciter, suaque pestifera& mortifera Dogmata emendare nolunt, said defensare persistunt, Haeretici fiunt; Such as hold unsound and wicked Opinions within the Church of Christ, if they obstinately resist all good Admonitions, and will not renounce their Pestilent and deadly Doctrines, but persist in defending them, such Men are and ought to be esteemed heretics.  
And what is the danger of heresy, we learn both from God and Man; I will not say, as Maldonate doth, who, 
Maldonat. in Mat. 13.26.  comparing heretics to the Tares in the Parable, determines positively thus, Maturè sunt evellenda, maturè comburenda, They are very speedily to be rooted out and burnt. And so elsewhere, Comburendi, 
Idem in luke. 9.54.  tanquam Proditores ac Transfugae discedentes Haeretici, heretics ought to be burnt as Traytors to, and Deserters of the Christian Faith. But St. Chrysostom was of another mind, 
Chrysost. in Mat. 13.30.  {αβγδ}, we must not kill an heretic; but what then? How may we treat them? {αβγδ}. &c. We may and ought to restrain them, to stop their mouths, to check their boldness, &c. Not to destroy, but convert them. Thus St. Austin, 
Aug. contra Epist. Manichaei, T. 6. p. 25.  Dominus emendandos potius, quàm perdendos jubet: 'tis our Lord's command, that heretics should rather be reformed, than ruined.  
But yet Ecclesiastical Laws have deservedly punished obstinate heretics as far as the Churches Authority could reach, {αβγδ}, 
council. Constant. Can. 1. council. Laod. Can. 6.  every heretic ought to be Excommunicated; and that being done, {αβγδ}, heretics must not be permitted to enter into the House of God. 
council. ejusdem, Can. 33.  Nay, {αβγδ}, No Man must any where join in Prayer with an heretic. Surely these Spiritual punishments were very sore ones; yet these alone must not serve the heretics turn, but they lay under Temporal Censures too. 
council. ejusdem, Can. 31.  {αβγδ}. No Man or Woman may mary an heretic, nor give their Sons or Daughters to any such. And as to their Estates. 
Balsam, in Can. 25. council. Carthag.  {αβγδ}, &c. No Man might give or transfer an Estate, or bequeath any Legacy to an heretic, though he were of all relations the nearest.  
These Canons were not only ratified by the Imperial Laws, but upon some heretics severer punishments were inflicted by them. 
Blastaris Syntag. p. 17.  {αβγδ}. Let the Manichees and the Donatists suffer the extremest of all punishments, and that is death, for so another Law explains it. {αβγδ}, Decolletur, If any Manichee be seen within the Roman Empire, let him lose his head.  
And amongst other heretics the Civil Law took particular notice of the Arians, and other Anti-Trinitarians, whom it censures thus, 
Idem ib.  {αβγδ}, He, who doth not think the Holy Trinity to be coequal in Power, and in the same Godhead, deserves not to be called a Christian, but is a mad Man, an infamous heretic, and stands obnoxious to the just Censures of the Law.  
And as the Laws of Men both Ecclesiastical and Civil did treat all obstinate heretics with great severity, so doth the Divine Law threaten them with greater. It was St. Paul's command to Bishop Titus, 
Tit. 3.10.  A man, that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, i.e. dispute no more with him, give no more ear to his Cavils and Objections, but Excommunicate him, give him over as one that is incorrigible, and like to be lost for ever. And indeed such a Man's case is very dangerous; for, St. Peter tells us, that heresy is, 
2 Pet. 2.1, 2.  Pernicious, destructive, and that in the very highest degree; for, in the foregoing Verse he stiles it, Damnable, and saith expressly that heretics Bring upon themselves swift destruction.  
St. Paul also ranks Heresy amongst the vilest Immoralities, 
Gal. 5.20, 21.  such horrid Crimes, of which he saith, They who do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. A like intimation hath our Lord himself left us in his Parable of the Tares; But what are they? {αβγδ}, 
Theophyl.& Chrys. in mat. 13.25.  so one. {αβγδ}, so another. These Tares are Heresies, and all they that embrace and defend them. Well, what becomes of these Tares at length? 
Matth. 13.30.  Bind them in bundles to burn them. It seems that gross Errors in judgement are damnable as well as foul Errors in practise, God Almighty being jealous of his Truths as well as of his Commands.  
Now since Heresy is indeed a thing of so great Danger, we are the more concerned to avoid both it and them, who are tainted with it. 'tis our Saviour's caution, 
Matth 7.15. 2 Tim. 3.3.  Beware of false Prophets, they are dangerous Men, Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the Faith; and what then? From such turn away. And verily there is great reason for it; for Heresy is like a Leprosy, a Leprosy in the Head, not only deforming and defiling the Person in whom it is, but spreading and infectious to other Men.  
And there are two ways which heretics are wont to take to spread their infectious Disease among their Neighbours.  
1. They endeavoured to do it by personal Visits and private Discourses. To this end, They creep into houses, 
● Tim. 3.6.  and led captive silly women, yea and silly men too; and how they do it, St. Paul tells us, 
Rom. ●6. 18.  By good words and fair speeches, they deceive the hearts of the simplo. But though their Words seem never so fair, there's poison in them. They eat like a Canker, 
2 Tim. 2.17.  like a Gangrene, only with this difference, where the Canker eats, it also pains; but the heretics smooth and soft Language doth at once eat and please too. But as the Canker, if not timely prevented, spreads farther in the Flesh, so Heresy, if not restrained by Authority, and confuted by solid Arguments, is apt to grow till it become Epidemical.  
We may say of plausible Heresies, what St. Paul saith of pleasant Vices, 
1 Cor. 5.6.  A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. An Error or two not restrained, a small number of heretics being indulged and permitted freely to converse with Men, may prove enough by fallacious, yet specious Arguments to pervert even the whole Neighbourhood. For there is no sort of Men more affable, more condescending, and more colloguing than they; and they have great reason so to be, for if once by fawning and flattering they can insinuate themselves into the Hearts of Men, they find it the easier Task by subtle Pretences, by gentle Steps and Degrees, to instill their cursed Opinions into their Heads too. But  
2. The second Course which heretics take to divulge and spread their erroneous Doctrines, is by Writing and publishing Books, wherein they offer such seeming Arguments in defence of their ill Opinions, as the generality of Men know not how to answer.  
This is the more speedy way which our modern Socinians take to gain greater numbers of Proselytes than can be got by private Conference; their printed Books being warily and closely written, and spread throughout the Nation, may, if not prevented, pervert multitudes of easy, flexible and unstabled Men, who are too apt to be Convinced by every Argument, which they themselves are not able to Confute.  
To shake the Faith, and stagger the Minds of Orthodox Christians touching the Dictrine of the Glorious Trinity, there came out a little Book, which by more Accident I met with. A Book stuffed with Blasphemous Falshoods, too much magnifying human Reason, abusing the Sacred Word of God, denying the Divinity of Christ, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost. What Censure its Author deserves, let Authority judge; but I will venture to say that the Book itself doth both deserve and need the Flames; for 'tis so abominably foul, that nothing can purge it, save only that which consumes it too.  
To this Book I expected a reply from some other hand; but in four or five Months none appearing, I thought that Time and Pains would not be lost, which should be spent in writing, and in publishing an Answer to it, as my health and leisure would permit.  
This Book was first put into my hand by a very Eminent Citizen of London, who informed me that its Author is by Trade a Clock-maker. This being so, it may be thought a matter of no great Credit for a Divine of the Church of England to dispute a point of Faith against an illiterate mechanic. But notwithstanding this, laying aside both hopes and fears of gaining or losing any Reputation thereby, I resolved to undertake it, that I might prevent that Mischief which this pestilent Book, by its false Pretences and Abuses of Scripture, might otherwise do among ignorant, easy, and perhaps well-meaning Christians. Nor indeed can I think it to be a thing of Dishonour, but rather an incumbent Duty to defend Truths, especially those of the highest Magnitude, by whomsoever they chance to be opposed.  
But if I have not effectually done what I really designed to do, if my Arguments for Truth be not what I think they are, sufficient to confute this Man's Pretences for Error; the Doctrines which I have here asserted, being very deserving and capable of a just Defence; I hope that by this well intended, though weak Endeavour of mine, 
Horatius de Arte Poetica.  fungar 'vice cotis, &c. I may excite, whet, and set the keener Edge upon the Pen of some abler Divine, who may supply my Defects of better Arguments, and confounded the whole Socinian Hypothesis, and all their subtle reasonings, by such clear Evidences as may prove Convincing and Unanswerable. In the mean time, good Reader, forget not to pray for the conversion of heretics, for the confirmation of all Orthodox Christians, and particularly for  
Thy Friend in our great Lord's Work, F. G.   

That the Authors cited in this Tract might the more easily be consulted, I thought fit to give the Reader an Account of their several Editions as to Time and Place.  

Paris. 

AQuinas, 1638.  
Aristotle, 1561.  
Athanasius, 1627.  
Augustinus, 1571.  
Basilius M. 1518.  
Cornelius à Lapid. 1631.  
Cyprian, 1666.  
Cyril of Jerusalem, 1631.  
Dionysius Areop. 1615.  
Elias Cretensis, 1630.  
Epiphanius, 1622.  
Estius, 1661.  
Eusebius, 1659.  
Gregorius Naz. 1630.  
Gregorius Nyss. 1615.  
Gregorius Thaum. 1622.  
Irenaeus, 1639.  
Novatianus, 1664.  
Oecumenius, 1630.  
Seneca, 1602.  
Socrates, 1668.  
Sozomen, 1668.  
Tertullian, 1664.  
Theophylact, 1635.    
land. 

Annotations English, 1651.  
Aynsworth, 1639.  
Critici Sacri, 1660.  
Pearson, 1662.  
Sympson's History, 1634.    
Colon. Agripp. 

Bellarminus, 1620.  
Pererius, 1622.  
Pineda, 1613.    
Lugd. 

Lorinus, 1609.  
Maldonatus, 1598.    
Genev. 

Chemnitius, 1634.  
Junius& Trem. 1630.  
Ravanellus, 1650.  
Calvinus, 1617.    
Amst. 

Cartwright, 1632.  
Horatius, 1636.  
Ignatius, 1646.  
Vossius, 1646.    
Oxon. 

council. Pand. 1672.  
Usserius, 1660.    
Rothom. 

Huetius cum Origen. 1668.    
Etonae. 

Chrysostomus, 1613.  
Coel. Rhodig. 1599.    
Basileae. 

Hieronymus, 1516.      

Books Printed for Richard Sare and Joseph Hindmarsh.  
FAbles of aesop and other Eminent Mythologists, with Morals and reflections. Folio.  
The Visions of Dom Francisco de Quevedo. Octavo.  
Seneca's Morals. Octavo.  
Erasmus's colloquys. Octavo.  
Tully's Offices. Twelves.  
Bona's Guide to Eternity. Twelves. All six by Sir Roger L' Estrange.  
The Genuine Epistles of St. Barnabas, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Martyrdoms of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. Translated and Published with a large Preliminary Discourse, by W. Wake, D. D. Octavo.  
A Practical Discourse concerning Swearing, by Dr. Wake. Octavo.  
complete Sets, consisting of Eight Volumes of Letters, writ by a Turkish Spy, who lived forty five Years undiscovered at Paris, giving an Impartial account to the Divan at Constantinople of the most remarkable Transactions of Europe during the said time. Twelves.  
human Prudence, or, the Art by which a Man may raise himself and Fortune to Grandeur, the sixth Edition. Twelves.  
Moral Maxims and Reflections in four Parts; written in French by the Duke of Rochfoucault, now made English. Twelves.  
Epic●etus's Morals, with Simplicius's Comment, made English from the Greek; by George Stanhop, late Fellow of King's-College Cambridge. Octavo.  
The Parson's councillor; or, the Law of tithes; by Sir Simon Degge. Octavo.  
Of the Art both of Writing and Judging of History, with Reflections upon ancient as well as Modern Historians; by the Learned and Ingenious Father Le Moyne. Twelves.  
An Essay on Reason; by Sir George Mackenzie. Twelves.  
The Unlawfulness of Bonds of Resignation. Octavo.  
The Doctrine of a God and Providence; vindicated and asserted by Tho. Gregory, late of Wadham-College, Oxford; and now Lecturer near Fulham. Octavo.  
Some Discourses on several Divine Subjects; by the same Author. Octavo.  
Death made Comfortable, or the Way to Die well; by John Kettlewell, a Presbyter of the Church of England. Twelves.   

THE FIRST SECTION Containing the INTRODUCTION.  
THE Author of this little Tract designed thereby, as its Title imports, to put a full end to the Socinian Controversy; an excellent Design, were it rightly intended, fairly managed, and well accomplished. The main thing concerned in this Controversy is the Divinity of Christ and his Holy Spirit, both which our Socinians deny, and we assert.  
This Dispute began betimes, even betwixt our Lord himself and the Jews, who, being blind and prepossessed with prejudice against his Person, his Doctrine, his Miracles, and his Conversation too, denied him to be the promised messiah, and the Son of God. And when our Lord had affirmed himself to be both, they attempted to ston him, and gave him this Reason for it, 
Joh. 10.33.  Because thou being a man, a more man, as they thought, makest thyself God, here was, though not a Verbal, yet an Interpretative and practical denial of our Lord's Divinity.  
Amongst the Jews was Ebion, and besides him that Villain Cerinthus, who held and endeavoured to propagate the same Cursed Opinion, which gave St. John a just occasion to writ that Holy Gospel of his, wherein by such plain Arguments, as can never be fairly answered, he hath infallibly proved that our blessed Saviour is truly God.  
But notwithstanding all the Evidences of our Lord's Divinity, which had been given by Prophets, Evangelists or Apostles, there was still a sort of men, who, because they could not reconcile this mysterious Doctrine to their own corrupted and shallow Reason, resolved to oppose and dispute against it. And by this means the Peace of the Christian Church was so much disturbed, that the good Emperour Constantine the Great thought it necessary to summon an ecumenical Council to determine this so grand a Controversy.  
In this first General Council of Nice, which consisted of 318 Bishops, the Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity and Consubstantiality with his Father was discussed, and after mature deliberation, and the strictest inquiries into the Word of God, which those Bishops were as likely to understand as any men of that or after Ages, was approved and established as sound and Orthodox; very few of that great number dissenting, and most of those few, upon second thoughts, subscribing to it.  
But this almost unanimous Consent of this famous Council did not end this Controversy; for, in a short time it was revived, and hath been ever since more or less carried on, in several Ages, by men of several denominations; they, who were once called Ebionites, Arians, Phocinians, Sabellians, Macedonians, and afterwards Socinians, do now distinguish themselves by a new Character, and without all reason, usurp and appropriate to the men of their own Opinion the Name of Unitarians, as if we, who believe a Trinity of Persons, did also believe a Trinity of Gods.  
And here we do willingly aclowledge, that some of those Persons, who formerly did, and yet do, oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity, were and still are Men of Parts and Learning; but it is too-hard a task for the ablest Person to defend a falsehood, and to maintain a foul matter by fair pretences; and such a matter is that Opinion, for which these Men contend; so gross an Error, so contrary to Divine Revelation, that it is somewhat of wonder, that any Man of Parts and Piety should ever espouse, countenance and own it  
But altho' it hath been so, though some Learned Men have put their Understanding to the very utmost stretch to invent Pretences against our Lord's Divinity; yet the strongest Arguments which their most subtle Disputants have ever raised either from Scripture or Reason, have been fairly answered and clearly baffled by the judicious Writers of the catholic Church.  
And yet the Enemies of this important Truth being Men of presuming and restless Spirits, the Controversy hath been continued and prosecuted; tho' not with equal Vigour, from one Generation to another: But now, in this Age of ours, there hath unexpectedly started up, tho' not dropped down from the Clouds, a Man who intends to do great Wonders; I mean to put an end to that Controversy, which hath lasted and perplexed the Christian Church so many hundred Years.  
Now, one would think, that he, who undertakes this Noble, but Difficult Work, should be a Person of rare Endowments, an incomparable Scholar, an excellent Textuary, a very choice critic in the Original Languages of his Bible, well versed in School-Divinity, and such an acute Disputant, that the poor baffled Trinitarians, being clearly convinced by the irresistible Strength of his Arguments, submitting to his better judgement, may all at once come over as Proselytes to his Opinion, and for ever acquiesce in his uncontrollable Determinations,  
Such a Man, and so qualified, this very assuming Socinian Champion should be; but pray, who is it? he calls himself, if his Printer do not Nick-name him, John Smith, and truly, as the Poet observes, Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis, this Person's Name is apposite enough, and somewhat of kin to his Occupation; for, I am informed by an Eminent Citizen of London, whom I have great Reason to believe, that this great Undertaker and Reconciler, is by Trade a Clock-maker, and therefore a Man in all probability, who never had any thing of a liberal and learned Education; perhaps indeed some little Skill in the mathematics may be useful to him, in framing a Clock; but in his managing this great controverted Point of Divinity, as we do not expect any Mathematical; so neither can we find any Logical Demonstrations. And is it not an Instance of unparallelled presumption, that an illiterate mechanic, who should rather handle the Smith's Hammer, than the Scholar's Pen, should ever hope to produce stronger Reasons and clearer Texts to end this Controversy by disproving our Lord's Divinity, than any learned Men of his own persuasion were ever yet able to do? Is it not a sign of intolerable Arrogance, that an unlearned Tradesman should be so highly conceited of his own Abilities, as to think himself sufficient to confute all the Arguments, which have been urged by General Councils, Ancient Fathers, and later Divines, even Men of incomparable Parts, to prove that our blessed Saviour is really and truly God? Certainly, hic labour, hoc opus est, it is a difficult Task indeed, but yet it must be done by him, who would end this Controversy; and whether a Clock-maker be a likely Man to do so great a Work, let the Reader judge.  
But, by the way, since in this unhappy Age of ours, we have good store of Lay-Preachers, it is the less wonder, that we now find some Lay-Disputers too; they, who had the face without any Steps and University Degrees per Saltum, to leap from the Shop-board into the Minister's Pulpit, may with equal right, invade the King's Divinity Professor's Chair; but of the two, it is an easier Adventure for a bold Ignoramus to prate in a Pulpit, as our Apron Levites did, where none opposed them, than to Dispute against any one learned Antagonist; 'tis but an easy thing for a Man of much assurance to repeat a Sermon, and probably some other Man's; but 'tis a much harder Task to solve and untie a knotty Argument: whether our Clock-maker be a Preacher or not, I cannot tell; but he hath undertook a more difficult Work, and ventured to Dispute, tho' not in Mood and Figure, yet in Print.  
And now let us try his Strength, and consider whether he hath obtained his End, and according to his Design, brought the Socinian Controversy to such a Conclusion, that there may be no room left for any more Disputes about that Matter.   

SECT. II.  
THis Author, in the very entrance of his Work and his first two Sections, makes it his only business to prove these two Propositions. 1. That there is a God. 2. That this True God is but one in Nature and Essence. Were this Man disputing against an Atheist, who thinks that there is no God; or against a Pagan, who thinks that there are many, the proof of these Propositions had been necessary; but in a Book leveled against us Trinitarians only, who own a God, and but one, it might have been spared. For, to what purpose should a Man take Pains, muster up Arguments, and city several Texts, to confirm those Truths to us, who, being already convinced and satisfied about them; do aclowledge them as readily as he? That God is, and is but one, is a Truth so evident from the Light of Scripture, and right Reason too; that, as no Christian doth, so no intelligent Heathen, who improves and exerciseth his natural Understanding, can deny or doubt it, if this Author thinks us guilty of Polytheism, let him prove that Charge against us, if he can; but if he hath no such Thoughts concerning us, what need he have spent his two first Pages in confirming a Truth, which none of us, against whom he writes, ever did, nor can deny.  
There must indeed be something of Prudence and Policy in beginning with these two granted Truths; that his Reader's mind, being prepossessed and well seasoned with both these Preliminaries and well known Verities might be the less inclinable to suspect any falsehood in any of those Assertions, which are to follow; for a few Truths, intermingled amongst many Errors, seem like a little Sugar sprinkled amongst a greater quantity of Ratsbane, which renders the poison the more palatable, and tempts the silly and cheated Vermin to swallow it down so much the sooner.  
But if this Author laid down these Truths, as the necessary Foundations of his future Buildings; sure I am, those Superstructures, which he hath thought fit to add, can never be cemented to them, nor stand firm upon them; for, the Unity of the Godhead is very consistent with the Trinity of those glorious Persons, whom we believe and worship.  
But, in Opposition to this, our Author doth in express Terms lay down a third Proposition, namely this, That this one true God is but one in Person; and this, saith he, is evident; and truly if it be so indeed, it will do this Man's work: and according to his Design, it will bring the Socinian Controversy to an end; but if the Truth of this Proposition be indeed so Evident, as this Man makes it; How come so many thousand Persons, who had very good Eyes in their Heads, not to see it? How come we poor Men, to be so far mistaken, as to think this third Proposition to be as False, as the other two are true? The Scripture tells us that there is but One true God, and we believe it; the Scripture also tells us, There are Three Persons that bear record in Heaven; and why should we not believe that too?  
And yet notwithstanding this and many other Texts, which clearly prove the Trinity, and notwithstanding the General Belief of the Christian Church concerning it, this Heretical Clock-maker, in despite of God and Man, makes bold to say, 'tis Evident that God can in no sense be any more than one in Person.  
This bold Assertion is not absolute and perfect Atheism, but 'tis somewhat like it, and a fair step towards it; it is a degree of Atheism to limit the Providence of God, and confine it, as some have done, to Heaven; and what is it less to limit the Personality of God, and to contract Three Persons into One? Verily, this Man, who doth so, had need secure himself upon the most infallible Grounds, that those two Persons, whom he thus excludes from the God-head, are but imaginary, such as have no Entity, save only in the Thoughts of deceived Men; for, if these Persons should at length prove real Subsistences, as millions of very understanding Persons formerly did, and still do believe; he, who denieth, and as far as he can, dethrones these Glorious Persons, may justly expect to feel the utmost severity of that Divine Vengeance, which is due to such horrid Blasphemy and Impiety.  
And if this Socinian Hypothesis, if false, be certainly attended with the greatest Danger; then every Man who owns it, and valueth his own Soul, is highly concerned by the most undeniable Arguments to make it good. The question then is, How comes this Author to be so fully satisfied about the Truth of this Assertion, as to publish his own persuasion of it to the World, and as a public Act of Charity to his Neighbours Souls, to recommend it to other Men? How doth he prove it? I answer two things,  
1. To prove this bold Assertion, That there is but one Person in the Godhead, this great Pretender doth make no use of Scripture.  
To prove some other of his Assertions, he doth sometimes quote great variety of places out of the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles; but in this case, where he had most need to prove this, he doth not, because indeed he could not city so much as one single Text. The Scriptures indeed do often tell us, that there is but one God; but they do no where tell us, that there is but one Person in the Godhead; nor can this be ever proved by any Consequences fairly drawn from Sacred Writ; for no Consequence can be Genuine, which contradicts the express Letter of those Texts, which are not figurative, and wherein the Trinity of Persons is clearly avouched.  
2. To prove this bold Assertion, That there is but one Person in the Godhead, this great Schoolman, or some body for him, makes use of an Argument drawn from some of God's Attributes, and naming three, he argues thus, If the Divine Nature did contain in it several Persons, then each of those must he truly Immense, truly Almighty, and truly most Wise: We grant it, and believe that the whole Trinity is so; but this Author thinks this impossible, and that impossibility he endeavours to illustrate by two Instances, relating to the Omnipotence and infinite Wisdom of God; and thus he Reasons;  
Suppose, saith he, two such beings as A and B; now if the Person of A can do more than the Person of B, then the Person of B cannot do more than the Person of A; but hold a little, this Consequence is often false; for suppose by the Letter A, we should mean our Author, and by the Letter B, we should mean his Answerer, then the Argument must run thus, If this Author can do more than his Answerer, then his Answerer cannot do more than this Author. This Inference is manifestly untrue, for this Author can make a Clock, which is more than his Answerer can do; and yet his Answerer can make some shift to understand Greek and Latin Authors; which, I presume, is somewhat more than our Clockmaker can do.  
But I am of Opinion that by A. and B. our Author intends two Persons by him only supposed, but by us firmly believed to subsist in the Godhead, I mean the Father and the Son; now if this be his meaning, his Argument must run thus. If the Person of the Father can do more than the Person of the Son, then the Person of the Son cannot do more than the Person of the Father; for if he could, then would not the Father be able to do more than the Son, and by consequence he could not be Almighty; so reasons this subtle Sophister; but verily this way of argumentation is much to blame; upon a double account: For,  
1. Here is a plane; Petitio principii, the begging of a question. He takes that for a granted Truth, and grounds his Argument upon it, which we believe and can prove to be a Falsehood; he presumes and takes it, pro concesso, that the Father can do more than the Son; which we deny.  
2. Whereas we affirm that the Father cannot do more than the Son, he subsumes, and saith, that then by consequence the Father cannot be Almighty.  
But truly this Gentleman, if he seeth the necessity of this Consequence must have more and better Eyes, than ever Argus had; for cannot the Father be Almighty unless he can do more than the Son, who is Almighty too? It is the Belief of the catholic Church, warranted either by express Texts, or evident Deductions from them, that the whole Trinity is one and the same Almighty God; Co-essential, and coequal, in Power, Wisdom, and all other Essential Perfections, which are natural to, and inherent in the Deity; whatever any one of them can do or know, every one of them can do and know.  
But here perhaps this Author may thus reply, that by our equally ascribing the whole Divine Nature to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, we make three Gods as well as three Persons; perhaps he may say, as some have done before him, that as the human Nature, being communicated to three distinct Persons, doth constitute three several Men; so the Divine Nature being communicated to three distinct Subsistences, must needs constitute three several Gods.  
To this supposed Objection we answer thus; The forenamed Comparison, and the inference from it, are both nought, and so cannot hold; for, there is a vast difference in the Case, the human Nature being finite and limited, cannot be communicated to three Persons without separation; and consequently where it is so communicated, it must of necessity constitute three several Men, whose Nature is, not numerically, but specifically the same. But with the Divine Nature it is not so; for, that being infinite, and indivisible, and entirely communicated to three Persons, distinct indeed, but not divided, doth not constitute three several Gods, for, the Divine Essence of each Person is not specifically, but numerically the same.  
And from this Unity of their Essence ariseth the Identity of their Divine Attributes; they are alike in Power, alike in Wisdom, and so in all other essential Excellencies; so that notwithstanding this Author's absurd Hypothesis, the Father may be, and certainly is, both Almighty and alwise, tho' he cannot do nor know more than the Son; and the Son also may be, and certainly is both Almighty and alwise, though he cannot do nor know more than the Father; so that this Man's Argument drawn from the Divine Attributes, doth no way prove that, for which he brings it, namely— That the True God is but One in Person.   

SECT. III.  
THE next thing, which this Author attempts, is the proof of this Proposition, That this One Person, who is truly God, is he only, who was the God of Israel, and is now called the Father of Jesus Christ.— To which we answer thus,  
That the God of Israel was and is the only True God, we easily grant; but that this God of Israel was and is but One in Person, we must not, without sufficient Proof, take this or any other Man's bare Word. 'tis a very bold Assertion, and it is that, on which the force of all this Author's subsequent Arguments doth depend, and for that reason he was much obliged to prove it well; but therein he miserable fails.  
The Texts, which he produceth out of the Old Testament, are such as these— Thou art God, 
2 Kings 19 15. Esa. 46.9.  and Thou alone, and again, I am God, and there is none else— These, and some other Texts, which he cites, do only prove, what none of us deny, that the God of Israel was the only true God; but none of them prove that, for which he quotes them all, namely, that this true God of Israel was but One in Person. When God Almighty saith, I am God, and there is none else, that proves that there is no other God; but it doth not prove that there is but one Person in the Godhead; and when 'tis said, Thou art God and thou alone, 'tis not meant of one Person only, but of the whole Trinity took together. So thought that great Man Athanasius, who tells us, 
Athanas. dial. 3. de Trin. p. 223.  {αβγδ}, &c. i. This word Alone, when 'tis applied to the Deity, doth for the most part, imply the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are indeed the only true God. Nay, the word, God, being absolutely taken, when there is no reason in the Context to restrain it to any one particular Person, is generally, to be understood of the whole Trinity. As for instance, when Moses tells us, The Lord God said to Adam; 
Aug. de Trin. l. 2. cap. 10.  St. Austin gives his judgement thus, Cur non ipsa Trinitas intelligatur, nihil dici potest. i. Why by these two Titles, the Lord God, the whole Trinity should not be understood, no reason can be assigned.  
But this Author goeth on to prove, as well as he can, that the true God of Israel was only he, who is the Father of Jesus Christ; by whom he means, and so do we, the first Person in the Deity; but, by his favour, we do not believe that the first Person only is the true God, nor can he ever prove him so.  
For, of those many Texts, which he cites out of the New Testament to prove that the Father of Christ alone, is truly God, there is but one, which doth so much as seem to give any Countenance, though indeed it gives none at all, to his Opinion. 'tis that Expression of our Lord in his solemn Address to his father; Father, this is life eternal, 
John 17.1.3.  that they may know thee the only true God; and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent: 〈…〉 suppose that this is the Text, upon which this Man doth principally depend, because he mentions it in his Title page., and here cites it first; and had he cited no more, he had shewed himself so much the wiser; for, all the other Scripture, to which he appeals, do, as to his present purpose, signify nothing.  
And indeed, even this Text, rightly understood, as to his Design, signifieth as little; for our Lord doth not here say, as this man thinks, that his Father only is the true God; but that he is, which we readily grant, the only true God. Now, there is a very wide difference betwixt this Proposition, which the Text contains, the Father is the only true God; and this, which the Text contains not, the Father only is the true God; the former Proposition excludes from the Godhead only the false Gods of the Heathen World, but the latter, were it contained in the Text, would exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost, whose Deity we do justly own, and religiously adore.  
This heretical Inference, which this man would force from this Text, is diametrically opposite to the Interpretations of such learned Men, whose Judgments are far to be preferred before that of an illiterate mechanic. St. Austin expounding these Words of Christ, infers his Divinity from them; for, thus he tells us, Ordo verborum est, 
Aug. de Trin. l. 6. c. 9. p. 75. Tom. 3.  ut Te,& quem misisti Jesum Christum, cognoscant unum verum Deum: i.e. The Order, in which these words are to be understood is this, that they may know Thee, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, to be the one true God; so that great Man.  
To the same purpose writes Tertullian; 
tart. citatus à Maldonato in loc.  Si Christus noluisset se etiam Deum intelligi, cur addidit,& quem misisti Jesum Christum? nisi quoniam& se Deum accipi volvit? quoniam si se Deum intelligi noluit, addidisset,& quem misisti hominem Jesum Christum; nunc autem nec addidit, nec se nobis hominem tantummodo Christus tradidit, said Deo junxit, ut& Deum per hanc conjunctionem, sicut est, intelligi velvet—. If Christ would not have had us understand him also to be God, why did he add these Words; and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent?— for which addition there could be no other reason, save only this, because he would have himself took for a God; for were it not so, he would have added, and the Man Christ Jesus, whom thou hast sent; but he added no such thing, but here joined himself to God, that by such a Conjunction we might underderstand him to be, what indeed he is, the true God: So Tertullian.  
And by this very Text, from which the Socinians draw their chiefest Argument against the Divinity of Christ, doth St. Ambrose prove it; for, our Lord here saith, This is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent; from whence 'tis evident that our eternal Life depends as well upon our knowledge of Jesus Christ, as upon our knowledge of God the Father; but how can that be, were Jesus Christ no more than a more Man? So argues St. Ambrose.  
To the same purpose do the Greek Fathers understand this Text; when our Lord calls his Father, the only true God; 
Chrysost. in loc.  St. Chrysostom tells us, that he calls him so, {αβγδ}, to distinguish his Father from the false Gods of the Heathen World, into which he intended shortly to sand his Apostles. 
Theophyl. in loc.  Theophylact expounds the same Text thus: {αβγδ}; and again, {αβγδ}; i.e. Our Lord here calls his Father, the only true God: not to exclude himself from being so, but to distinguish his Father from the fictitious Gods of the Grecians; and whosoever shall say, that Christ is not God, because his Father is the only true one, speaks like a very Fool: So Theophylact.  
Concerning the same matters, that excellent Divine, Gregory Nazianzen, 
Nazianz. Or. 36. pag. 586.  delivers his Opinion thus; I judge, saith he, that these Words, That they may know thee the only true God, were spoken by our Lord, {αβγδ}. To remove from the Deity those Idols, which were then esteemed to be Gods, but really were not so; for, saith he, our Lord would not here have mentioned himself, had he not, by the only true God, intended himself, as well as his Father. And therefore he thus concludes; {αβγδ}; the addition of these Words, And Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, doth evidently declare, that by the only true God, our Lord meant not his Father only, but himself too.  
For, as the same Father in the same Discourse doth argue well; if this Expression, the only true God, must be so restrained to the Father, as to exclude the Son; Why might not some other like Expressions, by a parity of Reason, be restrained so too? 'tis said, that God, 
Rom. 16.27.  is only Wise, the only Potentate, He who only hath immortality; and our Lord saith, 
1 Tim. 6.15, 16.  There is none good, but one, and that is God; shall we now from these Expressions, which ascribe Wisdom, Dominion, Immortality, and Goodness to God alone, conclude that our blessed Saviour is neither Wise, nor Powerful, nor Immortal, nor so much as Good? If such an Inference from these Texts would be blasphemous, Why should it not be equal Blasphemy from this Expression, the Father is the only true God, to say, that the Son is not so?  
And yet such was the Opinion of Arius, who, in the Nicene Council, objected this Text against the Divinity of Christ, saying thus; {αβγδ}; i.e. you see that Christ here calls his Father, the only true God; intimating thereby, that he himself is not so. 
Athan. in disp. adv. Arium. p. 126, 127.  To this Objection Athanasius quickly made this just reply, {αβγδ}; i.e. These two Clauses of our Lord's Speech, That they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, are knit together by the Copulative: And, being so conjoined, the Sense of them must be this, {αβγδ}; that they may know thy Son to be the true God, even as they know thee the Father to be so. Thus Athanasius.  
In the same manner doth great St. Basil expound the same Text; 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 4. p. 106, 107.  {αβγδ}; i.e. Our Lord calls his Father, the only true God; not as if his Person alone were so, but in opposition to those Idols, who were then thought to be Gods, but really were not such. But the Title of the True God, doth in this Text equally belong both to the Father and the Son. So thought Great St. Basil.  
To these Authorities we may add that of Ignatius, who, 
Ignat. in Epist. ad magnets. p. 151.  mentioning our Lord and this Expression of his, saith of him thus; {αβγδ}; i.e. Our Lord declared his Father to be, the only true God, to such, and for their sakes, who had or might fall into Polytheism. But did our Lord here deny his own Divinity? No such matter, for even Erasmus and Grotius, 
Grot. in locum Erasm. in  who favour the Socinians in what Texts soever they can, do expound this Text against them: For, saith Grotius, the Father is here called, the only true God; Exclusis omnibus iis, quos falsa Gentium persuasio introduxerat: To exclude all those, whom the false persuasion of the Gentiles had introduced for Gods. But did not our Lord here exclude himself too? No, saith Erasmus, Cum solum dixit, non excludit filium; said separat verum Deum à diis Gentium. When our Lord stiles his Father, the only true God, he doth not shut out himself the Son, but distinguisheth the true God from the Idols of the Heathens.  
And indeed, that these fore-named Authors were not at all mistaken in their Interpretation of this Text, is evident from that assertion of St. John, who positively saith of Christ, 
1 Joh. 5.20.  This is the True God, and Life Eternal. Certainly, St. John, being an inspired Apostle did not, could not leave the World a false Character of his Master, and by representing him as the true God, if he were not so, seduce the catholic Church throughout all succeeding Ages into an Idolatrous Worship, against which he himself hath left us this friendly Caution, and that in the very next words, Little Children keep yourselves from Idols.  
Now then, if we dare rely upon the judgement of these and many more learned Interpreters, Men famous in their Generations; nay, if we dare trust the Authority of St. John himself, who was our Lord's most beloved Disciple; we must aclowledge, that when our Saviour called his Father, the only true God, he meant it only in opposition to the many false Gods of the Pagan World, but as for his own Divinity, his whole Expression took together doth rather confirm than disprove it.  
And if from this Text our Author can find no Countenance for that ill Opinion of his, with which he seems to be enamoured, if he shall turn his Bible over and over, I am confident, that if he will not strain and force the Scriptures, but permit every Text plainly to speak its own Sense, and according to the Analogy of our Christian Faith, he will not find, after all his Scrutiny, so much as any one Text, from which he can fairly infer this Conclusion, which he owns as a Truth, but can never prove it such; namely, that the True God, who was the God of Israel, and is the Father of Christ, is but one in Person.   

SECT. IV.  
AND now it may be an Act of Charity to convince this Author of his Error, and to show him, that the God of Israel, who is now called, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was not, is not, as this Man asserts, only one in Person. For although the Father of our Lord, in respect of his eternal Generation, which this Man denieth, were one Person only; yet besides this one Person, there are two more, who were the God of Israel; and one of these two may be called in an especial manner, and a very good Sense the Father of Christ in regard of his human Nature, of which more hereafter in a more proper place.  
That the God of Israel was more than one in Person, hath been the general Belief of the catholic Church, and still is the common Faith of our best Divines; nor is this rashly believed, nor took up only as a Tradition derived from our progenitors; but they, who were and are of this Opinion, had and have such strong Reasons for it, as all the Enemies of this Truth can never overthrow.  
Now, to prove that the God of Israel was indeed more than one in Person, I shall use two sorts of Argumemts; 1. Such Arguments as seem to be very fair, plausible, and to carry great Probability in them; as being grounded upon the Authority of judicious Men, and their common Interpretations of such and such Texts. 2. Such Arguments as are Apodeictical, Demonstrative, and undeniable; as being grounded upon the express, plain, and infallible Word of God; such Texts, as can admit but of one Sense only.  
The probable Arguments which I shall use to prove that the God of Israel was more than one in Person, shall be these Two;  
1. That God, who often appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and other good Men of the Jewish Nation, was the God of Israel. But that God, who thus appeared, was more than One in Person.  
2. That God, who appeared in the Flaming Bush, and delivered the Law to Moses, was the God of Israel. But that God, who thus appeared, and delivered the Law, was more than one in Person.   

SECT. V.  
MY first Argument, which doth probably prove that the God of Israel was more than one in Person, is this; That God who often appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and other Men of the Jewish Nation, was the God of Israel. But that God, who thus appeared, was more than one in Person.  

Gen. 18.1:  The Text saith, The Lord appeared unto Abraham; {αβγδ}, God appeared, so the seventy; but how, not as he is in himself, but under some other shape; the arabic Version reads it, Angelus Dei, the Angel of God appeared; but the next Verse tells us, Three men stood by him, juxtà, near him; so the Chaldee Paraphrase, coràm, before him; so the arabic, supper, over or above him; so the Samaritan Version.  
But though at first sight Abraham might think these three Persons to be no more than Men, yet he quickly seemed to be of another mind; for, the Text saith, He bowed himself down to the ground, {αβγδ}; saith the seventy, adoravit, he adored; so most Latin Translations, prostravit se, he laid himself prostrate before them; so the Samaritan Version. Now, all these words seem to import that kind of Worship, which is most proper and peculiar to God alone.  
And indeed, if the most judicious Men are not much mistaken, such a Divine Worship, as these words imply, was very fit for those three Persons, whom Abraham had the Honour to Entertain; for they are supposed, and not without reason, to be the three Persons in the Godhead, who were then pleased to disguise themselves, and appear in the shape of Men. For to one of them, or to all three as one, did Abraham thus address himself, my Lord, and the same Lord is afterwards once and again called Jehovah, which is, saith Ravanellus, Nomen solius Dei proprium, a Name never communicated to any Angel, but appropriate to God alone. And it is observable that one of these three Persons in all this Story is never called an Angel, though he be styled a Man.  
And that by this Man God the Father might be meant seems the more probable, because we find him represented under the notion of a Man by our blessed Saviour himself, and that more than once; when our Lord said, A certain man planted a vineyard, and again, A certain man made a great supper, 'tis sure, that by this Certain Man, our Lord, in both these Texts, meant God his Father. And that one of those three Men, who appeared to Abraham, might represent God the Father is an Opinion far from being New. For, when Macedonius put this question to Athanasius, 
Athanas. Dial. 3. de Trin. p. 222.  {αβγδ}; Did the Father appear with the other two? Athanasius answered, {αβγδ}; yes, verily he did so. Of the same mind was Origen, 
Huet. in Origen. l. 2. p. 50.  who, as Huetius reports and interprets him, wrote thus, Gratia Dei ulrio se aspiciendum praebebat viro justo; hoc autem solùm supper Deo Patre non intelligas; said etiam supper Domino salvatore,& supper spiritu sancto; God was graciously pleased of his own free will to exhibit himself in a visible manner to the Just Man Abraham; but this must not be understood only of God the Father, but also of our Lord and Saviour, and his Holy Spirit too.  
But if this appearance of God the Father in the shape of a Man shall be denied or doubted, 
tart. adv. martion. l. 2. c. 27.  yet that our blessed Saviour did in those early days often appear in the form of an Angel, hath been, so far as I can find, the general Opinion of the ancient Fathers. Tertullian with much confidence delivers this for a Truth, 
tart. adv. Prax. c. 16.  Profitemur Christum semper egisse in nomine Patris, ipsum ab initio conversatum, ipsum congressum cum Patriarchis& Prophetis filium Creatoris, &c. so he saith elsewhere, 
tart. adv. Marc. l. 3. c. 10.  A primordio omnem ordinem divinae dispositionis per filium decucurrisse, &c. and yet again, Christus ipse cum angels apud Abraham in veritate quidem carnis apparuit; said non natae, quia nondum Moriturae; said& discentis jam inter homines conversari; the sum of all which amounts to this, namely, that our Lord from the very Infancy of the World did often appear in it to good Men, sometimes in the form of an Angel, and sometimes in the shape of a Man; and under such disguises, did act in his Father's Name, and manage all the dispensations of his Providence. So thought Tertullian.  
The same Appearance of God to Abraham do the Greek Fathers interpret the same way too; 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 2. p. 56, 57.  thus great St. Basil, {αβγδ}; i.e. Who is he, which is called both God and Angel too? Is it not he, of whom we have learned, that his Name is called, the Angel of the great Council? 'tis manifest to every Man that wheresoever the same Person is styled both God and Angel, 'tis meant of the only begotten Son of God. So St. Basil.  
Much to the same purpose writes Eusebius about this Vision of three Men to Abraham, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6.  {αβγδ}; i.e. The Lord God is said to have been seen by Abraham as a common Man; but he, beholding with his Eyes no more than a Man, immediately fell down and worshipped him as a God, and petitioned him as a Lord; acknowledging that he knew who he was, by saying, Lord, who judgest all the Earth, and this God and Lord, who judgeth all the Earth, being seen in the shape of a Man, who else can he be, but the Word, i.e. Christ alone? So Eusebius.  
To these may be added the Testimony of Athanasius about the same matter, who puts this question, 
Athanas. dial. 3. de Trin. p. 217, 218, 219, 222.  {αβγδ}; Who was he, whom Abraham fell down and worshipped? Did he worship more Men? Macedonius answered, {αβγδ}; i.e. One of the Three, with whom Abraham discoursed, was God; and the other two were Angels; to which Athanasius replied, {αβγδ}; The Scripture itself doth most clearly teach that one of these two Angels was the Son of God. Nay, Macedonius himself granted thus much, {αβγδ}. Even I say, that he, who was seen by Abraham, was the Son of God.  
Nor was Abraham the only Person to whom our Lord was pleased in those early days to appear and show himself, though under a disguise, for he afterwards appeared to Jacob; and that, saith Gregory nazianzen, 
Gregor. Naz. Or. 49 p. 734, 735.  alibi in Angelo, alibi in homine, at one time, and in one place, in the form of an Angel; at another time, and in another place, in the shape of a Man. Accordingly it was the saying of Origen, 
Huet. Origen. l. 2. quaest. 3.  as Huetius cites him, non unus Domini mei Jesu Christi adventur, quo descendit ad terras, my Lord Jesus Christ descended to the Earth more than once, ad Esaiam venit, ad Moysen venit,& ad unumquemque Prophetarum; He came down to Esaias, to Moses, and to every one of the Prophets.  

Origen. in Joannem, p. 32.  The same Origen, in his Commentary upon St. John's Gospel, writes thus, {αβγδ}, &c. i.e. That our blessed Saviour did sometimes become as an Angel, we may be induced to believe, if we consider the Appearances and Speeches of Angels, who, in some Texts, 
Origen. in Mat. tom. 12. p. 302.  have said, I am the God of Abraham, &c. And to the same purpose he elsewhere speaks thus, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. The Disciples of Christ understood that the Son of God was he, who, as an Oracle gave Moses, who desired to see his Face, this Admonition, no man shall see my face, and live.  
To the same purpose is that Text interpnted by several Judicious Men, where we are  told, 
Exod. 3.2. August. de Trin. l. 2. c. 12.  The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flamme of fire out of the midst of a bush; The Question is, who this Angel was; St. Austin, observing that he who now appeared to Moses, is called first an Angel, and then God, makes this demand, Nunquid Angelus est Deus Abraam,& c.? Is an Angel the God of Abraham? if not, Who was this, that so styled himself? he answers, Potest rectè intelligi& ipse Salvator; even our Saviour himself may here very well be meant.  
Of the same judgement was Theodoret, 
Theodor. à Pererio in Exod. 3.2.  who delivers his Opinion thus, Hujus loci lectio declarat quis sit, qui visus est; apparuit Angelus Domini,& dixit, Ego sum Deus Abraam, &c.& iterùm, Ego sum, qui sum, universus iste locus Deum esse, qui apparuit, probat; said quae Persona Deitatis? Non Pater, non Spiritus Sanctus, qui nunquam Angeli appellantur; restat itaque fuisse Dei Filium, qui magni Concilii est Angelus: i.e. The reading of this place( Exod. 3.) declares who it was, that was seen by Moses; the Text saith, The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and said, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and again, I am that I am. This whole context proves him, that appeared to be God, but which Person might it be? Not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, who are never called Angels; wherefore it remains that he was the Son of God, who is the Angel of the great Counsel. So he.  
St. Stephen, referring to the same appearance, mentions the same Angel, of whom Oecumenius writes thus, 
Oecumen. in Act. 7.  {αβγδ}; i.e. The Scripture doth here call, the Son of God, an Angel, as elsewhere it stiles him, a Man, and by and by it discovers him by his saying, I am the God of thy Fathers. 
Chrysost. in Act. 7.33.  St. Chrysostom saith the same thing, and adds thus much to it, {αβγδ}; the place where Moses stood, is called, Holy Ground, because Consecrated by the presence, appearance and energy of Christ.  
To these Authorities of the Ancient Fathers, I might add the Testimonies of later and modern Divines; 
Aynsw. in Exod. 3.  Mr. Aynsworth saith of the Angel, which appeared in the flaming Bush; This was Christ, who called himself, the God of Abraham, and for that reason, Moses, blessing Joseph, mentioned, the good will of him, that dwelled in the bush: And the same learned Author cites Rabbi Menachem for this assertion; This Angel is that Angel the Redeemer, who said to Jacob, I am the God of Bethel; and for that reason, say our English Annotations, This was no created Angel, 
Cyprianus adv. Judaeos. l. 2. p. 250.  but as St. Cyprian peremptorily asserts, Idem Angelus& Deus Christus, the same Christ was this God, and this Angel too: God in reality, an Angel in appearance. 
tertul. adv. Judaeos. l. 2. c. 194.  Tertullian saith as much, Qui ad Moysen loquebatur, erat Dei Filius, qui& semper videbatur; he that spake to Moses out of the Bush, was the Son of God; and he was the Person that still appeared.  
Now, to sum up this Argument drawn from several Texts, as they are interpnted by many learned Men, so far as we may rely upon the judgement of such expositors, and that in a matter, which no man can disprove; so far we may conclude, that the God, who was pleased to show himself to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and some other good Men, sometimes as a Man, but more frequently as an Angel, was indeed our blessed Saviour; and if so, 'tis evident that the God of Israel, being the same with the God of Abraham, was whatever the Socinian Author foolishly thinks to the contrary, more than one in Person.   

SECT. VI.  
MY second Argument, which carrieth a fair Probability in it, if the judgement of Pious and Learned Men be any whit valuable, to prove that the God of Israel was more than one in Person shall be this;  
That God, who delivered the Law upon Mount Sinai, was the God of Israel. But that God, who there delivered that Law, was more than one in Person.  
That God the Father is the only Person in the Deity is the Doctrine of our Socinians; and consequently they stand obliged by their own Principles either to grant that the Law was given and delivered by God the Father, or else to deny its Divine Original, which, I think they do not do.  
The Evangelist indeed tells us, 
Joh. 1.17. Origen. in Joann.  The Law was given by Moses, but how that was, Origen tells us, who thus distinguisheth, {αβγδ}; i.e. We understand that the Law was given by Moses, but not from him. 'tis sure that Origen means the same thing, which Erasmus thus expresseth, 
Erasm. in Joann. c. 1.17. Castal. in Joann. 1.16.  Moses Legis Author non fuit, Moses was not the Author of that Law: No, Castalio tells us, Quòd Lex data est, Divini fuit beneficii, The giving of the Law was from the kindness of God. As for Moses, 'tis said, He received the lively Oracles, {αβγδ}, saith St. Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. in Joann. 1.17.  he received the Law from another; and so proved not the Legislator to establish and make the Law; but a Minister, an Herald, a Scribe, to receive, proclaim and writ it. So that Ebion, that pestilent heretic, had no reason to think Moses, who is said to have given the Law, to be upon that score, a greater Man than Christ.  
But although the first Promulgation and delivery of this Law upon Mount Sinai cannot possibly be ascribed unto Moses; yet it seems very clearly to be attributed unto Angels. Thus St. Paul, For if the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, 
Heb. 2.2.  &c. 
Theophyl. in locum.  What Word was that? Theophylact answers, {αβγδ}; the Apostle means either the Decalogue, or generally all those Commands, which were dispensed by the Ministry of Angels under the Old Testament. Thus St. Chrysostom, 
Chrys. in locum.  {αβγδ}, the Decalogue, the Commandment, Lex Mosis, 
Grotius in locum.  the Law of Moses; so Grotius. And of this Law doth the same Apostle elsewhere thus affirm, {αβγδ}, it was ordained by Angels; How so?— Ministerio Angelorum, by the Ministry of Angels; so Clusius. 'tis the Observation of Grotius, that the Law was pronounced by some one of the Angels, others attending round about him.  
And that the Law was indeed delivered by some one single Angel, seems evident from that expression of St. Stephen, This is that Moses, 
Act. 7.38.  who was in the Church in the Wilderness, with the Angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, {αβγδ}, with the Angel, the Expression imports, that it was some one particular Angel, who pronounced the Law. But the question is, Who this Angel was? Grotius saith, it was, 
Grotius in Heb. 2.2.  unus ex pracipuis angels, one of the Chiefest Angels; it was such an Angel, as was counted worthy to represent the Person, and bear the Name of God. So Moses tells us, God spake all these Words; 
Exod. 20.1.  and as Moses gives him this glorious Title, so doth this Angel himself assume it, I am the Lord thy God; and that he was so indeed, the People believed, who said, 
Deut. 5.24.  The Lord our God hath shewed us his Glory, and we have heard his Voice; we have seen this day, that God doth talk with man, &c. From such Expressions do learned Men gather, that the Person, who delivered the Law, was God himself, either appearing under the Form, or at least speaking by the Tongue of an Angel.  
And indeed that it was no created Angel, but some Person of the blessed Trinity, that delivered the Law, was the Opinion not only of Philo the Jew, but of St. Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and some other Fathers of the Christian Church, who affirmed with one Consent, revera fuissa Deum. that it was God indeed; and in particular, the second Person in the Trinity, whose various appearances under the Old Testament were nothing else, but as St. Austin calls them, Symbola& Praeludia Incarnationis, the Symbols, Tokens and Essays of his Incarnation.  

Greg. Nazianz. Or. 49.  This is that, which Gregory Nazianzen confidently affirms, Filium Dei in monte Sina cum Mose locutum esse scimus, that the Son of God upon Mount Sinai did discourse with Moses, is a thing that we know. And to this purpose doth St Chrysostom expound that passage of St. Stephen, 
Chrysost. in Act. 7.30.  He was in the Wilderness with the Angel; What Angel means he? St. Chrysostom answers, {αβγδ}; 'tis the Son of God, whom he calls an Angel. And again, a little after, {αβγδ}, the Expression sheweth, that the Angel who appeared to Moses, was the Angel of the great Council; and that is, saith Dionysius the Areopagite, 
Dionysius Areopag. Coel. Hier. l. 4.  {αβγδ}, Jesus himself.  
Indeed, the same Dionysius in the same Chapter saith, {αβγδ}, the Scriptures teach us, that the Divine Law was handed to us by Angels. So Josephus too, 
Joseph. l. 15.  {αβγδ}, our most Excellent Doctrines and most Holy Precepts were delivered to us by Angels.  
Well, suppose it were certain that Angels, properly so called, created Angels, had to do with the delivery of the Law; yet this doth no way hinder but that Christ might be, and 'tis judged that he was the Legislatour notwithstanding. For whosoever this Angel was, that which he delivered, was certainly the dictate of God. 'tis so acknowledged by Josephus, 
Joseph. Antiq. Judaic. l. 3. c. 10.  {αβγδ}, Moses learnt these Constitutions and Laws from God.  
And that the second Person in the Trinity was he, who dictated this Law to Moses, was the Opinion of Oecumenius, 
Oecum. in Gal. 3.19.  Who writes thus, {αβγδ}; it is God who gave both the Law and the Gospel; but which Person might it be? he answers, {αβγδ}; 'twas he, who intercedes for as our mediator and Reconciler to his Father, even the same, who is Christ, though he were then under the shape of an Angel, or at least spake in and by one. For as St. Austin observes, 
August. contra Adimant. c. 9.  Quemadmodum Verbum Dei, quod est Christus, loquitur in Propheta, sic& in Angelo loquitur; as the Word of God, which is Christ, spake in a Prophet, so did he speak in an Angel too.  

Coel. Rhod. Antiq. l. 18. c. 19.  I remember Coelius Rhodiginus tells us that the Lawgivers of several Nations were very ambitious to make their Subjects believe, that all the Laws which they established, were derived from some Deity or other. Thus Trismegistus Fathered his Laws upon Mercury; Draco and Solon, theirs upon Minerva; Zamolxis, his upon Vesta; Plato, his upon Jupiter and Apollo; Numa, his upon Egeria, &c. Now, that Divine honour, which they sought for their Laws, ours undoubtedly hath, as being infallibly the Law of God, or, which is all one, the Law of Christ, that glorious Lawgiver, with whom those of this World, 
Seneca Epist. 9.  whom Seneca mentions for the wisest, Solon, Lycurgus, Zaleucus, Charondas, &c. are not once to be name.  
Now, to sum up this Argument, since the Law of Moses was certainly given by a God, and since he who gave the Law in the Opinion of many Judicious Men, is supposed to be the Eternal Son of God; so far as we may rely upon the Authority of such Pious and Learned Interpreters, we may conclude upon this ground also, that the God of Israel, who delivered his Laws to Moses, and by him to the Jewish Nation, was more than One in Person.  
And indeed that the second Person in the Trinity should deliver the Law, seems the more probable, because he was the Person already designed in after-times to explain and fulfil the Law, and to call Men to an account for it, to reward Obedience to it, and to punish the Transgressions of it.  
But because these two Arguments being only probable and grounded upon the Opinion of Men, who are subject to mistakes, will not satisfy our Socinian Author, that the God of Israel was more than One in Person; I shall to convince him of his error, and to prove the same Truth with the greatest certainty, add 2 Arguments more, which I take to be clear Demonstrations, as being grounded upon the express, plain and infallible Word of God.   

SECT. VII.  
TO prove against this Socinian Author, that the God of Israel was more than one in Person, my first Argument, which I take to be convincing and unanswerable by any Man who believes the Scripture, shall be this;  
That God, who created the World was the God of Israel. But that God who created the World, was more than one in Person.  
To confirm the mayor Proposition I need not name any Text, nor city any Authority, because I suppose that our Socinians will readily grant its Truth; and if they will, the Truth of the minor Proposition will be very easily proved. That God the Father is the only Person in the Deity, is the Doctrine of our Socinians, and therefore that the Father created the World they cannot deny, unless they be of the same mind with Aristotle, 
Arist. l. 1. de Coelo.  who said, {αβγδ}; it is reasonable to think that Heaven is a Substance ingenerable and incorruptible, nor dare I charge these Men with the Opinion of the Epicureans, who thought that Heaven and Earth were produced, ex fortuita Atomorum cohaesione, by a fortuitous Concourse and Union of atoms; nor with that of Strato Lampsacenus, who imagined, that Heaven and Earth were from Eternity; suapte natura, vi ac potestate, of themselves, their own nature, strength and power. These Opinions being so very absurd and ridiculous, I shall take it for granted, that the Creation of the World by God the Father, is one Article of our Socinians Creed.  
And if it be so indeed, it should be a second Article of their Creed, that there are more Persons than one in the Godhead, if we can find one Person more, besides the Father, by whom the World was created. And such a Person hath St. John helped us to; for thus he writes, 
Joh. 1.1, 2.  In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God; and his Deity he proves by this undeniable Argument. By him all things were made, &c. The Words are so very plain, so uncapable of any Figurative or any other tolerable Sense, that 'tis very strange that any Man of common Reason should attempt to divert them from their literal Meaning, and refer them to any thing else but the first Creation.  
And the rather, if to this Testimony of St. John, we add that of St. Paul, who saith of Christ, 
Col. 1.16.  By him were all things created, which are in Heaven, and which are in Earth, things visible and invisible, &c. an Expression which comprehends the Universe, and in most plain words, which cannot be eluded by any Pretence of Metaphors or Metonymies, asserts our blessed Saviour to be the creator of Heaven and Earth, and all things in both.  
I know that our Socinians do what they can to defeat the Force of that Argument, which we draw from these Texts, to prove the Divinity of our blessed Saviour; and to that end they pretend that the Creation here ascribed to Christ, is not the old Creation described by Moses; but that new Creation, as they call it; that Renovation or Reformation of the World, which was introduced by Christ during his abode here below, and afterwards carried on by his Apostles according to his Command. But this Cavil is so unreasonable, so inconsistent with the Contents of these Texts, so contrary to the general judgement of the best Interpreters; that no Man could offer to pretend it, were not his Reason blinded with Prejudice; were he not wedded, or rather enslaved to that Party of Men who have entertained that dangerous Opinion, which these Texts being understood in their genuine, natural and necessary Sense, do most clearly confute and overthrow.  
St. John saith of Christ, By him were all things made, and without him was nothing made; if this be true, as doubtless it is, then the Beasts of the Earth, the Fishes of the Sea, the Fowls of Heaven, Plants, Vegetables, Minerals, &c. were the Creatures of Christ; But could any of these be concerned in that new Creation, which is pretended? If not, the old Creation must here be meant as the Effect and Workmanship of Christ.  
But if our Socinians shall object and say, that St. John, by All things created by Christ, meant not All Creatures, but all those Institutions, all matters whatsoever, which any way related to the whole economy of the Gospel; let them consider what St. Paul saith, By him all things were created, which are in Heaven, and which are in Earth, things visible and invisible; and then he instances particularly in the several Degrees and Orders, of Angels, Thrones Dominations, Principalities and Powers; from which words 'tis evident, that Angels are the Creatures of Christ, but when did he make them?  
Moses, indeed, describing the Creation, makes no express mention of Angels, nor of the precise time, wherein they were created; for that reason St. Austin saith, 
August. de Incarnat. Verbi, l. 1. c. 6.  Quando creati sint Angeli, non satis in manifesto distinguitur; when Angels were created, is no where clearly delivered. But although the punctual time of this Creation cannot be certainly determined, yet several Conjectures are made about it. 
August. de Civ. Dei, l. 11. c. 32.  St. Austin mentions some who thought the Angels were created, ante coelum& terram, before Heaven and Earth. So thought Plato, 
Plato in Timaeo.  who imagined that the Angels whom he called, Deos Juniores, Junior Gods, were of a far longer standing than Heaven and Earth. But the Opinion of Pineda is much more probable, 
Peneda in Job. c. 38. v. 7.  simul cum Mundo corporeo c●eatos esse Angelos, the Angels were created together with the corporeal World. And for this saying he cited Epiphanius, 
Epiphan. tom 2. l. 2. h. 65.  unà cum coelo& terra creati quoque sunt Angeli, Angels also were created together with Heaven and Earth. And indeed it is most probable, and the general Opinion of the Interpreters, that Angels were made upon the very first day of the Creation; and Perhaps, for that reason might they be styled, The Stars of the morning, 
Job 38.7.  as being such Glorious and such Early Creatures.  
Now then, since the Angels, mentioned by St. Paul, as the Creatures of Christ, were certainly made in the very Infancy of the World: What Concern could they have after so many Ages, in that new Creation, which our Socinians pretend, allowing our Lord no hand in the old one? 'tis sure, that the good Angels did need no Renovation; and 'tis as sure, that for the evil Angels there was none intended. So that we may safely conclude, that when St. Paul tells us, that Angels were created by Christ, he means the first or old Creation, because the new one concerned them not. And the truth is, if they extend this new Creation to Angels, 'tis but a new Invention of their own, 'tis but an, Ens rationis, a Creature of their own Creating.  
But to sum up this Argument, 'tis evident from several plain Texts, that Angels, as well as all other inferior Beings, were created by Christ; and 'tis clear that this whole Work of Creation was perfectly finished within six days; and that many Ages before our Lord's Incarnation, the time to which the new Creation must be referred; and in this new Creation, no Angel, no Creature, save only Man, was any way concerned; it must follow by an undeniable consequence, that those Texts which ascribe to our blessed Saviour, the Creation of all things, must be understood of the first Creation, wherein our Lord had an equal hand with his Father. And since Creation is a work of that Infinite Power, whereof no Creature is capable, it doth necessary prove, that Christ, who had, and exercised such an Omnipotent Power, was not a more Man, but God most High; and since the creator of the World was the God of Israel, our Lord being that creator, and a Person distinct from his Father, we may infallibly conclude that the God of Israel was more than one in Person, tho' this Socinian scribbler be of another mind. But I shall yet urge one Argument more.   

SECT. VIII.  
MY last Argument, which I think sufficient to convince this Socinian Author, that the God of Israel was and is more than one in Person, shall be this;  
That God, who spake to and by the Prophets of the Jewish Church, was the God of Israel. But that God, who spake to and by those Prophets, was more than one in Person.  
The mayor Proposition is so evident, that it needs no great Proof; 'tis very usual with the Prophets to tell us, 
Esai. 43.14.  Thus saith the Lord, What Lord? the Lord the Redeemer, the Holy one of Israel. St. Paul tells us, God at sundry times, 
Heb. 1.1.  and in divers manners, spake in time past to the Father by the Prophets. And again, All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. That by this Lord and this God, 
2 Tim. 3.16.  to whom the Scriptures are here ascribed, we are to understand God the Father, must needs be the belief of the Socinians, since they aclowledge no other Person in the Deity, and yet own the Divine Authority of our Bibles, except some Texts, which do clearly make against them.  
That the Scriptures are the undoubted Oracles of God, and that God the Father spake to and by the Prophets, being granted by our Socinians; we shall inquire whether he who spake to and by the Prophets, were God the Father only, or some other Person too. This doubt must be determined by the Testimony of those Divine Oracles, which the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, received from God, and we from Them.  
Now, St. Peter saith of the Prophets, The Spirit of Christ was in them, 
1 Pet. 1.11.  and what that Spirit did, he elsewhere tells us, 
2 Pet. 1.21.  Holy men spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; so spake the Prophet David, as the same Apostle testifieth, The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake concerning Judas; 
Act. 1.16.  and so he did by the Prophet Esaias, 
Act. 28.25.  Well spake the Holy Ghost by the Prophet Esoias; and so by the Prophet Ezekiel, 
Ezek. 11.5.  The Spirit of the Lord fell upon me, and said unto me, speak, thus saith the Lord. There was upon the Prophets, 
Camer. in 2. Epist. Pet. v. 21.  saith a learned critic; {αβγδ}, the Spirit of God did invade, enter and possess the Prophets; and upon that score, those Messages which they delivered and left upon Record, are commonly styled, {αβγδ}, Holy Writings; or as Dionysius calls them, {αβγδ}, the Discourses, Speeches, or Word of God.  
And because that blessed Spirit, by whom the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles were inspired and acted, is the Spirit of Christ, well may the whole Scripture, as well the Old Testament as the New, be styled according to that Expression of St. Paul, {αβγδ}, the Word of Christ; so much doth St. Peter yet further assure us in that fore-named place, where he saith, The Spirit of Christ was in the Prophets. And the same Spirit was in the Apostles too; that it should be so, their Lord had given them several Promises, 
John 16.13. Job. 14.26.  The Spirit shall guide you into all truth; and again, The Holy Ghost shall teach you all things; and that these Promises were in their due time fully accomplished, St. Luke tells us, 
Act. 2.4.  They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other Tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.  
In short, the sum of my present Argument is this: The God of Israel was he, who inspired the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New; but he who thus inspired them, was not God the Father alone, but his blessed Spirit too; and since this blessed Spirit is as shall hereafter be sufficiently proved, a Person distinct from God the Father; this consequence is undeniable; namely, that the God of Israel was and is more than one in Person. For, the creator of the World, which was the Son; and the Inspirer of the Prophets and Apostles, which was the Holy Ghost, were the God of Israel, as well as God the Father, Quod erat demonstrandum.   

SECT. IX.  
IN his next page., this Author makes this demand, wherein there lieth an Argument, such as it is, against the Divinity of Christ. How can be be God himself, who truly is the Son of God? If he be the Son only, 'tis plain that he is not the Father also, who alone is God; so he, to which I shall reply in four particulars;  
1. This Man doth here again, petere principium,— he takes that for granted, which we deny, and he can never prove; I mean that the Father alone is God; and upon that false Supposition he grounds that Argument, whereby he would prove that Christ is not God.  
2. Whereas this Man saith that the Son cannot be the Father, we easily grant it, for we do not only allow, but can prove a distinction of their Persons.  
3. This Man doth in effect, affirm that Christ cannot possibly be God, for this Reason, because he is the Son of God. But what hinders? The Son of a Man is a Man, and why may not the Son of a God, as well be a God? There is indeed this difference in the case; the Son of Man is another Man, but the Son of God is not another God, but a God he is.  
4. Whereas this Author makes this demand: How can he be God himself, who is no other than the Son of God? I shall now retort this Argument, and prove that our Saviour is most certainly the true God by that very reason, for which this Man saith, in effect, that he cannot be so. For, this Question of his, How can he be a God, who is no other than the Son of God? Implieth a Negation that he is so, or an Impossibility that he should be so.  
My present Argument then to prove that Christ is God, shall be this: God he is, and must be, because he is the Son of God; a Son in that peculiar respect, wherein none else ever was, or ever can be so. And, for that reason, doth St. John, whose design it was, as well by that Title as by other Arguments, to prove the Deity of Christ, tell us, that our Lord styled himself, {αβγδ}, God's only begotton Son, a Title, which doth clearly distinguish him from all other Sons, either by Creation or Adoption, and advance him infinitely beyond them; nay, our Lord's own filial relation to God, in respect of his wonderful Incarnation, is not so sublime, as to deserve this glorious Title, and to denominate him, the begotten, much less the only begotten Son of God.  

Ravanell. in verbo gigno.  For to beget a Son, if Judicious critics be not mistaken, is this, ex substantia sua sibi similem producere, it is for a Man out of his own substance to produce another like himself, consisting of an human Body and a rational Soul; a Body complete in all his Parts, and a Soul endowed with all those Powers and Faculties which are Essential to its being. Accordingly 'tis said of Adam, He begot a Son in his own likeness, 
Gen. 5.3.  and so do all Men else; they multiply themselves, they propagate their own image, their Sons are like them, sometimes in the external shape and form of their Bodies, but always in the number, order and situation of their Members, if Nature be not accidentally obstructed in her Operation.  
And for this reason, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 2. p. 62.  St. Basil the Great defines a Father thus, {αβγδ}, a Father is he, who is to another the Original of being in a Nature like his own. And hence Aristotle tells, that to beget is this in general, {αβγδ}; it is to make another as one's self, and so an Animal produceth an Animal, a Plant brings forth a Plant, a Man begets a Man, every Creature one of its own kind.  
Now then, if this be so amongst all Creatures, much more must it be so with God, if that of the lyric Poet be true, 
Horat. l. 4. ode 4.  who saith, Est in juvencis, est in equis patrum, virtus; if he who begets another, doth derive and communicate his own Nature, with all its Essential Properties and Natural Perfections to him who is begotten; then, I think that in the strict and proper Sense of this Notion, our blessed Lord, considered in his human Nature, cannot well be called the begotten Son of God.  
' Its true, Christ as Man, was and is the Son of God; but not by an Act of proper Generation, for God did not, and indeed, could not communicate to the humanity of his Son all those Excellent and Essential Perfections, which are found in, and proper to his own Deity, the Father is Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Immense; but the Son as Man, is not, could not be so. And since the entire Nature of God was not, could not be communicated to Christ in his Incarnation, as the Nature of every Father is to every begotten Son; I think, we may safely say, that our Lord, as Man, in the usual and proper Sense of that Term, cannot be rightly called the Son of God by Generation.  
It is true, our Lord's human Nature is styled by an Angel before its Conception, {αβγδ}, which we render, That which shall be born; 
Luk. 1.35.  and after its Conception, 
mat. 1.20.  'tis called, {αβγδ}, which we render, That which is not begotten, but conceived; and the truth is, though the Greek Verb, {αβγδ}, do signify, to beget, in its Active Voice, yet in its Passive and middle Voice, it signifieth, Nascor, orior, to be born, to arise, spring and receive an Original from such or such a thing or Person, which doth not alway require, nor can it in our case admit an act of proper Generation.  
St. Paul, mentioning the Incarnation of Christ, tells us that he was, {αβγδ}; i.e. not genitus, but factus, not begotten, 
Gal. 4.4.  but made of a Woman. The Prophet fore-telling the same thing, words it thus, The Lord hath created a new thing, But what new thing was that? A Woman shall compass a Man, the framing of our Lord's human Nature in a Virgin's Womb is here expressed as an Act, not of Generation, but of Creation; not an immediate and proper Creation out of nothing; but as Adam's Body is said to be created, because formed, ex materia inhabili, of the dust of the ground, which was so unlikely and untoward matter; so our Lord's Body, being made of the Virgin's Substance alone, without the usual concurrence of Man, may well be said in the same Sense to be created too.  
And if our Lord, as Man, cannot in strict propriety of Speech, be called, the Begotten, much less can he in the same Capacity be called, the only begotten Son of God. We grant indeed, that our Lord in an allusive and metaphorical Sense, is styled, the begotten Son of God, by virtue of his Resurrection; the Grave being likened to a Womb, and the Person raised by the Power of God to a second Life, being represented as one that is newly born. To this purpose St. Peter interprets that of the Psalmist, 
Act. 1●. 33.  Thou art my Son this day, the day of his Resurrection, have I begotten thee. But in this improper Sense, our Lord is not an only begotten Son; for God hath already had, and hereafter will have many more such begotten Sons, 
Luke 20.36.  who are called the Children of God, being the Children of the Resurrection.  
Again, should we allow that in this Metaphorical Sense, our Lord might be called the begotten Son of God, by virtue of his Conception in the Womb of a Virgin, by the wonderful Power of God; yet neither in this respect can he be called an only begotten Son; for although no Man else was ever conceived and born of a Virgin; yet there was another Man formed, produced and enlivened by as great an Act of God's Omnipotence, and that gave him a right to this Title, 
Luk. 3.38.  Adam, the Son of God. And if the Wonder of our Lord's Conception and Birth might give him the Title of God's begotten Son, I see no reason, why the wonder of Adam's production should not render him capable of the same Title too.  
Nay more, the making of Adam's Body seems to be a more immediate and greater Act of Omnipotence, than the making of the Body of Christ; as Christ was, as to Men, {αβγδ}, without a Father; so was Adam, {αβγδ}, without Father and Mother too. I know, the Earth is styled, Magna matter, the Great Mother, but not of Men; the {αβγδ}, Terrigena Fratres, the Giants born of the Earth are but Poetical Fictions. The dust of the Earth, was not so likely matter to make Adam's Body, as the Virgin's Flesh and Blood were to make our Lord's; in the Creation of Adam, God did all, the dull Earth was wholly Passive; but doubtless, towards the Incarnation of Christ, the blessed Virgin being first impregnated by the Holy Ghost, did as much as other Mothers are wont to do; there was from her a Vital and Active Concurrence with that Holy Spirit; who was, not seemen, the Seed itself; but loco Seminis, instead of the Seed, the Virgin's Womb being the Soil, in and out of which our Lord's Body, that Sacred Embryo, was formed, enlivened, nourished and prepared for its Nativity.  
Now then, if the Creation of Adam were at least as wonderful a Work as the Incarnation of Christ, since they were both effected by the same Almighty Power; and yet the one in the nature of the thing seems somewhat more difficult than the other; methinks if the easier Work, that of the Incarnation, be sufficient to denominate our Lord, the begotten Son of God, as being incarnated by his Power; then the harder Work, that of Adam's Creation, may as well give him a right to the same Title, as being created by an higher Act of the same Omnipotence.  
And yet notwithstanding all this, 'tis evident that our Lord is called, and therefore really is, the only begotten Son of God; and since he cannot be so called, nor so be, as he is Man, he must be so called and so be, as and because he is God, even by an eternal Generation. For 'tis evident from a variety of Texts, that this Son of God had a being from Eternity; for St. John saith of him, In the beginning was the word, i.e. before all time; so much doth the next Verse prove, All things were made by him, if so, then time itself is one of his Creatures. St. Paul also tells us, All things were made by him and for him, and thence he immediately infers his Omnipotence and Eternity, and tells us in the very next words, He is before all things, and by him all things consist; certainly, 'tis not possible for any Man to invent words more plain, and express to convince us, that our blessed Redeemer is in reality in a literal and proper sense, the great creator and Upholder of the Universe; which are such sublime Titles, as could by no means belong unto him, were he not indeed the Eternal Son of God.  
And if our blessed Saviour be, as undoubtedly he is, the eternal Son of God, then must he needs be of the same Nature and Essence with God his Father; he must be God, as his Father is; Why else doth St. Paul style him, 
Heb. 1.3.  The express image of his Person, and the brightness of his Glory? We see that every Creature communicates its own Nature to its own Issue; an Horse to its Colt, a Sheep to its Lamb, and every Man to his begotten Son. And if through the Ordination and Concurrence of God's blessing, it must be thus with all sorts of Creatures; if a Sheep beget a Sheep, if a Man beget a Man, we may easily conclude, that since a God begets a Son, he begets such a Son, as is in all respects like himself; a Son, who is a God, but though another Person, yet not another God. For the Generation of the Son is nothing else, but the full and entire Communication of the Divine Nature to him; and because that Nature is Infinite and Indivisible, it must be wholly communicated without any multiplication of the Deity. So that three Persons, being of one and the same Nature, the same not only in kind, but number, are but one God; so is the Son, because eternally begotten of the Father; and so is the Holy Ghost, because eternally proceeding from both.  
Now, since our blessed Saviour is therefore God, because he is proved the Eternal, and is called the only begotten Son of God; How came this Author to make this demand; How can he be God, who is no other than the Son of God? Why might he not as well demand, How can he be a Man, who is no other than the Son of Man? But to answer this Man's demand with another, I ask, How can he, who is the eternal, natural and only begotten Son of God, How can he in that Capacity, be any thing else but God? For he cannot be, as yet he is proved, either the eternal and natural, or, as he is called, the Only begotten Son of God, as he is Man.   

SECT. X.  
BUT altho' the Deity of our blessed Saviour be clearly asserted in several Texts, and evidently proved by his being the eternal and only begotten Son of God, and the undoubted Creator of the Universe; yet this Socinian scribbler makes bold to lay down this Proposition, and to tell the World in plain Terms, That Christ is not the true God; Audis, Jupiter hoc, nec labra moves? 'tis infinite Patience that our Lord bears with such Blasphemers.  
This heretical Opinion hath been justly condemned by Councils, Fathers, Schoolmen, and many other pious and learned Divines, who have written in defence of the contrary Doctrine, and lived and died in the Faith of the glorious Trinity. But, alas! the whole number of these Excellent Persons must now truckle and submit their Judgments to this grand Theologue, the Clock-maker. But that they and we may do so, this mechanic and Apron Divine must produce better Arguments to disprove the Divinity of Christ, than any of his predecessors or Modern Abetters as yet have done; now, to make good as he thinks, this heretical Proposition, That Christ is not the true God, he takes a double course;  
1. This Man propounds some Arguments, such as they are, to disprove the Deity of Christ. 2. He endeavours as well as he can, to answer those Arguments, which are commonly urged by our Orthodox Divines to prove it.  
The Arguments which this mighty Disputant urgeth to disprove the Deity of Christ are these Three; 1. Christ, saith he, is not God, because he hath a God above him. 2. Because what he did, he did by a power received from God. 3. Because God and he are plainly distinguished; and to make good each of these, he cites several Texts, which yet will do him but little Service. And by the way let me tell the Reader, that this Man is but a sorry Artist, if the works of his hand, in his own Craft, be not far better than this of his head, if he do not use his common Tools much better than his Pen; and if the Motions of his Springs, Wheels and Clocks, be not more regular and true than the Arguments and Assertions of his Book. And now let us examine them one by one as they lye in order.  
1. The first Argument which this Man urgeth to disprove the Deity of Christ, is this, Christ, saith he, is not the true God, because he hath a God above him: This Argument, if put into another form, must run thus;  
That Person, who hath a God above him, cannot himself be the true God. But Christ is a Person, who hath a God above him. Ergo, He himself cannot be the True God.  
The force of the mayor Proposition depends upon this undoubted Truth; namely, that the true God is the most High and Supreme Being; and he who is the Supreme, can have none above him; if therefore Christ have a God above him, he is not the Supreme Being, and consequently not the True God; that is all the strength of this mayor Proposition.  
The truth of the minor Proposition, Which saith that Christ hath a God above him, is evident from several Texts; St. Paul saith, The Head of Christ is God; 
1 Cor. 11.3.  and our Lord himself doth freely aclowledge thus; 
Joh. 10.29.  My Father is greater than I, and if he be greater, then must he needs be above him.  
This Argument seems to our Author to be so clear and strong, that he ventures to say, 'tis evident beyond contradiction, and yet I shall make bold to contradict it; for 'tis grounded upon a fallacy; it proceeds, à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter, when St. Paul saith, The Head of Christ is God; and when our Lord saith, My Father is greater than I: These and the like Texts speak of Christ as he is, the Mediator betwixt God and Man, as he is the Man Christ Jesus; and who doubts but God is greater than the best of Men?  
And that these Words of Christ, My Father is greater than I, are not to be understood, simpliciter, simply, absolutely, and upon all accounts whatsoever; but, secundùm quid, in a Relative and restrained Sense, we have the judgement of far better Interpreters than our Clock-maker, or any of his Abetters, can with any modesty pretend to be. There is a twofold relation to Christ, wherein these words are thought to stand: 1. As he is the Son of God. 2. As he is the Son of Man.  
1. Some think that these words were spoken by Christ in relation to himself, as being the Son of God, My Father is greater than I, But how so? Great St. Basil answers, 
Adv. Eunom. l. 4. p. 100.  {αβγδ}; and so Athanasius, {αβγδ}, 
Athanas. adv. Arianos. Or. 2. p. 365.  &c. The Father is greater than the Son, but not in respect of Majesty, Time, Dignity or Power; But how then? St. Basil answers, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom l. 10. p. 35.  {αβγδ}. Gregory Nazianzen in effect saith as much, 
Greg. Nazianz. Or. 1. p. 17.  {αβγδ}. The substance of which Words is this; namely, that God the Father is said to be greater than the Son in regard of his Paternity, as he is the Original and Fountain of the Deity; as he is the only Person, who communicates the Divine Essence to the Son. St. Chrysostom, 
Chrys. in Joh. c. 14. v. 28.  mentioning this Exposition of our Saviour's Words, approves it so far, as to say, {αβγδ}, we will not contradict it. 
Theophyl. in locum.  Theophylact also mentions, and doth not blame this Interpretation of the Text, {αβγδ}; My Father is greater than I, as being the Original of my Person, for, of, and by him, I was begotten.  
In the same Sense doth St. Austin interpret these Words of Christ, 
Augustin. de Fide& Symb. tom. 3. c. 9.  My Father is greater than I, But why so? St. Austin gives this reason, Quia Filius debet Patri quòd est; because the Son oweth his very Being to the Father. 
tertul. adv. Prax. c. 9. p. 504.  Tertullian useth this Text as an Argument to prove the distinction of Persons betwixt the Father and the Son; Pater alius à filio, dum filio mayor, the Father must needs be distinguished from the Son, since he is greater than he; and upon what score he is greater, he seems to intimate in his next Expression, Alius qui generat, alius qui generatur, he who doth beget is one, and he who is begotten is another. The same account is given us by St. Hilary, as Erasmus cites him, 
Erasm. in Joh. 14. v. 28.  why the Father is greater than the Son; he is so, Ratione principii, quia à patre filius, because the Son originally received his Divine Nature from the Father.  
But although the Father be supposed greater than the Son in respect of his own Paternity, and his Son's Filiation, yet upon any other account he is not so; thus must we understand that Expression of St. Hilary, Patrem esse majorem filio, filium tamen non esse minorem Patre; though the Father, eo nomine, as such, be greater than the Son, quà talis, as the Son, yet in other respects, the Son is no less than the Father. For, Natura aequalis est Patri,& in Divinis Personis ordo quidem est, inaequalitas non est, the Son in Nature is equal to the Father; for though amongst the Divine Persons there be a distinction and priority of Orders, yet there is no inequality. So Erasmus. But  
2. There is yet another more common, and indeed more probable Interpretation given us of these words, My Father is greater than I, i. e. than I as being the Son of Man. 'tis true, our Lord, as Man, was entrusted with a very large Authority here below; but when he was to leave the World, his Apostles being sorely troubled for the speedy loss of their dear Lord and Master, to revive and raise their drooping Spirits, he gave them this assurance, I go to my Father, and your Father; that Father of mine and yours, who is greater than I, much more able to assist you in all your Sufferings, and to supply all your Wants.  
And that when our Lord delivered these words, My Father is greater than I, he spake of himself as Man, is the general persuasion of the best Interpreters which I can meet with {αβγδ}; 
Athan. de humilitat. Christi. p. 614.  when our Lord was once become a Man, then he said that his Father was greater than he; 
Theophyl. in Joh. 14.28.  so Athanasius. And thus Theophylact, {αβγδ}; the Father is said to be greater than the Son in regard of the Son's humanity. 
August. de Trin. l. 1. c. 7.  Of the same mind was St. Austin, who saith of this and other like Texts, Propter Incarnationem verbi Dei ita dicuntur, ut majorem filio Patrem significent, &c. they are so spoken, as to import that the Father is greater than the Son, only by reason of the Son's Incarnation. 
Zeger. in locum.  Zegerus expounds this Text, as if our Lord had plainly said, Ob corporis hujus corruptibilitatem Patre sum factus inferior, I am become inferior to my Father in regard of this my corruptible Body. But what need I mention any particular Authorities, 
Maldon. in locum.  since Maldonate, having name a great number of very judicious Expositors, plainly tells us, Omnes in eo conveniunt, Christum ut Hominem loqui; they do all agree, that when our Lord said, My Father is greater than I, he spake of himself only as he was Man.  
Nor can we doubt but these learned Men were lead to this Interpretation of the Text by their consideration of that which St. Paul saith of Christ, 
Phil. 2.6, 7.  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of Men. This Text represents our blessed Saviour in a double Capacity; First, as one being in the form of God; and Secondly, as one being in the form of a Servant, and in the likeness of Men; by which words, 
Oecumen. in locum.  saith Oecumenius, {αβγδ}; all the Heresies which arose concerning the Person of Christ, are dissolved and overthrown; and particularly that of Arius, martion, Paulus Samosatenus, Nestorius and Sabellius, to which we may justly add, that of Socinus too. For this Text doth clearly import and express our Lord's being in the form of God; But what is that? {αβγδ}; the form of God is the nature of God; so Oecumenius. And thus Theophylact, 
Theoph. in locum.  {αβγδ}; as the Nature and Condition of a Servant is here called, the form of a Servant, so the Essence or Substance of God is here styled, the form of God. St. Chrysostom gives the same Interpretation too, {αβγδ}; 
Chrys. in locum.  the form of a Servant imports the nature of a Servant, and so the form of God imports the nature of God. This Text thus understood( and otherwise understood it cannot be) doth St. Chrysostom apply to, and urge against several heretics, and utterly confounds them by it.  
And indeed, well he might; for one would think that a Man who denieth the Deity of Christ, should be ashamed of himself and abhor his Opinion, when St. Paul so plainly tells him, that Christ being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Certainly, if it had been Robbery, our Lord must have thought it so; for, Could he who is Wisdom itself be mistaken? No, our Lord well knew that his claiming an equality with God, was so far from being an unjust Usurpation, that it was indeed his natural and undoubted birth-right.  
But if our Lord be indeed equal with God, as St. Paul affirms, How comes our Saviour himself to tell us, My Father is greater than I? Can there be a Majority and yet an Equality too? Or doth Christ and St. Paul clash and contradict one another? No such matter, there is a very fair Correspondence between them, and their different Expressions are very easily reconciled, and St. Paul himself here tells us how. For he represents our Lord, 1. As being in the form of God. 2. As being in the form of a Servant, and made in the likeness of Men; and from hence St. Austin took just occasion to resolve this Riddle thus, In forma servi, 
August. de Trin. l. 1. c. 7.  quam accepit, minor est Patre; in forma autem Dei, in qua erat etiam antequam hanc accepisset, aequalis est Patri; our Lord considered in the form of a Servant, which he took upon him, is inferior to his Father; but considered in the form of God, which he had before he took that of a Servant, he is his Father's Equal.  
And the truth is, when our Lord took upon him the nature of Man, he therein became less, not only than his Father, but even, {αβγδ}, saith St. Chrysostom, less even than himself; nay, as St. Paul saith, He was made, {αβγδ}, a little lower than his Angels; for saith the Text, {αβγδ}, exinanivit, he emptied himself: He laid aside the splendour and glorious Majesty of his Godhead, and concealed himself under the Disguise and rags of Man's Mortality. And when once he had degraded himself so far below his Native Dignity, as to say, I am a Worm and no Man; it is no wonder, that being in so mean a condition, he should tell his Apostles, My Father is greater than I.  
But although when our Lord became Man, he was pleased to lay aside the lustre of his Deity, yet did he not lose any thing of it; for, Cum inciperet esse, quod non erat, remansit quod erat; when he began to be, what before he was not, he still continued what before he was; 
August. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8.  for as St. Austin saith, Divinitas in Creaturam non est mutata, ut desisteret esse Divinitas, nec Creatura in Divinitatem, ut desisteret esse Creatura; 
Athanasii Symbol.  our Lord's Divine Nature was not changed into the human Nature, and so ceased to be the Divine; nor was his human Nature changed into the Divine, and so ceased to be human. But when our Lord became, {αβγδ}, a Perfect Man, he still continued, {αβγδ}. Perfect God; so that we may conclude as Great St. Basil doth, that this Expression of Christ, My Father is greater than I, {αβγδ}, doth not import an absolute and universal minoration of him who said it. But that notwithstanding this Expression, as the same Father speaks, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 4. p. 100.  {αβγδ}, the Father is of the self same Substance and Essence with the Son, though in some other respects, he is truly said to be greater than he.  
And now 'tis time to tell this Author, that the mayor Proposition, couched in his Argument, which runs thus, That Person who hath a God above him, is not, cannot himself be God; being absolutely and universally understood, is utterly false; and to make it true, this addition is required, That Person, who hath a God above him, cannot himself be the true God, and nothing else; but if he may be something else, which is less than God, which is our Saviour's Case, then must he have a God above him, and yet himself be the true God notwithstanding.  
That our Lord is indeed somewhat else than God, this Author will not deny, for he asserts that he is a Man, and no more; but since by clear Texts and infallible Arguments, he is proved to be God, our Adversary willingly grants him to be a Man; our Lord, being not only God; but Man too, might well say, in regard of that inferior Capacity of his, My Father is greater than I; but on the other hand, in regard of his Divine Nature St. Paul tells us, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; and since he thought so, who knew very good reason for it, I see no cause why we should not think so too.  
That Confession of Faith, which passeth under the Name of the Athanasian Creed, delivers that Truth, which the Devil and his suborned Disputers will never be able to overthrow, when it tells us, that our Lord, As touching his Godhead is equal to the Father; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. For, though he have a God above him, considered as the Son of Man; yet considered as the eternal and only begotten Son of God, he hath none above him; for though there be betwixt the Father and the Son a Priority and a Posteriority in respect of Order; yet as there is no such thing in respect of time, so there is nothing of inequality in respect of Nature, Essence, or any of those Perfections which are inherent in it, and inseparable from it.  
So then, if our blessed Saviour, as being somewhat else than God, may have a God above him, and yet be the true God notwithstanding; our Author's mayor Proposition being utterly false; his Conclusion, That Christ is not God, can never be true. And so much in answer to his first Argument.   

SECT. XI.  
THE second Argument which this Author urgeth against the Divinity of Christ, is this, Christ, saith he, is not God, because what he doth, is by a Power received from God. This Argument put into some form, runs thus;  
That Person, who acts by a Power received from God, cannot himself be God. But Christ acted by a Power received from God; Ergo, Christ cannot be God.  
'tis most certain, that he, who is God, doth always act by his own Power; his Omnipotence is not borrowed, but it is one of those natural and essential Perfections, which belong to, and are inseparable from his Godhead. So that whosoever acts by a borrowed Power, and such a Power only, cannot be God; and so far the mayor Proposition is true, and proves that Moses and the Prophets, and our Lord's Apostles, who did many Miracles, but by a Power which was not their own, but only lent them, were no more than Men.  
But if by this minor Proposition, Christ acted by a Power received from God, this Author means( and mean so he must, if he mean any thing to his purpose) that our blessed Saviour in the time of his Incarnation wrought all his Miracles by a borrowed Power, and such a Power only, this Proposition is utterly false; and the Texts which this Man cites, can never prove it true.  
We do easily grant the Truth of that Expression, 
Joh. 3.2.  No man can do these miracles, which thou dost, except God be with him; the Text imports that no more Man could ever do such mighty Wonders, as our Lord did, by any natural Power of his own, and without the supernatural Power of God. We know and believe what our Lord himself hath  told us, 
mat. 28.18.  All power is given to me both in Heaven and in Earth; we know that acknowledgement of his to his Father, 
Joh. 17.2.  Thou hast given him power over all flesh; and again, 
Joh. 5.30.  I can of myself do nothing. These and the like Texts doth this Author city to prove, that whatever our Lord did or doth, he did and doth by a Power only lent him by his Father, and none of his own. To which we answer thus.  
We grant that those many Miracles which our blessed Saviour wrought, whilst he conversed in this lower World, were not done by any Power that was natural and properly belonging to his own Humanity, but derived from above; for, he himself tells us, 
Luk. 11.20.  I with the finger of God cast out Devils. And that by a Divine Power he wrought all his other Miracles, the judicious Spectators easily and justly believed; so intimates the Evangelist, 
mat. 9.8.  When the multitude saw his miracles, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power unto men. Now, saith this Socinian Author, These things can in no tolerable sense be said of him, that is truly God. But can they not with very good Sense be said of him who was truly Man, as well as truly God? And of Christ as being Man, are these things written.  
So thought Gregory Nyssen, 
Greg. Nyssen in Resurrect. Christi, Or. 2. p. 846.  {αβγδ}; that Power which Christ had naturally, as being God,; he is said to receive, as being made a Man. 
Theoph. in mat. 28.18.  Theophylact expounding that Text, All power is given unto me, &c. makes this demand, {αβγδ}. By whom was this Power given to Christ? His answer is this; {αβγδ}; verily it was altogether given him by himself; i.e. by his Deity to his Manhood. Nor doth this contradict our Lord's address to his Father, Thou hast given him power over all flesh; 
Joh. 5.19.  for our Lord himself saith, What things soever the Father doth, these also doth the Son likewise. But how can the Son act, {αβγδ}, like the Father, if we shall suppose that the Son acts by another's Power, since the Father acts by his Own? But the truth is, 
Theoph. in Joan. c. 3. p. 629.  as Theophylact well observes, there is betwixt the Father and the Son, {αβγδ}, one Essence, one Power, and one Operation; to which may be added, {αβγδ}, one Will too.  
The same Author expounding those Words of Christ, 
Joh. 5.21.  As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickens them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will, concludes thus, {αβγδ} the Son is in all things like the Father, {αβγδ}; he hath the self same Essence, the self same Power; and this he proves by those fore-named Words of Christ, What things soever the Father doth, these also doth the Son likewise: and from thence he thus infers, {αβγδ}; If the Father act with Authority and Power, since the Son acts like him, he cannot be inferior to him; i.e. in point of Power.  
Now, that our blessed Saviour did indeed receive all his Power originally from his Father, is not to be denied; that Power which he shewed by creating the World some thousands of years before his Incarnation; and that Power which he shewed by working Miracles some years after it, were both received originally from God the Father. For God the Father did by an act of eternal Generation communicate to our Lord his only begotten Son, his own entire Essence, and with it all the Perfections belonging to it, of which Omnipotence is one. So that we may say as Maldonate doth, Christum, 
Maldon. in mat. c. 28.18.  etiam quatenus Deus erat, potestatem omnem sicut& naturam ipsam Divinam à Patre per aeternam Genirationem accepisse; that Christ, even as God, received all his Power, even as his Divine Nature, by his eternal Generation from his Father. And surely, the reception of that Power which is inseparable from that Nature which he received, cannot ungod our Lord, but rather prove his Deity.  
And since God the Father did from Eternity communicate to his Son his own entire Essence, and with it his own Omnipotence, we may justly say, that when this Son of his was pleased to take upon him the nature of Man, and in that nature to work many Miracles; the Power whereby he wrought them, though originally received from his Father, was then his own; exercised by himself as being Man, but received from himself, as being God.  
So then, this Author's second Argument against the Divinity of Christ falls to the ground; for both his Propositions as he means them are utterly false; his mayor Proposition is this:  
That Person who acts by a Power received from God, cannot be God himself. But this is false, for our blessed Saviour did at once receive from his Father his Godhead and his Power too; his Power, because his Godhead, from which his Omnipotence is inseparable. Again, his minor Proposition is this. But Christ acted by a Power received from God; he means, from God the Father only. But this is false too; for our Saviour being God, acted when he became a Man, by a Power which his humanity received, not only from his Father, but from himself also. And this I take to be a sufficient answer to, and confutation of this Man's second Argument.   

SECT. XII.  
THis Author's third and last Argument against the Divinity of Christ is this, Christ, saith he, is not God, because God and He are plainly distinguished; which Argument also may be put into this form;  
That Person who is plainly distinguished from God, cannot be God himself. But Christ is so distinguished from God: Ergo, He himself cannot be God.  
To prove a distinction betwixt God and Christ, this Man cites several Texts; and is so confident of the force of this present Argument, that he boldly saith, This Consideration alone of itself is a very strong Argument to prove our Lord Jesus Christ not to be really and truly God, since he is every where spoken of as a Person that differs as much from God, as a noble Subject differs from his Prince or King: So he.  
But methinks this Man should be ashamed to publish such a notorious falsehood to the World, which every Man who reads and observes his Bible may so easily and so evidently contradict; Can he do less than blushy when he reads his own blasphemous Paper, wherein he saith, that the Scriptures do every where speak of Christ, as a Person that differs as much from God, as a noble Subject doth from his King? Our Lord is often styled, the Son, and sometimes, the only begotten Son of God: and is the only Son of God no nearer to God his Father, than a Nobleman to his Prince? St. Paul saith, Christ thought it no robbery to be equal with God. But I am apt to think that it would be esteemed a great robbery, should some noble Subject claim an equality with his King. We red that Pharaoh King of Egypt, did advance Joseph to be the second Man in his Kingdom, the very Chief of all his noble Subjects; but yet he  told him, In the Throne I will be greater than thou. 
Gen. 41.40. Joh. 1.1.  St. John saith of Christ, The word was God; and if he once was God, he is so still; And doth God differ as much from God, as a noble Subject differs from his Monarch?  
But, alas! 'tis this great Disputant's unhappiness, that he still argueth from a gross misapprehension of our Lord's most sacred Person, and is forced to defend an ill Cause, which is not capable of a just defence by fallacious Arguments, and taking and pleading notorious Falshoods, as if they were granted Truths. For, though we have clearly proved that Christ is truly God, yet this blind Beetle still takes him to be a Man and no more; and in that Capacity to be distinguished from God, which none of us deny. Nay more, the human Nature of Christ, though now, as St. Paul saith, highly exalted, even above the most glorious Angels, yet being a Creature, doth differ more from its great creator than not only a noble Subject, but even the poorest Peasant differs from the greatest Prince. For though there be a mighty difference upon Civil accounts betwixt a King and a Beggar for a short time, yet since they naturally consist of the same Materials, they will e'er long be resolved into the same Principles, and leveled to an equality in the Grave. God Almighty, in the execution of his Decrees, and the dispensation of his Providence, is pleased to use Men of several Orders, even as we in casting up an Account, do use abundance of Counters; this Counter stands for one; that for ten; this for an hundred, that for a thousand; but when the Account is cast, they are all shuffled together, and then there is no difference in point of value betwixt that which stood for a single unity, and that which stood for thousands. But because there is infinite distance betwixt the Deity and the Humanity, this difference can never be so reconciled, as to create any thing like an equality betwixt Christ as Man; and his Father being God.  
But besides that difference which is betwixt the nature of God and Christ as Man, the Scriptures teach us, there is a difference between them upon some other scores, I mean, in point of Relation and Personality; for the Father, who doth beget, is not, cannot be the same in Relation or Person with the Son, who is begotten. This distinction we own, because the Scriptures do so; and by them we prove it against the Sabellians, who deny it. St. John saith, The word was with God, if so, the Word must be one, and that God, with whom he was, must be another. Our Lord saith, I and my Father; this imports a distinction of their Persons; for were they not two, they could not be thus coupled.  
But although there be indeed such a distinction in point of nature betwixt God and Christ, as Man; and though there be a distinction in point of Relation and Person betwixt God as the Father, and Christ as his only and eternally begotten Son; yet the Scriptures do assure us, that upon some other account, there is a perfect union and equality between them, what else doth our Lord mean, when he saith, 
John 10.30.  I and my Father are one? How one? One in Consent, saith the Socinians; and 'tis true, they are one in Consent, but not only so, nor is that the Unity intended in that Text; for our Lord means such an Unity as is proper and peculiar to himself, whereas an Unity in Consent is common to glorious Angels and glorified Saints. The Unity here mentioned, is the same with that which he means elsewhere, when he saith, I am in the Father, 
Joh. 10.38.  and the Father in me; which imports an Union so close, that 'tis thus expressed in the original, I and my Father are, {αβγδ}, one thing, one being, and that must needs be the Being of God; for since the Father is granted to be God, the Son cannot be, one thing, with him, if he be not the same God too.  
And thus is this Text interpnted by learned Men, I and my Father are one; How so? Great St. Basil answers, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 1. p. 35.  {αβγδ}; 'tis evident that this word, one, imports the equality and identity of their Power. The same Father saith again, 
Id. p. 37.  {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. This Expression of Christ doth declare the Union and sameness of his Nature with that of his Father. And yet again, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom l. 4. p. 92.  elsewhere, {αβγδ}; our Lord means that his Father and himself are consubstantial, one and the same in substance. So St. Basil.  
Of the same judgement was that great Man Athanasius, 
Athan. in disputat. adv. Arium p. 116.  who tells us, that when Christ said, I and my Father are one; he intended by the word, Are, to intimate, {αβγδ}, the duality of their Persons; and by the word, 
Id. in ead. disput. p. 132.  one, {αβγδ}, the unity of their Essence. Again, the same Father saith, that our Lord spake these words, I and my Father are one, {αβγδ}, knowing that he himself did not differ from the Father in Substance, but was united to him in the Godhead. So Athanasius, and to the same purpose in many other places.  
And with these agreeth that famous Divine Gregory Nazianzen, who expressly saith, that our Lord delivered these words, I and my Father are one; for this reason, 
Greg. Nazianz. Or. 49. p. 729.  Ut duarum personarum vocabula unius Deitatis Majestatisque demonstraret. that he might demonstrate the two Persons here name, himself and his Father to be one in Deity and Majesty. And again, 
Idem in eadem Or. p. 728.  Unum ad unitatem Divinitatis refert; sumus autem personis assignat; our Lord refers the word, One, to the Unity of their Divinity; and the word, Are, to the distinction of their Persons. And yet again, Talis est filius, qualis& pater, 
Idem 16. p. 732.  non enim ipse unum cum Patre se diceret, nisi talem se de Patre, qualis est& Pater, sciret; the Son is such as the Father; for he would not have said, I and my Father are one; had he not known himself to be of the Father, and such as the Father is. So this great Man.  
To these may be added the Interpretation of St. Chrysostom, who tells us, that by these words, I and my Father are one; our Lord intimates, 
Chrys. in Joan. c. 10. v. 30.  {αβγδ}, the equality of their Power; and thence he thus infers, {αβγδ}. If the Power of the Father and the Son be the same, 'tis very evident that their Essence is so too. Of the same mind was Theophylact, who expounds our Lord's words thus, I and my Father are one; {αβγδ}, 
Theoph. in locum.  {αβγδ}; one in Nature, Essence and Power. But no Man speaks more fully of this matter than Gregory Nyssen, who saith, that Christ and his Father are one, 
Greg. Nyss. adv. Eunom. p. 8.  {αβγδ}, in Truth, Divinity, Essence, Life, Wisdom, and indeed in all things else. To these I shall add no more Testimonies from the Greek Fathers, save only this one from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who saith that our Lord and his Father are one; 
Cyril. Hierosol. in Catechesi 11. p. 99.  {αβγδ}; in the dignity of their Deity, because a God begot a God. Again, they are one, {αβγδ}; in their Kingdom, for the Father doth not reign over some, and the Son over others. And yet again, they are one, {αβγδ} because there is no dissension, no disagreement between them; for the Father doth not will one thing, and the Son another. And yet once more, they are one, {αβγδ}; because their Operations are not different; the Son doth not do one thing, and the Father another. Thus far St. Cyril.  
Of the same persuasion are the Latin Fathers. Commentators, and critics too; 
tart. adv. Prax. c. 22.  Tertullian tells us, that this saying, I and my Father, Ostendit duos esse, quos aequat& jungit, declares two Persons, whom it equals and joins: But in what? That he tells us afterwards, In una Virtute, in one and the same Power. St. Austin saith, that our Lord by these words, I and my Father are one, 
August de Trin. l. 4. c. 9. t. 3.  Divinitatem suam Consubstantialem Patri ostendit, declares his own Divinity to be Consubstantial with that of his Father. And again, this Expression, 
August. de Trin. l. 5. c. 3. t. 3.  I and my Father are one; secundum Substantiam dictum est; it means their Unity in point of Substance; so thought St Austin, and tells us so in many other places.  
And that these words ought to be so understood, Zegerus cites and interprets this Testimony from St. Cyril, which much confirms it, 
Cyril. citat à Zeg. in Joann. c. 10. v. 29.  Deus Pater Mediator● Dei& hominum dedit, ut sit ejus Filius unigenitus, Deus de Deo, nec naturâ dissimilis, nec virtute inferior, nec duratione posterior;& hoc gignendo dedit, quia Deus verus Deum verum genuit, &c. i.e. God the Father granted to our Mediator that he should be his only begotten Son, God of God, not unlike in Nature, not inferior in Power, nor behind him in Duration; and all this he gave him by an Act of Generation; for the true God begot a true God, &c. Now, if our Socinians shall inquire how this was done, I answer with St. Cyril, 
Cyril. Hierosol. c. 11. p. 96.  {αβγδ}; in such an ineffable manner, as none knoweth but God himself alone.  
In short, to name no more particular Authors, Maldonate expounding these words of Christ, I and my Father are one, 
Maldon. in locum.  tells us, Catholici quidem omnes Essentiam dicebant significare; all catholic Writers were of this persuasion, and the Context warrants it, that the Unity here intended by Christ betwixt himself and his Father is an Unity of Power and Authority, and consequently of Nature and Essence.  
And now let us review this Socinian's Argument; Christ, saith he, is not God, but why not? His reason is this, Because God and he are plainly distinguished. To which I answer, three things; 1. God and Christ are indeed distinguished as Christ is Man, and God his Father is not so. 2. They are indeed distinguished in their Persons, Relations, and Personal Proprieties; for, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father; the Son is begotten, the Father is not But, 3. They are not at all distinguished in their Nature and Essence, or in any of those infinite Perfections which are inherent in it. Nor hath this Man cited any one Text, which in these respects doth prove any inequality between them.  
Sure we are, that God Almighty by his Prophet stiles our Saviour thus, The Man which is my Fellow, his other self, the brightness of his Glory, the express Image of his Person: But how could Christ be God's Fellow, were he no more than {αβγδ}, a more Man? St. Hierom renders this Text thus, 
Hieron. in Zach. c. 13. 7.  Virum cohaerentem mihi; i.e. {αβγδ}, the Man who adheres and is as it were glued to me, as being one with me; the Chaldee Paraphrase reads it, Socium qui similis est; God's Fellow who is like him; Virum mihi coaequalem, so Vatablus, 
Vatab. citatus à Cornel. à Lapid. in Zach. c. 13. 7.  the Man who is my Coequal. Accordingly St. Paul saith of him, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; so equal, that he himself tells us, I and my Father are one.  
So then, as we allow our Lord's distinction from God in one respect doth prove his Humanity, so doth his Unity with God in a far higher respect, as undoubtedly prove his Deity too; and if so, this Man's Argument is altogether insufficient and unconcluding.   

SECT. XIII.  
THIS Author having spent all his Arguments against the Divinity of Christ quiter in vain, appeals as his last refuge; To that account which the Scriptures give of the Person of Christ. But really that account which he thought fit to gather from thence and present to his Reader, is a very lame one: For, he hath only collected and culled out a great number of such Texts, as serve to prove what none of us deny, that Christ was really a Man. But in his great Prudence he quiter leaves out of his Account all those Texts which call and prove him God, though there be many that do so; only he boldly asserts, 1. That 'tis, not said in Scripture so much as once, that Christ is God most High. Nor, 2. That he is one of that Sacred Three, which do constitute or make up the true Godhead. So he. To both which Clauses we answer thus;  
1. To the first we answer, That although the Scriptures do no where say, totidem verbis, in express Terms, that Christ is God most High; yet the Scripture doth say in clear Terms full as much as that amounts unto. St. John, saith of him, This is the true God; and if he be the true God, he must also be the most High, for the true God is but One.  
2. To the second we answer likewise thus, Though the Scriptures do not use this Expression, Christ is one of that Sacred Th ee, which do constitute or make up the Godhead; yet it doth deliver the Truth intended by these words, in Terms equivalent: So doth St. John, when he tells us, 
1 Joh. 5.7.  There are Three that bear record in Heaven, and those Three he names thus, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One; {αβγδ}, one Thing, and that one Thing is God. The same Three Persons with the change of his own Title, doth our Lord mention in his prescribed Form of Baptism, where he names, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, by whom we must needs understand the Three Glorious Persons in the Godhead; for if not, if the Father alone were God, then are we commanded to Baptize at once; In the Name, i.e. at the Command, or, {αβγδ}, into the Name, i.e. the Religion and Worship both of God and Creatures too, which cannot be.  
And methinks 'tis very strange that any Man of common Sense and Reason should red these Texts, and yet peremptorily assert, that the Scriptures do not so much as once affirm, that Christ, who is here called, the Word, the Son, being joined with the Father and the Holy Ghost in both these and other Texts, is not, One of that Sacred Three, which do constitute or make up the Deity, as this Author words it.  
But from hence this Man proceeds to consider, The Primitive Confessions concerning Christ: And here he tells us, 1. Negatively, what they were not. 2. Positively, what they were. 1. This Author tells us Negatively, that the Primitive Confessions concerning Christ were,  
1. Not that Jesus our Lord was equal to the Father in all kind of Divine Perfections. And yet St. Thomas confessed him in these words, 
Joh. 20.28.  My Lord and my God; and St. Paul confessed him to be, God blessed for ever, 
Rom. 9.5. Phil. 2.6.  and tells us, That he thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Indefinitely and universally equal without any restriction or limitation; for, he who doth equal God in any one of his Infinite Perfections, must equal him in All.  
2. Not that Christ was God of the Substance of his Father, as he was Man of the Substance of his Mother: And yet the Scriptures aclowledge him to be the only begotten Son of God, a Title, which could never have justly belonged to him, had he not been begotten of his Father's Substance, and been no more than a Man born of the Virgin Mary. But,  
2. This Author tells us positively thus, All that those first Confessions do contain, was this; That he was the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour of the World: And then he closes his Discourse upon this Head with this Remark; Here is no Trinity in Unity, no God-man, no Hypostatical Union so much as mentioned, nor any of those hard and cramping Names, with which the Church of God hath been since perplexed. To which we answer thus,  
This short Confession of St. Peter, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, contains more in it than is expressed in those few words wherein it is delivered, and so needs an Explication. Those brief Commands of the Moral Law, Thou shalt do no murder, 
mat. 16.16.  thou shalt not commit adultery, do forbid such other sins, and require such Duties as in the Terms of the Law are not name. And accordingly our blessed Saviour, who best understood the meaning of his own Precepts, did give a larger Sense of these Commands than that, wherein the Expositors of the Jewish Church did ever understand them. And as our Lord saw it necessary to amplify and enlarge the short commands of the Moral Law, because the full extent of them was not apprehended by the Jewish Expositors; even so the Pious, Learned and Judicious Fathers of the Primitive Church, convened in several Councils; thought it fit, and indeed very necessary, to explain and illustrate this short Confession, relating to our blessed Saviour; because it was misunderstood, and being too much restrained, was made an occasion of heresy, and that by Men of Parts and Learning, but too much wedded to their own Opinions.  
This Confession of Christ, Thou art the Son of God; these Men referred only to our Lord's Temporal Conception and Birth, as being effected by the miraculous Power of God, enabling a Virgin beyond the common course of nature, to conceive and bear a Son; so they counted our Lord to be no otherwise the Son of God, than as he was the Son of Mary too; as if he had never been the Son of God before his Incarnation.  
Now, to obviate and prevent the growth of this Heretical and dangerous Opinion, the learned Fathers, who lived in that Age, wherein this heresy began to spread, being zealous for God's truth and our Lord's honour, drew up an Explication of this short Confession: I mean, the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed, wherein there is nothing declared in relation either to the Person of Christ, or the Holy Ghost, but what is very agreeable to, and clearly warranted by the word of God.  
And if all the matters declared in this Creed, compiled at first by judicious and pious Men, and still owned by the catholic Church, may be proved by such and such Texts; then must we conclude, that this Creed is not, in its substance, a new Confession; but only an illustration or Explication of the old ones; it doth not impose upon us the belief of any new Doctrines, but tends to secure, 
judas 3.  the faith once delivered to the Saints, and to preserve the professors of it from those dangerous Heresies, which arose in former times, and are now revived in this unhappy Age of ours.  
But although this Nicene Creed, and that of Athanasius, as larger Confessions of the Christian Faith, were designed by very good Men, and to such very good ends; yet they cannot escape the undeserved censure of this impertinent scribbler, who, having transcribed several short Confessions, recorded in the Gospel; immediately, in contempt of these larger Confessions, subjoins these words, Here's no Trinity in Unity. And yet St. John very plainly saith, There are Three, that bear record in Heaven; and these Three are One. If there be Three, there's an acknowledgement of the Trinity; and if these Three be One, there's an acknowledgement of the Unity; and since St. John doth own the Trinity and Unity, why should not our Creeds and we do as much.  
Again, this Apron Schoolman, referring to the short Confessions of the Gospel, saith, Here is no God-man: And yet St. Paul, a far better both Divine and Disputant, in one place stiles our Lord, 
1 Tim. ● 5. Rom. 9. ●.  the Man Christ Jesus; and in another place he calls him, God blessed for ever. Now, if we put these two Titles together, and do not look with this Man's Eyes, we shall easily find out a God-man.  
But our Author goeth on, and saith, Here is no Hypostatical Union; How? none at all? Doth not St. John say, 
John 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16. Heb. 2.16.  The word was made flesh? Doth not St. Paul say, God was manifested in the flesh? And doth he not say again, He took upon him the seed of Abraham, i.e. the Nature of Man? Where we have a clear distinction betwixt the Person assuming, and the Nature assumed, He took, there's the Person assuming; but what did he take? The seed of Abraham: or, as 'tis said elsewhere, flesh and blood. Now, I demand of this Author, who was this, He, who took upon him the Nature of Man? Not an Angel; I think, no body doth imagine; nor could it be a Man; for this, He, who took, must needs be supposed to have been in Actual existence before there was any possibility of such an Assumption. Tell me then, can a Man, who is in present being, be once imagined to take upon him the same nature a second time: if not, if it were, as most certainly it was, the eternal Son of God, who was made Flesh, who was manifested in the Flesh, who took upon him Flesh and Blood, according to these several Texts; then have we found in the Scriptures that Hypostatical Union, which this Author flouts at; we have found, though not the very Terms, yet, which is full as much, the Thing signified by them.  
But though this Socinian Author cannot, or rather will not, see this Hypostatical union of the Divine and human Nature in the Person of Christ, which these forenamed Texts do so clearly evidence, yet many Men of better Eyes and sounder Judgments have discerned and maintained it beyond all contradiction, were not Men resolutely bent in defending their own false Opinions to oppose the Truth of Divine Revelation. St. John tells us, The word was made flesh, and from hence doth St. Chrysostom very justly infer that Hypostatical Union, which this Man denieth and scoffs at. St. Chrysostom's words are these, 
Chrys. in Joan. Homil. 11.  {αβγδ}, i. e. God the word and flesh are one, not by any confusion or disappearance of their distinct Substances, but by an uneffable and unspeakable Union, into the manner whereof inquire not; for they are united, as he himself knoweth how.  
Theophylact, 
Theoph. in Joh. c. 1. v. 14.  Expounding the same Text, saith thus of Christ: {αβγδ}. Christ is one in his person, though two in respect of his natures, as being God and Man. But the Divine and human Nature are not one, though found in one Person, i.e. in Christ.  
Thus also writes Gregory Nyssene: 
Gregor. Nyss. adv. Eunom. Orat. 1. pag. 56.  {αβγδ} The word being made flesh, did together with that flesh take upon him the entire Nature of Man. To the same purpose speaks Gregory nazianzen: 
Greg. Nazianz. Or. 51. p. 738.  {αβγδ}. We do not part the Humanity from the Deity; but believe Christ to be one Person; at first indeed no Man, but God, and the only begotten Son of God before all Ages, without a Body: but at length a Man.  
And from the same Texts do the Writers of the Latin Church infer this Hypostatical Union of the Divine and human Natures in the Person of Christ, who is styled by Tertullian, 
tertul. de carne Christi. cap 17. tertul. adv. Prax. c. 27.  Deus ex Deo,& ex carne hoins homo, God of God, and Man of the flesh of Man. And elsewhere he calls him, Deum& Hominem sine dubio secundum utramque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem: God and Man without controversy according to the substance of each Nature, yet distinct in their respective proprieties. Novatianus writes much to the same effect, 
Novatian. de Trin. cap. 19.  Filius Dei descendit, qui dum filium hoins in se suscepit, consequentè illum filium Dei fecit, quoniam illum sibi filius Dei sociavit& junxit. The Son of God descended, who taking upon himself the Son of Man, did make that Son of Man the Son of God, because the Son of God did assume and unite the Son of Man to himself. So he.  
These Authorities, I think, may be sufficient to convince this mechanic Divine: that judicious Writers, very well versed in the Holy Scriptures, have found the union of the Divine and human Natures in the Person of Christ, most clearly delivered in several Texts, which can import no less, nor indeed any thing else. And methinks any Man▪ who hath his Reason about him, and any thing of Modesty left him, should even blushy and be ashamed to say, since there is such Evidence against him, that this Hypostatical Union is no where owned in the Word of God. Nor will it excuse him to say, that the very terms are not there, since the thing itself, which is signified by them, most certainly is so.   

SECT. XIV.  
IN his next page. this Author gives us an account of, The undoubted Faith, on which the salvation of all Christians doth depend, and tells us, that it is no other than this. That we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That we confess with our mouth, and believe in our heart, that God raised him from the dead, and some other particulars, which he names.  
But then he adds these words, The Scriptures no where enjoin us to believe, on pain of Damnation, either that Jesus is God most high, or that he is both God and Man, or that he was eternally begotten of the Father. It seems these are no Articles of this Man's Faith, though they are and ought to be of mine.  
But let this Man tell us, whether we are not obliged to believe whatever God hath revealed for a Truth; certainly, whatever the Proposition be, if God assert it, though we know not how it should be so, yet we must not doubt it, 
1 John 5.10.  for St. John saith, He that believes not, makes God a liar, and surely there is danger enough in doing so. Indeed, it is not necessary for us, to know, in order to our Salvation, whatever the Scriptures have delivered for a Truth; but there are some Fundamental Truths, which we are obliged to know and believe under the penalty of damnation; for, our Saviour himself hath said, 
Mar. 16.16.  He, that believes not, shall be damned.  
Now, that these three Propositions, which this Man counts unnecessary, That Jesus is God most high. That he is both God and Man. That he was eternally begotten of his Father, are indeed Fundamental Truths, the belief whereof is generally necessary to Salvation to all such persons, as have been taught them; hath been, I think, the judgement of the catholic Church. So much may be inferred from those ancient Creeds, which have been and still are received, as short systems of such Doctrines, as are the grounds of saving faith, and the foundations of Christian practise.  
That the Apostles Creed doth contain in it all the Articles of Faith, which are necessary to Salvation; and since it is short, probably very few, if any, but such; I think no Man will doubt, who believes that this Creed was first written by those inspired men, and afterwards delivered, as abridgement of the Christian Faith, to the several Churches which they had planted  
The Nicene Creed and that of Athanasius were drawn up in after times, only as Comments upon, and Enlargements of, that of the Apostles; and especially those Articles, which were then opposed by several heretics; and none more than those, which relate to our blessed Saviours Person, his Divinity being denied by some, his Humanity by others; some affirming that he was a Man only, putativè, not in reality, but in Appearance; others saying that he took upon him Real flesh, but without a Soul; his Deity instead of a Rational Soul enlivening, informing, and acting his human Body.  
Now, those Articles, which concern our Lords Sacred Person, in the Apostles Creed run thus, I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. Here we have an express Testimony of our Lords humanity, for Mary's Son must needs be a Man. Here is also a very fair Testimony of our Lords Divinity, since he is styled God's only, or, Only begotten Son. But because some, by a gross mistake, thought him capable of this Title, as he was Man, because he was the only person, that was ever Conceived immediately by the power of God, and born of a Virgin; they did not think this Article, as it runs in the Creed of the Apostles, to be a sufficient proof of our Lords Divinity. And, for that reason, the Nicene Creed explains it thus, I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; God of God, light of light, very God of God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made: and then our Lords Humanity is thus expressed, who for us men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made Man. The same Article in the Creed of Athanasius is delivered thus, The right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is both God and Man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the Worlds, and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the World; perfect God, and perfect Man, &c.  
And that this is the General Faith of the Christian Church, and anciently was so, is evident from some other Creeds; for, as a learned Man observes, 
Joannes Cassianus sit ab Usserio de Symb.  Symbolum Ecclesiarum omnium fidem loquitur. The Faith of all Churches is declared by their Creeds. If this rule be true, then did the Mother Church of Jerusalem believe our Lord to be God and Man; witness that Article of her Creed, which was collected out of the Catechisms of S. Cyril, who was her Bishop. 
Socrat. Hist. Sect. l. 1. c. 26. p. 62.  {αβγδ}. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all Worlds, the true God, by whom all things were made, who was incarnate and made Man, &c. So runs the Creed of Jerusalem. Much to the same purpose runs that Creed of Alexandria, which Arius himself subscribed and presented to Constantine the Emperor. {αβγδ}, &c. We believe in one God the Father Almighty. And in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, begotten of him before all Ages, God the Word, by whom all things were made, both things in Heaven, and things on Earth, who descended and was Incarnate, 
Sozomen. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 27. p. 485.  &c. The same Articles are, verbatim, recorded by Sozomene, who tells us that this Creed was presented to Constantine by Arius and his friend Euzoius, who proved indeed two great dissemblers.  
Now that the Articles contained in the Nicene Creed were not then new Doctrines, but the General and undoubted Faith of the Christian Church in its former Ages, is evident from that account, which Eusebius, being one of that great Council, and Bishop of Caesarea, sent to those of his own Diocese with a Copy of the Creed: 
Socrat. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 8. p. 24.  for thus he assured them, {αβγδ}, &c. {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. We sand you a system of that Faith, which we received from the Bishops, who were before us, wherein we were catechised and Baptized, which we have learned out of the Holy Scriptures, and which we do still own and profess.  
In short, So authentic hath this Creed been always esteemed, 
Epiphan. Cit. ab Usserio de Symb.  that 'tis called Evangelici Symboli Sacramentum, à Domino inspiratum, ab apostles institutum; so Epiphanius. {αβγδ}, The Words and Explications are the Nicene Bishops, but the Matter and Doctrine contained in it are Apostolical.  
So then these ancient Creeds, being compiled by judicious and pious Men, and warranted by the word of God, and designed to justify these three Propositions, which this Author denies; namely, That Jesus is God most high, That he is both God and Man, That he was eternally begotten of his Father: we may conclude, that these Propositions are not only real Truths, but Fundamentals; for, if not, why should so many hundred excellent Bishops and other learned Divines, met in several Councils, with one consent and upon mature deliberation, not only approve the Doctrines delivered in these Creeds, but recommend them to the Churches then present, and transmit them to Posterity, as abridgement of the Christian Faith, fit and necessary to be embraced and professed by all succeeding Ages?  
To conclude this Head of Discourse, I shall make bold to lay down this Assertion: That whosoever denieth the Truth of all or any one of these three forenamed Doctrines; if he bear and own, he doth also unjustly claim, and usurp the name of a Christian. 
Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 18. c. 4. p. 621.  Josephus, mentioning our blessed Saviour, writes thus, {αβγδ}. There was about that time one Jesus, a wise Man, if yet we may call him a Man, for he was the doer of many wonderful works. Now, if Josephus, who was a Jew, thought it might be unlawful to call our Lord a Man; can he be a right Christian, who thinks and saith that it is unlawful to acknowledge and worship him as God? Methinks what censure soever this Author may deserve, as to his Person, this blasphemous Libel of his does highly deserve the flames. 'tis not very long, since a Book, entitled The naked Gospel, was burnt at Oxford; a Book, wherein its Author did seem somewhat to favour the Socinian heresy, and by some Expressions obliquely to question our Lords Divinity; but yet that Author did not, as this Man hath done, with a bare faced Impudence utterly denied the Deity of Christ, and done his utmost, though quiter in vain, to overthrow it, telling the World over and over, that Christ is not God most High.   

SECT. XV.  
IT is evident that this Author will by no means allow our Saviour to be the true God; but at length he is so kind to him, as to grant that he is, though a more, yet not a Common Man; but a Man advanced above the highest Angels; as appears from his Discourse, which bears this Title, Of the Transcendent Dignity of Jesus Christ. But then in his next page. he gives us this Caution, though our Lord be indeed a person of the highest dignity: Yet, saith he, it is not justifiable to honour Christ falsely. But is it not far less justifiable to dishonour Christ falsely, as every Man doth, who denieth him, that dignity of the Deity, which, if we may believe the Scriptures, doth justly belong unto him?  
And here, to prevent an objection, which might be raised against him, this Author names, and gives an answer, such as it is, to that Text, which saith, That we should honour the Son, 
Joh. 5.23.  As we honour the Father; But, saith he, this, As, doth here import no more Equality of Honour, than that Text imports an equality of Holiness, which saith, Be ye holy, As he, who hath called you, is holy, So thinks this Author.  
But let him tell me, whether this Particle As doth never import an Equality in any other Texts; it is true, when we are commanded to be holy, merciful, and Perfect, as God is; the thing then required is a Resemblance and imitation, pro modulo nostro, of these Excellencies, which are in God, but not an Equality, for of that we are utterly uncapable. But when St. Paul gives us these commands, 
1 Cor. 11.1. Phil. 3.17.  Be ye followers of me, As I am of Christ, and again, Walk, As ye have us for an Example; did St. Paul mean, that we should only in some degree imitate his Pattern, and not fully come up to and match his Example in the virtues of our Lives and Conversations?  
Though St. Paul himself could not exactly reach the Example of Christ, yet 'tis possible for us quiter to reach the Example of St. Paul; and since 'tis possible, 'tis that, I think, which he requires from us. And so we may the rather conclude from that Speech of his to King Agrippa, 
Act. 26.29.  I would to God that Thou, and all that hear me, were not Almost, but Altogether, such as I am; full as Religious, and quiter every way as Gracious.  
Now, 'tis very reasonable to believe that St Paul meant as much by his As in the other Texts, as by his Altogether in this; which imports that he would have us not only to imiate his Graces, but even to equal them too. And if this little Particle, As, doth imply an equality in other Texts, why not in this, which saith, That we should honour the Son, as we honour the Father; for, are we not able to pay the same honour to the one, which we do pay to the other? Or is the Son of God an unfit object to receive the same honour with his Father? he himself hath  told us, I and my Father are one; and St. Paul saith, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; and his Father himself calls him, The Man which is my Fellow. And if our Lord be indeed his Father's Fellow, equal to him in all the transcendent Excellencies of the Divine Nature, as certainly he is, why he should not have an equal share of Honour, let this trifling scribbler tell us, when he shall be at leisure to study this Point yet better.  
Theophylact justly blames the Arians, for honouring the Son, {αβγδ}, as a Creature only, and saith that they do thereby, 
Theoph.& Chrys. in Joan. c. 5. v. 33.  {αβγδ}, dishonour the Father, because the same honour is due to both. Accordingly St. Chrysostom tells us, that the Son doth deserve and expect, {αβγδ}, an equality of honour; and for that he gives this reason, {αβγδ}, whatsoever the Father is, Paternity and Filiation being excepted, the Son is the same. And therefore saith Maldonate, 
mauled. in Joan. c. 8. v. 23.  Eadem in utroque honoris ratio est, eadem natura, eadem potentia, eadem dignitas, there is in both the same Foundation of honour, the same Nature, Power, and Dignity. So thought Athanasius, who stiles the whole Trinity, 
Athan. in disputat. adv. Arium p. 147.  {αβγδ}, equally honourable, as being consubstantial.  
So then, according to the Doctrine of other Texts, and the judgement of learned Men, we may conclude, that contrary to the Opinion of this Author, these words of Christ, That all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father, do import and require an equality of honour; and if so, 'tis enough to prove that the Son is God.   

SECT. XVI.  
THis Author having hitherto been very unhappy in arguing {αβγδ}, proceeds to try His strength, {αβγδ}. His own Arguments against the Deity of Christ being weak and easily baffled, he attempts an answer to other Men's Arguments for it. And here, with a great deal of confidence, he thus tells the World, I will endeavour, as briefly as I can, to give them such reasonable answers, as shall make these truths( so he calls his Heretical Opinions) beyond exception. Bravely resolved! but we may say, what was said of Phaeton, magnis tamen excidit ausis; for, how short he comes of his noble design, we shall easily discover in each particular.  
1. The first Argument for our Lord's Divinity, to which this Respondent attempts an answer, is this, That Person, to whom the Scriptures in several places do ascribe the Character and Title of God, is God. But our Lord is that Person, to whom the Scriptures do in several places ascribe the Character and Title of God. Ergo, Our Lord is God; for, were he not God indeed, the Scriptures would not so often call him so.  
That the Scriptures do indeed once and again call him God, this Man doth not deny; nay, he confesseth, That a God undoubtedly he is, and a mighty God too: But how, and in what sense is he so? this Man answers that he is such a God, According to the way of expression used in those ancient times, in which those were called Gods, who either represented God's Person, or acted in his Name, and by his Authority; but then he adds this bold assertion, Christ is not God Almighty. It seems that this Man allows Christ to be no more than a Titular God, an Equivocal God, a God in Name, but not by Nature, i.e. a God by Office only. But what a false pretence this is, will be evident from these three Considerations;  
1. The Scriptures do ascribe to Christ not only the bare Name of God, but with such Adjuncts, as never did, never can belong to any Person, who was, is, or shall be, a God by Office only.  
The Evangelical Prophet stiles our Lord, the Mighty God; St. Paul calls him, 
Esa. 9.6. Tit. 2.13. 1 Joh. 5.20.  the Great God; St. John stiles him, the True God: Titles of which no God by Office only was, or ever can be capable.  
2. The Scriptures tell us, and so doth Experience too, that Gods by Office only must die like other Men; and when they die, their Office, and together with that, their Godship ceaseth for ever.  
But now, 'tis not so with our blessed Saviour; for, to him God the Father hath said, Thy Throne, O God, 
Heb. 1. ●.  is for ever and ever. His Authority and Godship shall never end.  
3. The Scriptures tell us, that our Lord was and will be God, when there neither were, nor shall be, any Gods by Office only.  
A God he was before the World began; for St. John and St. Paul expressly say, By him all things were created; 
Joh. 1.3.  which must needs suppose his own Pre-existence, Eternity, and Omnipotence; 
Col. 1.16.  and St. Paul as expressly stiles him, 
Rom. 9.5.  God blessed for ever; which supposeth the duration of his Godhead, when Gods by Office shall be no more. And this, I think, is enough to show this Author's great mistake, and to convince him that those Texts which ascribe to our Lord, the Name and Title of God, do not mean that he is a God by Office only, but by Nature; and if so, he must needs be God Almighty.  
2. The second Argument for the Divinity of Christ, to which this Man pretends to give an answer, is this, If our Lord were not God as well as Man, he could not have been a fit Mediator betwixt God and Man. But our Lord was a fit Mediator. Ergo, He was God as well as Man.  
That our Lord, according to the minor Proposition, was indeed a fit Mediator betwixt God and Man, this Author doth not deny; but being loathe to grant the Conclusion to the mayor Proposition, he thus replieth, Christ being a Man perfectly righteous, was therefore fit to intercede between God and Sinners.  
But this Answer will not do; for no more Man, how righteous soever, was fit to undertake, because not able to perform this great and difficult Work; for, here was an Infinite Justice to be satisfied, an Infinite Guilt to be removed, an Infinite Happiness to be procured, which things no more Man could do. For had our Lord been a Man, a Creature, and no more, being made under the Law, he had been obliged to obey all the Commands of God for himself; and certainly where all any Man's Acts of Obedience are due for himself, none can be meritorious for other Men. Nor was it possible for any more Man to have satisfied the Justice of God for the sin of the whole World; the blood of Sheep and Lambs being innocent Creatures might as well have done it as the blood of a more righteous Man. And therefore St. Paul tells us, 
Act. 30.28.  God hath purchased his Church with his own blood. Indeed, God hath no blood; but the Man who had blood, was God too; and with such or none, could his Church be purchased. So then, should we allow that a more righteous Man might have been a fit mediator of Intercession, which yet we do not grant; yet a fit mediator of Satisfaction he could not be. And since our case required both, no more Man could have been sufficient for us. But more of this under another head.  
3. The third Argument for the Divinity of Christ, to which this Man attempts an answer, is this, That Person who is One with God the Father, is and must be God. But Christ is a Person who is One with God the Father. Ergo, Christ is and must be God.  
The Truth of the minor Proposition this Author dares not question, because our Lord himself hath plainly said, I and my Father are one; and St. John hath said, There are three that bear record in Heaven, and these three are one. These two Texts do so gull our Socinians, that they would willingly expunge and blot the latter quiter out of the Canon; but since they can not do that, they endeavour to evacuate the force of both by a Distinction.  
To that purpose this Man tells us, that this Oneness, which is said to be betwixt our Lord and his Father, is not Natural but Moral; an Oneness not of Essence, but of Consent, Love and Affection; and indeed such an Oneness as this, {αβγδ}, an Identity of Will, there is betwixt all the three Persons of the Godhead. But since this kind of Unity is common to Saints and Angels, we have reason to think, that it is another sort of Unity, an Unity of Nature, peculiar to these glorious Persons, which is intended in both these Texts.  
And so was it understood by those Jews, who heard our Lord say, I and my Father are one: For why else did they immediately take up stones to kill him? For which they gave him this only reason, Because thou being a Man makest thyself God. They took this Expression, I and my Father are one; to be an evidence, and so it is that our Lord owned a natural Unity betwixt himself and his Father, and thereby made himself God.  
But when they who heard this Speech and knew the occasion of it,  told our Lord, Thou makest thyself God; this Author plainly saith, They belied him; But doth not this Man belie them in saying so? For can we think, that if the Jews had mistook our Saviour's meaning, he would not have explained himself and undeceived them, when by such a misapprehension of his meaning, his Life, before his time was come, was in so much danger? But our Lord was so far from excusing his own expression, or denying the meaning of it to be what the Jews supposed; that he rather owned and confirmed it by asserting himself to be the Son of God, which virtually contains the same truth, since he is not only a Son, but the only begotten Son, and consequently one in Nature, Essence and Substance with his Father.  
And that the same natural Unity is intended in that other Text, which saith, There are Three that bear record in Heaven, and these Three are One, is very probable; for, whereas 'tis said of the three Witnesses, that bear record on Earth, they agree in One; 'tis said of the three Witnesses, that bear record in Heaven, these Three are One. Here seems to be a plain Antithesis betwixt these two Expressions, They Are one, and, They Agree in one; and if so, they cannot signify the same thing; but the one must import primarily an Unity of Nature, and consequently an Unity of Consent; but the other an Unity of Consent only.  
That these Texts are thus to be understood, and no otherwise; I have already in the Twelfth Section of this Tract, produced the Authorities of many learned Men, with whom this Author is not worthy to be name; for if we shall put them and him into an equal balance, their judgement will as much outweigh his, as Bow-bell or Great Tom of Lincoln or Christ-Church in Oxford, would outweigh the least Bell in any of this Man's Clocks.   

SECT. XVII.  
THE Fourth Argument for our Lord's Divinity, to which this learned Respondent thought fit to give some answer, is this, That Person, who justly thought it no robbery to be equal with God, is, and needs must be God. But our blessed Saviour is that Person who justly thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Ergo, Our blessed Saviour is, and needs must be God.  
St. Paul expressly saith of Christ, Being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Now, if it were a robbery, our Lord did very ill to think it none; but dares this Man entertain one such blasphemous thought of Christ; but if indeed it were no robbery, then is Christ equal to God, which yet he could not be, if he were not God.  
But to this Expression of St. Paul's, this Man opposeth that Speech of Christ, My Father is greater than I; from which Text he thus concludes, If the Son be any ways equal to the Father, yet 'tis really but in some particulars, and in some things he may be equal, though in all things he cannot. So he. To which I answer,  
1. 'tis observable, that although St. Paul doth positively affirm of Christ, that, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God; yet this Man suspects at first, and doubts this equality; for thus he writes, If the Son be any way equal to the Father. This, If, is a note of distrust and diffidence; and plainly imports, that although our Lord thought himself to be equal to his Father, yet this Man is jealous and doubtful whether our Lord be so indeed, or not. But since this one Text is enough to confute all the pretences of this rank Socinian, we cannot wonder, that he should be so very unwilling to believe it true.  
2. This Man upon second thoughts, being somewhat convinced by the force of this Text, but yet still very loathe to confess the whole truth, doth yield at length, That Christ may be equal to God in some things, and this one he names, In saving believers; but then he adds, This Power of Christ in doing this is not essential, but derived.  
But was this man in his right Wits when he wrote this so manifestly to contradict himself, and so quickly to overthrow his own Concession? For, first he tells us, That in some things Christ may be equal with God; and as an instance of that Equality, he saith, As God can save believers, so also this Christ can do, but by a derived Power only. But is a derived Power equal to that, which is Essential? Is the Power of a Constable equal to that of his King, by whose Commission he acts? Doth such a derived Power at all imply our Lord's Equality to his Father in saving Souls? If so, Why may not St. Paul be said to be equal with God; for we cannot doubt, but by a derived Power, and as an Instrument, he saved many?  
And indeed, whosoever acts by a derived Power, acts but as an Instrument; and if that were our Lord's Case, as this Man pretends, then as there is no Equality betwixt an Instrument and the Principal Agent, so neither could there be that Equality betwixt our Lord and his Father in saving Believers, or in any thing else, which yet this Man first allows, and then contradicts by this assertion, 'tis plain that he from whom Christ receives his Power, must in Power be superior to him. Now, if there be such a Superiority, there can be no Equality; for, 'tis an old Rule, Par in parem non habet potestatem. And yet this derived Power of Christ in saving Souls, which must needs imply something of Inferiority, is the only Instance which this Man names of that Equality, which he alloweth to be betwixt our Lord and his Father, and thus doth he contradict himself.  
3. But although this Author doth, though somewhat unwillingly, allow our Lord an Equality with his Father in some things, yet he makes bold to contract that allowance, and plainly tells the World, That Christ cannot be equal to God in All things, to which we answer thus;  
St. Paul giving us an Intimation, that Christ is equal with God, delivers it in Terms Indefinite; and if an Indefinite Proposition, in materia necessaria, be equivalent to an Universal in other Cases, 'tis so in this. And how dares this Man confine and limit this equality of Christ with God, which St. Paul ascribes to him without restriction?  
For the truth is, if Christ be equal to God in some things; nay, in any one thing as this Man grants; he must in the same respect be equal to him in All things whatsoever, why our Lord was equal to his Father, St. Paul hath left us this account, Being in the form of God he thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Which Text imports that our Lord's Equality with his Father doth arise from his being in the form of God; i.e. from his Divine Essence and Godhead. Now although we according to our weak Capacity, do frame to ourselves some different Ideas and divers apprehensions of the Divine Attributes, as if there were some real distinction between them, yet in truth there is none. For, say the Schools, Quicquid est in Deo, est Deus, whatsoever is in God, is God; his Attributes are not really distinguished from his Essence, and since that Essence is Indivisible, where there is any one of its Perfections, there must they All be.  
And this was and is the Case of the Son of God, who is equal to his Father in all the Perfections of the Divine Nature; so he is, 1. In his Eternity; for he saith of himself, 
Apoc. 1.8.  I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. 2. In his Omnipotence; for St. John and St. Paul say, By him all things were created. 3. In his Omnipresence; for we learn from his own Mouth, that he was both in Heaven and in Earth at once. 4. In his Wisdom; for St. Paul saith, 
Col. 2.3.  In him are hide all the Treasures of Wisdom, and if All, there can be nothing more.  
Now if our Lord before his Incarnation being then as still he is, in the form of God, was in all these perfections, which are but the same thing with the Divine Essence, equal to his Father; that Essence being Indivisible, and uncapable of any thing more or less, he must be equal to him in all the rest. And how then dare this bold mechanic say, Christ cannot be equal to his Father in all things, though in some things he may? One Instance he gives us wherein he may be equal; but he prudently names no Instance, wherein he cannot be so.  
'tis evident from these Texts, that the Son of God was every way equal to his Father before his Incarnation, and whilst he continued his Being only in the form of God. And although he lost nothing of that form, and that equality upon account thereof; yet when once by his Infinite Condescension, he had assumed into his own most Sacred Person another inferior Nature, and took upon him the form of a Servant; then, and not till then, might he justly say, My Father is greater than I, which must needs be understood in relation to his humanity; for his perfect equality to his Father, in his higher capacity, being unchangeable, then did, now doth, and for ever will remain; and such an equality must needs prove him God.   

SECT. XVIII.  
THE fifth Argument for our Lords Divinity, which this man endeavours to overthrow, but never can, is this, That Person, who created the world, is and must be God. But our Lord is that Person, who created the world, Ergo, our Lord is and needs must be God.  
The mayor Proposition is so clearly grounded upon so many Texts, and carrieth in it so much evidence of natural Reason, that this Author did not think fit to offer one word against its Truth. But although the Minor Proposition be as expressly delivered in several Texts; yet, for fear of the Conclusion, he saw himself concerned to elude those Texts, and pretend somewhat in answer to them; and all, that he could invent, is only this, All Scriptures, which affirm Christ to be the maker of all things, must be supposed to speak Figuratively; but why so? He gives this doughty Reason for it. 'tis self evident, that in a literal sense he could never be the maker of the world, whose Being did begin to be some thousands of years after the world was made; so disputes this mighty Sophister, but still upon false suppositions. For, he supposeth 1. That those Texts, which affirm Christ to be the maker of the World, are Figurative. 2. That our Lord had no real existence before his Incarnation; both which Conjectures are utterly false.  
1. To suppose all those Texts, which represent our Lord as the great creator of the Universe, to be Figurative, is a silly dream, and a vain pretence, invented without any ground, only to elude the force of those Scriptures, because in their literal sense they do so evidently overthrow the Socinian Hypothesis.  
Moses tells us, In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth, words literally understood by all Men. 
Gen. 1.1.  St. John, writing of the same matter, and designing thereby to prove our Lords Divinity, in imitation of the mosaic style, begins his Gospel, as Moses began his Genesis, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, by him all things were made. The Creation of the World, which Moses more generally ascribes to God: St. John more particularly ascribes to the Second Person, whom he calls the Word, the proofs of whose Godhead, being even then denied by Ebion, was the great occasion and intent of his whole Gospel.  
Now, let any Man give us a solid Reason, why there should be a Figure in these words of St. John, whereas there is none pretended in those words of Moses; I think, the only Reason, that can be given, is this; those words of Moses in their literal sense do not across the Opinion of our Socinians, but these words of St. John literally understood, as indeed they ought to be, do utterly confounded it.  
But since this Man hath found, as he seems to pretend, what none of the ancient Learned Interpreters had the good luck to find out before him, I mean, a Figure in every Text, wherein Christ is said to be the maker of the World, he should have  told us, what Trope or Figure it is, and by what name it is called. We may presume that he means a Metaphor, because he compares these Texts with those, wherein our Lord Stiles himself, a Way, a Door, a Vine, which, saith he, are Figurative or Mystical Expressions, in which one thing is said to signify another, as the Old Creation to set forth the New.  
So then, this Authors meaning must be this, that every Text, wherein Christ is said to be the Maker of all things, must be referred, not to the Old Creation, described by Moses; but to the New Creation, i.e. the Reformation of the World, and the great Change of Religion, the abolishing of the Old Covenant, the establishing of a new one with all its Consequences, introduced by Christ, and the economy of his Gospel.  
This being our Authors undoubted meaning, this consequence must inevitably follow; namely, that if we can find any Texts, wherein Christ is said to be the Maker of such things, and such persons, as were no way concerned in the New Creation; then must such Texts be understood of the Old one; and that our Lord, being the Author of it, must needs be the Omnipotent and eternal God.  
And such is that Text, which the Apostle borrows from the Psalmist, and most evidently applieth to our blessed Saviour, 
Heb. 1.10.  Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of thy hands. Certainly this, laying the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens, at least, This Earth and these Heavens, themselves cannot be thought Terms Metaphorical; and what were they concerned in the new Creation?  
But there is yet another Text, more full than this, where St. Paul speaks thus of Christ; 
Col. 1.16.  By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, Visible and Invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers, All things were Created by him: but how can that be, saith our Socinian? How can he be the creator, who first began to be so many years after the Creation? But will not this Man believe St. Paul, 
Col. 1.17.  who answers this objection, and saith of Christ, He is before all things, i.e. in point of Time and Pre-existence, as well as in point of Dignity and Pre-eminence.  
Now, hath our Socinian Author the Face to pretend that this Text is Metaphorical, and must be interpnted of the New Creation? If so, let him tell us, how those invisible Spirits, which are in Heaven above, and are here reckoned as our Lord's Creatures, did stand in need of, and were interested in, and advantaged by, this New Creation; but if these words, according to the general persuasion of the most judicious expositors, are to be understood in a literal sense; then are they an invincible Argument that our Lord was indeed the Author of the first Creation, and his being so is an infallible evidence of his Godhead.  
But here this Author seems to give us an intimation, that he reckons these and the like Texts, which cannot be referred to the New Creation, but prove our Lord to be the Author of the Old one, among those difficult passages, of which St. Peter faith, 
2 Pet. 3.16.  They are hard to be understood. To which, I answer, 'tis indeed very hard to understand these Texts, and I think impossible to make any tolerable sense of them, in a Metaphorical, Improper and Socinian Construction; but if they be interpnted, as indeed they ought to be, in a literal sense, and according to the usual signification of their Terms, there are but few Texts more easy, obvious, and Intelligible. But our Socinians are highly concerned to strain and force these Texts to an unnatural sense, because, being rightly understood, they utterly destroy their Heretical Hypothesis, and undeniably prove, that Christ is God most high.   

SECT. XIX.  
THE next thing, which this Socinian Trifler attempts, is this; namely, to disprove the Union of the Divine and human Natures in the Person of Christ; and, to that end, he argueth to this effect: That Person, who died as a Man, could not also be God. But our Lord died as a Man, Ergo, He could not also be God.  
This Minor Proposition being granted true, to confirm the mayor, and so to secure the Conclusion, he gives this Reason; A person, constituted of two such Natures, could never have died according to his human Nature, but why not? His Reason is this; One capacity must needs have supplied the defects of the other, especially the stronger of the weaker; he means, that if Christ had been God, as well as Man, his Divinity must have supplied the defects of his Humanity, and not to have permitted that to remain either Ignorant or Mortal: To which I answer, as to each Particular:  
1. There was no necessity that our Lord's Divinity should so far supply the defects of human Nature, as to render that Omniscient, had it been capable of being so.  
The truth is, since Omniscience is one of those Infinite Perfections, which are no where to be found, but in God alone; the want of it must not be thought or blamed as an Imperfection in the Nature of Man. what St. Paul saith of himself, is true of the best of Men; 
1 Cor. 13.9.  We know but in part: That's the case of the most improved and enlightened Understanding here below, but how will it be with us above? 
Aquin. Par. 1. qu. 12. Art. 8.  Aquinas propounds this Question: Utrum videntes Deum per Essentiam Omnia in Deo videant? To which he answers thus in the negative; Intellectus Creatus videndo Essentiam Divinam in ea non videt omnia, when we shall see God, as he is, we shall not see all things in him, because our created and limited Understandings are in no capacity to comprehend an Infinite being.  
And this was our blessed Saviour's own case; for, as he was Man, he increased in Wisdom by degrees, as other Men do; yet at a far higher rate, and far greater measures, yet not so as to become Omniscient; for the Particular day and hour of the last judgement was concealed from his human Soul, nor was there any need that it should be revealed to him, as Man; because it was no part of that Doctrine, wherein he was to instruct the World.  
It was enough that Christ, as Man, was furnished with so much knowledge, as enabled him to reveal the whole will of God, to interpret the Moral Law, to instruct his Church, to solve all doubts, to confute all Errors, and to understand the very Hearts and Thoughts of Men. And since he had such a knowledge, as was sufficient for the discharge of that great Work, and those high Offices, which he had undertook, his human Nature could need no more. And if so, it was no more necessary that our Lords Divinity should render his human Nature Omniscient, than that it should render it Omnipresent, which had been needless and is Impossible.  
2. There was no necessity that our Lord's Divinity should, as this Man contends, have so far supplied the defects of his human Nature, as to render that Immortal.  
Nay, this was so far from being necessary, that it had been utterly inconsistent with that great End, for which he came into the World, which was to save his Church, not only by his Doctrine and Example, but especially by his death. We do easily believe, that our Lord, by the power of his own Divinity, could have rendered his human Nature Immortal. He, who kept his own Body from starving forty days without any Food. He, who often preserved his own life from the assaults and outrages of Men, who were ready to ston him. He, who could have commanded a numerous Guard of Angels at his pleasure. He, who at last raised his own dead Body from the Grave, could have kept it from ever lying there; but when such thoughts were once suggested to him by one of his Disciples, who did it in much kindness too, how severely did our Lord rebuk him, 
Mat. 49.26.54.  saying, How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled? The preservation of his human Nature from Mortality was within the reach of his Divine Power, but it was utterly inconsistent with his Divine pleasure, and the most gracious design of his Incarnation.  
3. Whereas this Author makes this demand; How could he in Person be mortal in one capacity, if he had been on the contrary immortal in another? I answer,  
'tis no new thing for a Person, constituted of two different Natures, to be mortal in one Capacity, and yet immortal in another. The Man, who makes this demand, is so himself; the Body of every Man is mortal, but the Soul of no Man is so. But as to Christ, if this Man supposeth, as he seems to do, that our Lord's Person was mortal, and died accordingly, he lieth under a very great mistake: for, that which died upon the across, was nothing else, but that, which he had took upon him in the Virgin's Womb; and that was, not the Person, but the Nature of Man.  
When our Lord died, the natural Union of his human Body and Soul was broken; but the Personal Union of the Divine and human Natures was not dissolved; his Spirit indeed was separated from his Flesh, but neither his Flesh nor Spirit was partend from his Divinity. When first he became a perfect Man, the same moment he became a God-man too; and his two Natures being united, {αβγδ}, as the Greek Fathers use to speak, their Union being inseparable, a God-man he continued even upon the across, in the Grave, yea and in Hell too, if he were, as many have thought, locally and triumphantly there.  
True it is, our Lord upon the across cried out thus, 
Mat. 27.46.  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But from thence we cannot infer that there was any dissolution of his two Natures; but there was Subtractio Visio●is, his Divinity was pleased for a short space to withdraw its comfortable influences, and leave his human Nature to conflict with the Terrors of Death alone. And thus much may suffice for an Answer to this Man's impertinent Cavil against the Union of two Natures in the Person of Christ.   

SECT. XX.  
THE next thing, which this Man undertakes, is to prove this Proposition, That Christ's being God of the Substance of his Father is an ungrounded Conceit. 'tis very strange that any Man in his Wits should dare call that a groundless imagination, which is so certain a Truth, so evident in Scripture, that it hath been owned and professed from Age to Age by the most pious and ablest Divines in the catholic Church. Nor hath this mighty Disputant produced so much as one Argument to disprove our opinion, or confirm his own.  
For, all that he saith, is impertinent and amounts to no more than this, That our Lord, as born of a Virgin, was not the Son of God's Person, but of his Power only; not his natural Son, not begotten of his Father's Substance: and pray, Sir, who denieth any thing of all this? Doth any Trinitarian affirm that our Lord, in respect of his Incarnation, was so begotten? If not, why doth this Man tacitly charge us with an Opinion, which none of us do own? The Faith of the catholic Church about this matter, is delivered in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. wherein 'tis said of our Lord, That he is God of the Substance of his Father; but how and when came he to be so? The Creeds answer, and the Scriptures confirm it, That he was begotten before the Worlds, and that was long before his Incarnation  
And that our Lord was in Actual being before his birth from the Virgin is a Truth as sure, as the plain word of God can make it. 
Joh. 1.15.  St. John the Baptist speaks of him thus: He, that cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me. Our Lord, as Man, was conceived and born some months after John, and is therefore said, to come after him, but notwithstanding that, St. John expressly saith, He was before me, 
Maldonat in locum.  i.e. Natu mayor, my Elder, more ancient than I: but how so? 
Theoph. Maldon. in locum.  Theophylact answers, {αβγδ}; or, as another words it, Non si humanam, said si Divinam spectes generationem. Our Lord was before St. John, not in regard of his human Nativity, but in respect of his Divine and eternal Generation, as being the only, begotten Son of God. So thought St. Chrysostom, who saith, that these word, He was before me, are to be understood, 
Chrysost. in locum.  {αβγδ}, of our Lords Existence before the World.  
Nor indeed can these words be well interpnted any other way; for, the Baptist having said of Christ; He is preferred before me, gives this reason for it; for he was before me. 'tis evident that the former Clause imports that our Lord was, as St. Chrysostom speaks, {αβγδ}, a Person of far more transcendent honour than John; and if the latter Clause should also imply our Lords supereminent dignity far beyond that of John; than doth the Baptist prove, idem per idem, which yet must not be imagined. But if these words, for he was before me, be referred to our Lords pre-existence before John in point of Time, or rather Eternity, then do they contain a very good Reason of that, which he had affirmed in the former Clause: saying, he is preferred before me, 
Clarius in locum.  longè mayor agnoscendus est. He must be acknowledged far Greater than I, neque id injuriâ, not without very good Reason, for he was before me, nempe verbum apud Deum, as being that Substantial Word, which in the beginning was with God.  
But if this Text will not satisfy our Socinian Author, that our Lord, as being before John, was in Actual existence before his Incarnation, which happened six months after the birth of John; yet methinks that speech of our blessed Saviour himself should thoroughly convince them; our Lord saith, Before Abraham was, 
Joh. 8.58.  I am, as if he had said, I, who according to my human Nature am not fifty years old, according to my Divine Nature am Eternal, and so, Before Abraham And here our Socinians cannot pretend, as they do in the forenamed Text, that this word, Before, should import our Lord's pre-eminence in point of dignity, rather than his Priority in point of being, signified by the word, {αβγδ}, I am, {αβγδ}, 
Theophyl. in locum.  a Word most properly and peculiarly applied to God, as signifying the Eternity of his Being.  
And for that very reason might our Lord very justly apply it to himself, and tell the Jews, Before Abraham was, I am; for, Solomon brings in our blessed Saviour, under the Title of Wisdom, speaking thus of himself, 
Prov. 8.23, 25. &c.  I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the Earth was; before the Mountains were settled, I was borough forth; when he prepared the Heavens, I was there, &c. Methinks 'tis impossible for our Socinians, who say that Christ had no being before his Incarnation, to escape the force of these Texts, unless they deny that our Lord, under the Name of Wisdom, is the Person therein concerned.  
But that our blessed Saviour is indeed the Person, whose Eternity is here described by Solomon, is the general Opinion of the best Interpreters that I have met with, 
Cartw.& Baynus in locum.  Rem unam haec omnia confirmant,& eo spectant, ut Verbi Divini aeternitatem demonstrent; and again, Authoritas Christi declaratur ex ejus aeternitate, &c. so one Expositor; and thus another, De Christo Dei sapientia,& Dei virtute intelligitur locus, de quo certum est hoc caput& sequens tractare; accordingly those words of Wisdom, I was set up from everlasting, are thus expounded by a whole Assembly of our English Divines, Christ was anointed King over the Church, by God's decree, before the world was; and again, those words, I was brought forth, they interpret thus, He was begotten by the Father from Eternity.  
And indeed that Christ is here to be understood by the Name of Wisdom, is not the new Opinion of later Divines, but the Persuasion of the ancient Fathers, 
Athan. in disputat. adv. Arium p. 121.  {αβγδ}. 'tis very fit to conceive that this Wisdom is God the Word; so Athanasius; and to the same purpose Great St Basil, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 4. p. 105.  {αβγδ} One may say that Solomon spake of the same Wisdom that is mentioned by St. Paul, and that is Christ. Accordingly doth Gregory Nyssen apply to our blessed Saviour whatever Solomon here saith of Wisdom, and particularly the work of Creation, 
Greg. Nyss. adv. Eunom. o●. 2. p. 78.  {αβγδ}. Solomon doth here treat of the Eternal Power and Efficacy of Wisdom; i.e. of Christ, by whom he saith, all things were made. St. Hierom expounding those words of Wisdom, The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, writes thus, 
Hieron. in Prov. 8.  Vox Christi, qui vera est Dei sapientia, quae ante omnem mundi creaturam ineffabiliter ex Patre genita, &c. This is the Voice of Christ, who is the true Wisdom of God, begotten by the Father after an unspeakable manner before the Creation of the World. Nay, that this Discourse of Solomon concerning Wisdom doth indeed relate to our blessed Saviour, was the Confession even of Arius himself; for, whereas the Septuagint by a mistake translated one word somewhat amiss, making Wisdom to say, the Lord, {αβγδ}, Created me; from this word Arius, in his Dispute with Athanasius, drew an Argument as from our Lord's own Mouth, to prove that he is a Creature; for in the Nicene Council he affirmed thus much, 
Athanas. in disput. adv. Arinm. p. 119.  {αβγδ}, I affirm that, the Son of God said of himself by Solomon, The Lord hath created me; where Arius doth plainly confess that by Wisdom in this Discourse of Solomon's, our Lord is to be understood.  
And if that be granted, there is enough in the Context to prove that our Lord had a being before the Creation, and consequently that he could not then be a Creature; and if not a Creature, then must he be the Creator; for, Omne Ens est aut Primum, aut à Primo, every Being is either the First, or from the First; and since our Lord stiles himself, Alpha, the First, he must be God Eternal, and if so, since he is the only begotten Son of God, he must be begotten of the Substance of his Father, for there was then no Substance besides.   

SECT. XXI.  
THE Authority of our Saviour's Miracles is the next thing, which this Author cites and boldly calls in question, telling us, that they do not prove him, God, because he did them, as Prophets and Apostles did, not by a Power inherent in himself, but derived from God; and to prove that, he names several Texts, wherein 'tis said, that his Power was given him. To which we answer thus,  
When our Lord was pleased to become a Man, it was requisite that his human Nature should be invested with so much power, as might enable him to work more and greater Miracles, than ever Moses and the Prophets did. His business was to put an End to the Ceremonial Law, which the Jews were very fond of; his business was to plant a New Religion, which both Jews and Pagans much opposed. Now, to justify his Commission from Heaven for the doing of this, and to prove himself the promised messiah, his working of such Miracles was very necessary. But forasmuch as such miraculous works do far transcend the very utmost abilities of Man, a supernatural Power was lent to our Lord's human Nature from above by his Father, and by himself too. For, as in our natural Actions the Hand of Man, and all other bodily Members, do act by that vigour, which they derive from the Soul, to which they are united; even so in our Lord's supernatural Actions did his Humanity act by that Power, which his Manhood derived from his own Godhead, the fullness whereof, as St. Paul saith, dwelled in him bodily. 
Col. 2.9.   
'tis evident that our Lord had Power enough to work Miracles long before his Incarnation; for the greatest Miracle, that was ever wrought, was the Creation of the World; 'tis an Act of Omnipotence to raise the dead, and yet that is but to restore something out of something; but an Act of Creation; productio entis ex non enter, the producing of something out of nothing, which is a kind of reconciling Contradictions, is a greater Act of Power than any more Act of Restitution. Now this Work of Creation, of all Wonders the greatest, do the Scriptures frequently and plainly ascribe to our blessed Saviour; we are there  told again and again, By him were all things made; and if by him, then by his own Power too; for, 'tis the constant Doctrine of the Schools, that a creating Power is so peculiar to the Godhead, that it can never be communicated to any Creature; so that if our Lord created the World, as most certainly he did, he must needs do it, as being God, and by a proper and essential Power of his; for to be invested with such a borrowed Power is beyond the capacity of all created Beings. And if our Lord by his own Power did create this glorious fabric of Heaven and Earth, we may justly believe, that by the same Power he did those easier Works, heal the Sick, cast out Devils, and raise the Dead. Wherefore when our Lord immediately before his ascension, said, All Power is given unto me. 
mat. 28.18.  It was the Man Christ, and as Man that spake it, and so must all such Texts be understood.  
So think our modern critics, and so thought the Primitive Fathers, who were Men of Piety, Parts and a learned Education; an advantage whereby through the ordinary Assistance of the Holy Spirit they were enabled to understand the Scriptures far better than this mechanic Divine the Clock-maker. Theophylact expounding these words of Christ, All power is Given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth, writes thus; 
Theoph. in mat. 28.18.  {αβγδ}. i. e. as if our Lord had said, I, who of old had all power in my hand, as being God, and the creator of the universe; have now, as a Man lately condemned, but now exalted, received, through the Union of my two Natures, all Power, even to be adored by Angels in Heaven, and glorified by Men on Earth throughout all Nations.  
St. Chrysostom interpreting that address of Christ to his Father, Thou hast given him power over all flesh, puts this question, {αβγδ}; 
Chrys. in Joann. c. 17 v. 2.  {αβγδ}; i.e. When did Christ receive this Power over all Men? Was it before he formed them, or after he had made them? Had he not then a Power over the works of his own hands? He it is, that did all in former Ages, punishing those that sinned, and rewarding those that did well; and if he had such a Power at first, Did he afterwards lose it, and then receive it again? Is there any Devil so impudent as to say any such thing? 'tis evident from this expression that St. Chrysostom owned an Omnipotent Power inherent in our Lord long before his Incarnation.  
True it is, our Lord's human Nature had an extraordinary Power given unto it, partly as a necessary Qualification to fit him for his great Employment, to confirm his Commission, to recommend his Person and his Doctrine to the World; and after his Passion, as a just Reward of his Service and Sufferings. So speaks St. Paul, 
Phil. 2.7.  He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the across. Here's an Intimation of our Lord's Service and Sufferings in his human Nature, but what's his Reward? The next words tell us, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name; 
Chrys. in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 7. 1 Pet. 3.22.  {αβγδ}, a Glory above all Glory, a Power above all Power; for St. Peter tells us, Angels, and Authorities, and Powers are made subject to him.  
All this Power our Lord received as Man; but if he had not a like Power before his Incarnation, then saith Great St. Basil, 
Basil. M. ad Enom. l. 4. p. 99.  {αβγδ}. Our Lord became Greater after his Incarnation, nation, than he was before it, {αβγδ}, which Conceit, saith he, would be very absurd indeed.  
But notwithstanding all this, I think we should not gratify our Socinians in the least, nor at all prejudice the Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, by granting that he did indeed originally receive all his Power from God the Father; for, in the same Moment, or rather the same Eternity, wherein God the Father did communicate to God the Son his own entire Nature and Essence, that Nature being Indivisible, he must of Necessity communicate to him all those Infinite Perfections, which are Essential to it, and inseparable from it, whereof Omnipotence is One.  
So then, to say that our Lord wrought his Miracles in his human Nature by the exercise of that Power, which he originally received from his Father, is no greater, a Prejudice to his Divinity, than to say, that by an Act of eternal Generation he received his Godhead from him, for they were communicated to him both at once.   

SECT. XXII.  
THIS worthy Gentleman proceeds like a Confident heretic, to answer an Argument as used by us, to prove the Possibility of three distinct Persons in the Godhead, and thus he is pleased to word it for us, God is incomprehensible, and may, for ought we know, be that which yet we cannot painly understand him to be; namely, that he is Three in Person, though but One in Essence.  
But by this Man's favour, we do very plainly understand him so to be, as to the truth of the Thing; though as to the manner How we confess our Ignorance, nor do we presume curiously to inquire into it, much less saucily to determine of it. 'tis ground enough for our Faith, that the Scriptures have evidently revealed it.  
Now to this Argument of his own framing, this Disputant answers thus, Though we cannot know what God is in every respect, yet at the same time we may certainly know what he is not; as 1. That he is not a Man. 2. That he is not mortal. 3. That he hath not a God above him. 4. That he hath not received any kind of Power from another. All which this Man imputes to our blessed Saviour as so many Evidences, that he is not God. To which I answer,  
1. To his first Allegation, That God is not a Man, we thus reply; That in the Abstract, the Deity is not the Humanity; that the Nature of God is not the Nature of Man, we do easily grant, but notwithstanding this, in concreto, we believe that there may be, and have already proved, that there certainly is one Person, our blessed Redeemer, who by the Union of the Divine and human Nature, is both God and Man.  
2. As to his second Allegation, That God is not Mortal, we easily grant its Truth, Dii Immortales, {αβγδ}, were the known Characters of supposed Deities amongst the Heathens. But withal, our Lord was made a Man, that he might be mortal; that for the Pardon of sin he might have Blood to  shed; for, saith the Apostle, Without shedding of blood there's no remission. 
Heb. 9.22.  Nor would the Blood of Bulls or Goats, or any more Man, have served the turn; and for that reason, the Son of God was pleased to become a Man, that he might be in a Capacity to die, and actually die he did; and so as St. Paul saith, God purchased his Church with his own Blood, i.e. with the Blood of that Sacred Person, who was God as well as Man; Man he was, that he might have Blood; and God he was, that his Blood might be valuable.  
3. To this Man's third Allegation, That God hath not a God above him, we answer by Concession; for, God is very justly styled, optimus, maximus, as the best, so the supreme and highest of Beings. And such a Being is our blessed Saviour, who, being in the form of God, is one with his Father, coordinate, co-eternal, and coequal with him in all the glorious Perfections of the Godhead. But in regard of his human Nature, which is a finite Creature, he is inferior to his Father; and in that Capacity alone must we understand that Speech of his, My Father is greater than I.  
4. This Man's fourth Allegation is this, That God hath not received any kind of Power from another; to which we answer thus. The first Person in the Trinity received no Power from another, but the second did, and yet is God notwithstanding; for, God the Father communicating his eternal Power to his Son, did by the self same Act, communicate to him his own eternal Godhead too, from which his Omnipotence is inseparable. And that our Lord did at once, and that from Eternity, receive from his Father his Divine Nature, and his Power with it, is undeniably proved by our Lord's creating the World; a Work, saith St. Paul, 
Rom. 1.20.  which evidently proves His Eternal Power and Godhead, which are two Divine Things never to be disjoined.  
5. Our Author's next Allegation is this, We know certainly, that if the Divine Godhead did consist of three Persons, that then neither of the three Persons singly can be God. So he.  
Methinks this Person writes, as if he, or we, thought the Divine Nature to be Divisible, as if the Father had the First share, the Son the Second, and the Holy Ghost the Third; as if there needed a Club or Contribution of their several shares to make up the entire Godhead. If this be not his own thoughts 'tis very far from being ours, and why then doth he say, That none of the three Persons singly can be God?  
The catholic Faith about this matter is well known to be this, That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. Each Person is perfect God; and yet it doth not follow, as this Man saith, That they may be said to be three supreme Beings or Godheads, because the Divine Essence being Infinite and Indivisible, subsisting in three Persons, is numerically One and the same. But,  
6. This Author still proceeding with the same Confidence, tells us thus, We know certainly, that if any of the three Persons, said to be in the Godhead, be God by himself, as we have proved God the Father undoubtedly is, than all the rest are superfluous and unnecessary as to the constitution of the Godhead. So he.  
Methinks this is such an high Degree of Blasphemy, as no good Man would be guilty of for all the World; How dares a poor worm proclaim the eternal Son of God to be a superfluous Person? Is there no need of him, who is our only Saviour? And how dares a Clod of warm day to tell the World that he certainly knows the blessed Spirit of God, who is our Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide, to be an unnecessary Being? What meant our Lord to command his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, if this Son, and Holy Ghost be needless Persons? What meant. St. John to tell us, There are Three that bear record in Heaven; if two of these Three stand but for cyphers?  
There can be no Assertion more false and Impudent than this, and yet this Man saith, We certainly know it; But how doth he know it, and that with so much certainty? In matters of Faith the infallible Word of God is the only ground of certainty; and if that be the ground of this Man's assurance, Why did he forbear to name particular Texts to prove it? But all his Proofs is drawn from his own fallible Understanding, and his Reason is this, One Infinite, Almighty, and most Wise Person is as sufficient to all the purposes of a Godhead, as ten thousand Deities. To which we answer thus:  
Were such an Argument urged in relation to Men, it would hold good; for, suppose three Men alike invested with equal Power; if any one of these three would surely and fully exercise this Power to all intents and purposes, and in all cases, which did require it, the other two, might be spared. For, three Men, whose Nature is finite, and but specifically the same, are separate and divided persons; and consequently their power, residing in different Subjects, though it be the self same in kind and degree, yet it may be different in its Execution; for the One may act without the other; and if any one of them effectually doth so, the other Two are superfluous.  
But if we shall suppose a triumvirate, three Men invested with equal Power, yet so that they all should stand obliged jointly to concur in every Act, that no two of them could do any thing without the consent of the Third; upon this supposition, none of them were superfluous, not One of the Three could be spared.  
Now, if it be lawful, Parvis componere Magna, I would say, that this forenamed Case doth somewhat resemble or illustrate that of the Three Glorious Persons in the Godhead, who are indeed distinct subsistencies, but not Divided: their Essence is one and numerically the same; and from this unity of their Nature there ariseth, {αβγδ}, One Will, one Operation: they do, and by a Necessity arising from their own Nature, they needs must conspire in every Act, which relates to the Creation of the World, the Redemption of Man, the support and Government of the whole Universe. For although we do commonly attribute the Work of Creation to the Father, of Redemption to the Son, of Sanctification to the Spirit; yet this is not to be understood exclusively, as if every one of these Glorious Persons had not an hand in each of these Gracious Works.  
No; the Rule is this, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt Indivisa. Those external Works of God, which respect his Creatures, are undivided; what one Person doth, all Three do; for the Unity of their Nature, the sameness of their Will, the Identity of their Power and all their Essential Perfections, cannot permit, that it should be otherwise. And for this reason alone our Lord  told the Jews thus: 
Joh. 5.19.  The Son can do nothing of himself; but why not? Was it for want of Power? No, for he saith in the same Verse, Whatsoever things the Father doth, these also doth the Son likewise; and of that he gives us this particular instance. As the Father raiseth up the dead, 
Ver. 21.  and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. But why then did our Lord say, The Son can do nothing of himself? He means, nothings distinct from the Work of his Father; accordingly he tells us, My Father worketh hitherto, 
Ver. 17.  and I work, by which Expression the Jews did rightly understand that he made himself equal with God, 
Ver. 18.  though neither they did, nor this Man doth, believe him to be so.  
But that is the true Faith of the Christian Church; and since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are most certainly one and the same God, they must have one Will, one Power, and one way of working; for in this glorious Trinity, as Fulgentius speaks, 
Fulgentius ae fide Orthodoxa.  Sic totum unum est, ut nihil ibi posset separari vel dividi: All is so One, that nothing there can be separated or divided. And for this Reason did our Lord say, Whatsoever things the Father doth, these also doth the Son, and that, {αβγδ}, 
Gregorius Naz. Or. 36.  likewise, i.e. {αβγδ}. Not only for the likeness of the things, that are done, but in respect of the equality of their Power; the Son doth not imitate the Father, but Cooperate and by the same Authority do the same Works with him.  
Nor indeed can it possibly be otherwise; for our Lord hath said, the Father is in me, 
Joh. 10.38.  and I in him. But how is Christ in his Father? {αβγδ}, as Splendour is in the light; so inseparably are the Father and the Son United, that they can never be divided in Essence, Will, or Operation, and how then can either of them be ever spared?  
It's true, were there but one Person truly God, an Infinite, Almighty, and most wise Being, were it really so; we should allow, that one Person so qualified with these and all other Divine perfections would be, as this Man saith, as sufficient to all the puposes of the Godhead, as ten thousand Deities. But since we are clearly taught by those Divine Oracles, which cannot fail us, and by such plain Texts, as cannot be otherwise understood, that there are more Persons than One, in whom the Divine Nature doth Equally subsist; their Essence, Will, Power, and all other their Essential Excellencies being for ever the same; we are persuaded that they all do voluntarily, and yet necessary too, Conspire in all Acts of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness; so that none of them can be Superfluous; and since the Deity is Indivisible, we can no more spare any One, than All. The Father cannot be without the Son; the Son cannot be without the Father, nor the Holy Ghost without both, nor the Church without all Three. To conclude this Paragraph, every Person, who is truly God, is Ens necessarium, a necessary Being; and consequently the Son and Holy Ghost being truly God cannot be superfluous, and why then doth this Man pretend that he certainly knoweth them both to be so?   

SECT. XXIII.  
THIS Author, proceeding without any Method, comes now to answer another Argument used to prove our Saviour's Godhead, and this it is, as he tells us in Effect, though not in Form; That Person, who came down from Heaven, who came forth from the Father, and who ascended up where he was before, is and must be God, for an Angel he was not. But our Lord did all this, and was no Angel. Ergo, He is and must be God.  
To this our Respondent answers thus, This Argument proves not that, for which it is intended, but why not? His Reason is this, 'tis plainly inferred from other Scriptures, that Christ, some time before he was sent to declare the Glad Tidings of the Gospel, was assumed or taken up from the Earth into his Fathers more Immediate Presence, there to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God, and to be invested with that great Dignity and Power of being a Prince and a Saviour, So he.  
But all this is, Gratis dictum. 'tis affirmed without any sufficient proof, without any fair Probability; nay, not only without any pertinent and solid Reasons to confirm it, but against several clear Texts, which do confute it. For,  
1. Our Evangelists have left us an Intimation, that our Lord in his Minority was bread up under the Wing and Government of his supposed Father and real Mother; nor do we red that they ever missed him more than Once; and then the Text saith, The Child Jesus tarried behind them in Jerusalem: there his Parents found him, and from thence, 
Ver. 51.  He went down with them to Nazareth, and was subject to them; and as some think, 
Ità sentiunt Erasmus, Drusius, Grotius, in Marci, c. 6. v. 3. Et Mat. 33.55.  he learnt and practised his Fathers Trade, whether it were that of a Carpenter, or some other useful Artifice, whom the Greek Word, {αβγδ}, and the Latin, Faber, may possibly import and signify. And if this be so, 'tis not very consistent with this pretended assumption of his human Nature into Heaven during his minority, whilst he conversed with his Earthly Parents here below; and that he did, if judicious Men are not much mistaken, till he was thirty years old.  
2. As it is very improbable that our blessed Saviour was taken up into Heaven during the time of his Minority; so have we no ground to believe that he was so taken up at any time after his Baptism and before his Resurrection.  

Mar. 1.12.  When he was Baptized, St. Mark tells us, Immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and there he was forty days tempted of Satan; from thence he returned into Galilee, dwelled at Capernaum, called his Apostles, and went about Preaching and Working Miracles. 'tis an unanswerable Prejudice against this pretended assumption of Christ into Heaven, that we have not the least intimation of it left us by any one of the Evangelists, who have Recorded the whole Story of his life, and several passages therein, far less considerable than this Would have been, had there been any such thing indeed.  

Luke. 1.3.  St. Luke tells his Friend Theophilus thus, It seemed good to me, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first, to writ unto thee in Order, and so again, 
Act. 1.1, 2.  The former Treatise have I made of all, that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day, in which he was taken up. Now, since this Evangelist did so perfectly know, and was so very careful to Pen the whole Life of Christ from his Conception to his Ascension, can we imagine, that he would have omitted a Passage so very material and remarkable as this?  
'tis indeed a known Rule and a true one, A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia: we cannot certainly say that this or that was never done, because it is not written. But, on the other hand, since this pretended Assumption is no where Recorded, we have at least as much Reason to deny it, as any Man hath to affirm it. For,  
3. The Reasons, which this Man produceth to prove this pretended Assumption of Christ into Heaven, are Two; and they are both very weak, frivolous, and inconsiderable.  
1. His first Reason is this, Our Lord, saith he, was thus assumed into Heaven, there to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God.  
But what need could there be of such an extraordinary course as this? Was not God able to reveal his whole pleasure to his Son some other way here below? Was ever any Prophet, or any Apostle, except St. Paul, took up to Heaven to receive Informations there? That God, who could and did, {αβγδ}, 
Heb. 1.1.  By divers ways and manners, reveal his Divine Will to his Servants here on Earth, could and doubtless did the same thing to his Son too. Instead of taking him up to Heaven it was the good pleasure of God to sand down his Holy Spirit from Heaven, and to give his Son that Spirit without stint or measure; and this was done immediately after his Baptism, that he might thereby be enabled to overcome the Devil, and be most rarely qualified to reveal his Fathers whole Will and Pleasure to the World. And since our blessed Lord was sufficiently instructed in the mind of God by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him, and that so early too; his own Ascent into Heaven, to learn his Lesson there, was altogether needless; and if so, then, upon this ground, we have no reason to believe it.  
2. The second Reason, which this Man offers to prove this pretended Assumption of Christ into Heaven, is this; our Lord, saith he, was thus took up into Heaven; there to be invested with that great Dignity of being a Prince and a Saviour.  
'tis certain that Christ was born a Lord, a King, and a Saviour; and if so, what need was there of a miraculous Providence to take him up into Heaven, that there he might be invested with those glorious Titles, which had already been ascribed unto him by three wise Men, and a wiser Angel, even when he was but newly dropped from the Womb? After the Attendance of Angels at his Nativity, the greatest manifestation of his Glory was at his Transfiguration, and that was upon a Mount, but not so high as Heaven. And as for his solemn Inauguration and full possession of his Kingdom; that was reserved for him till after his Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension.  

Luke 24.26.  So run the Scriptures, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his Glory? His highest advancement was to succeed his Passion; 
Philip. 2.8.  so intimates St. Paul, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the across, wherefore God hath highly exalted him: But when did God thus exalt him? 
Acts 5.30.  St. Peter tells us, The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slay, and hanged on a three; him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour: To this great Honour he was not solemnly advanced till after his Resurrection. For although he had the Title of a King and a Saviour even from his Birth; yet till he had subdued all Enemies, Sin, Death, and Hell, he had no splendid Coronation. And if so, to what purpose should our Lord aforehand be took up into Heaven? Was it to have the Title of a Prince and Saviour given him? No, that was sent down to him by a glorious Angel here below; was it then that he might be fully invested with his Royal Dignity, and crwoned as a King? No, that work was reserved for his Resurrection, and that Ascension of his, which followed it.  
So then, Since both the Reasons which this Man produceth in favour of this pretended Assumption of Christ into Heaven, either to be there instructed in the Mind and Will of God, or to be there invested with that Great Dignity of being a Prince and a Saviour, are so improbable, infirm, and insignificant, we have no ground to believe it. And the rather because,  
4. The Texts, which this Man cites to countenance this pretended Assumption of Christ into Heaven before his entrance upon his public Ministry, are either grossly misunderstood, or wilfully perverted, strained, and racked by him.  
1. The first Text, which this Man cites in favour of this pretended Assumption, is that of the Prophet Daniel, I saw in the night visions, 
Dan. 7.13.  and behold, one like the Son of man came to the ancient of days, and they brought him before him, and there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, and nations, and languages, should serve him. So this author transcribes it, and tells us that to this pretended Assumption of Christ into Heaven before his public preaching, this vision of Daniel doth plainly allude. To which I answer thus,  
That there are many difficulties in this prophesy of Daniel is the general Opinion of very judicious Men. Caeteris Prophetis antecellit obscuritate& praestantia; 
Cornel. à Lap. in praefat. ad Dan. Pererius in Praefat.  So one, and to the same purpose thus another, Videntur in hoc volumine duae res plus quàm in aliorum Prophetarum libris eminere, doctrinae obscuritas& praestantia. The prophesy of Daniel is more eminent than other Prophecies for two things, the excellence of it's Doctrine, and it's Obscurity. So dark and enigmatical is this Book, that to understand several passages in it, we are  told by a very learned Interpreter, 
Hieronymus in Praefat. ad Dan.  Multiplex Historia est necessaria, there is a necessity of great knowledge in the Histories of former Ages.  
But although this prophesy of Daniel hath seemed so very abstruse and difficult to many Learned Men, yet to this Seraphical Divine the Clock-maker it seems but obvious, easy, and very Intelligible; for if not, why doth he tell us with so much assurance, that to this Assumption of Christ into Heaven this Vision of Daniel doth plainly allude? Methinks he determines this doubtful matter as Magisterially, as if he sate in the Roman Chair, and were become the Infallible Judge of Controversies; nay, he writes as Dogmatically, as if he understood Daniels Vision far better, not only than all our critics and Commentators; but even than the Prophet himself, who saw and wrote it. For some Divine Revelations this Prophet had, which yet he did not comprehend; so doth he himself ingenuously confess, I heard, 
Dan. 12.8, 9.  but I understood not, and when his own Curiosity tempted him to inquire after the meaning of them, the answer, which he received, was this, Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed. It's true, 'tis afterwards said, the wise shall understand, and very probably this Author may be guilty of so much modesty, as to reckon himself in the number of those Wise ones.  
But, In the mean time, this Man cannot acquit himself from the crime of dissimulation in dealing with this Text, as the Devil dealt with another; he leaves out that, which he might easily foresee would make against him and his Interpretation. For the Text in truth runs thus, Behold, one, like the Son of Man, came with the clouds of Heaven, &c. These words, came with the clouds of Heaven, this Man doth wholly leave out, and there was a great deal of Policy in it; for these words are a Key to open the meaning of this Vision, and to let us see the better to what it may refer.  
I have not met with any Interpreters, except Grotius only, but they do all with one consent refer this Vision to our blessed Saviour, who is here Prophetically said to be, One like the Son of Man, a Title, whereby he afterward was pleased very often to style himself. And because this Son of Man is here said, To come with the clouds of Heaven, several Interpreters have thought that this Vision refers to our Lord's coming to judgement, of which St. John saith, 
Apoc. 1.7.  Behold he cometh with Clouds.  
Of this Opinion was Vatablus, the Text saith, One like the Son of Man came. But whether did he come? Ad Judicium, he came to judgement; so he And thus Munster and Clarius, Signatur his adventus Christi ad Judicium; The thing intended in this Vision is the coming of Christ to judgement; so they. Of the same mind was Tertullian, who mentioning this Vision, writes thus, Christus ipsi Danieli revelatus, 
tart. adv. martion. l. 40. c. 10.  directo filius hoins, veniens cum coeli nubibus Judex; Christ was revealed to Daniel directly as the Son of Man, coming with the Clouds of Heaven as the Judge of the World.  
Now, were it not an Act of too great presumption in me to interpose my slender judgement, and to declare my own dissent from the Authorities of such great and Learned Men, I would say that there are two things in the Text, which seem to obviate their Interpretation of this Vision, and its reference to the Day of judgement. For. 1. Our Lord is here said, To come to the ancient of Days, and to be brought before him; whereas at the Day of judgement he will be sent down from the ancient of Days, for he is already with him. Again, 'tis here said, There was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a Kingdom, but that's already done, and long before the Day of judgement. Once more, 'tis here said, That all People, and Nations, and Languages should serve him. But that Service here on Earth, which, I think, this Text intends at the Day of judgement will be over.  
But that this Vision should rather point at our Lord's Ascension after his Resurrection seems to me far more probable; for the Circumstances of this Vision, as the Prophet doth here relate them, are very agreeable to the Circumstances of our Lord's Ascension, as our Evangelists have described them; the Prophet saith, One, like the Son of Man, came to the ancient of Days, i.e. to God the Father; and in the Evangelist, when our Lord was near to his Ascention, he said, I leave the world and go to the Father. 
Joh. 16.28.  The Prophet saith, He came with the Clouds of Heaven; accordingly at our Lord's Ascension, the Evangelist saith, 
Act. 1.9.  A Cloud received him. The Prophet saith, They brought him before him. But who were They who did so? 'tis answered, 
Act. 1.10.  Angeli stipantes, the Angels that were about him; accordingly the Evangelist tells us, that at our Lord's Ascension, the Angels attended him, and no doubt waited on him into his Father's more immediate Presence. The Prophet here saith, There was given unto him Dominion, and Glory, and a Kingdom; accordingly our Lord immediately before his Ascension, 
Mat. 28.18.  All Power is given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth; and immediately after his Ascension, the Evangelist tells us, 
Mar. 16.19.  He sat down at the right hand of God; an Expression of the very highest Glory.  
Now, there being such an Agreement, in so many Circumstances, betwixt the Prophets Vision and the Narrations of our Evangelists; that this Vision should relate to our Lord's Ascension after his Resurrection, there is great Reason; but why it should refer to a pretended Ascension some years before his Passion, this Man gives no good reason at all, and yet confidently asserts, that it plainly doth so.  
2. The second Text which this Man doth miserable abuse, and would fain force to countenance this pretended assumption of Christ into Heaven, is that of the Evangelist, 
Joh. 3.13.  where our Lord saith, No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven; from which words this Man would infer, that our Lord some time or other in his human Nature had been already took up into Heaven, and then was sent down again; and this, saith he, is plain.  
But if this Man's Sense of this Text be indeed so plain, as he pretends, 'tis somewhat of wonder that none of the ancient Fathers, nor none of our later critics whom I have consulted, should so understand it, which to me is a great prejudice against its Truth. Amongst the critics upon the New Testament, 'tis observed that Erasmus and Grotius, though no Socinians, do interpret some other Scriptures too much in favour of that ill Opinion; but as for the Text now under debate, neither Erasmus nor Grotius do interpret or apply it, as this Man doth, nor any way like it.  
And yet our Clock-maker tells us, that from the words of our Saviour himself 'tis plain that he ascended up into Heaven before he came down to declare his Father's will to men; for our Lord said, No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven; from which words this Man argueth thus, No man but Christ ever came down from thence, which he never could have done, had he not first ascended up thither. Here we have a complication of falshoods. No man, saith he, but Christ, ever came down from Heaven: But what thinks he of St. Paul? What thinks he of Moses and Elias at our Lord's Transfiguration? Again, this Author supposeth, that Christ as Man came down from Heaven, which yet he never did, nor ever will do in his human Nature, till he come to judge the World, unless it were Typically in the Manna, of which he said, 
Joh. 6.41.  I am the bread that came down from Heaven. Once more, this Man saith, Our Lord could not come down from, Heaven, had he not first ascended thither; but this is a prodigious falsehood, for in Heaven he was already, and had been there even from its first Creation.  

Gen. 11.7.  When God said, Let us go down and confounded their Language. To whom did he speak these words, if not to his Son? And will this Man say, that God the Father could never go down, unless he first went up? if not, How daies he say the same thing of God the Son?  
Most certain it is, that our Lord in his human Nature hath never ascended into Heaven more than once; and as certain it is, that to this very Day he hath never thence so descended. Never had his human Nature been in Heaven, when he spake these words, No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven. But how so? When our Lord spake this, he was on Earth; And how then could be at the same time be in Heaven too? On Earth he was as Man; but being also God, at the same moment he was in Heaven too. And yet when he mentions his descending from thence, he might justly style himself, the Son of Man, for indeed he was both.  
And why, the Son of Man, is said to ascend to, and descend from Heaven, before his, Passion; this is the account which is given us by the most Judicious Writers. 
Greg. Nazianz. Or. 5. p. 740.  {αβγδ}, 
Athan. de incarnat. Verbi. p. 592.  so one; and thus another, {αβγδ} and so a third, 
Theoph. in Joan. 3.13.  {αβγδ}. To these I need add but one Authority more, and a full one it is; Filius Dei manebat in Coelo; 
Aug. cont. Pelag. l. 1. c. 31. t. 7. p. 146.  filius hoins ambulabat in terra; per unitatem vero persona, qua utraque substantia unus Christus est;& filius Dei ambulabat in terra,& idem ipse filius hoins manebat in Coelo. The sum of these Testimonies is this, namely, that since there are two natures united in our Saviour's Person, there doth thence arise, {αβγδ}. Such a Communication of their respective Properties; that as Theophylact words it, {αβγδ} Names and things properly belonging to our Lord's Humanity are ascribed to his Divinity; 
Theophyl. ubi suaprà.  and such as are peculiar to his Divinity are attributed to his Humanity. Accordingly St. Chrysostom expounding this Text, wherein the Son of Man is said to come down from Heaven, tells us, 
Chrysost. in Joan. c. 3. v. 13.  {αβγδ}. Our Lord did not here call his Flesh alone, the Son of Man, but from his inferior Substance denominated his whole self; for indeed it is very usual with him to denominate his whole Person many time from his Divine Nature, and often from his human too. When he calls himself, the only begotten Son of God, which imports his Divinity, that doth not exclude his Humanity; and when he calls himself, the Son of Man, that doth not exclude his Divinity; for both these Titles justly belonging to him, he was pleased sometimes to style himself, his entire Person, sometimes by the one, and sometimes by the other.  
So that from these Words of Christ, No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he, who came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man who is in Heaven; we can no more conclude, that our Lord in his human Nature was in Heaven, and descended thence before his Passion, than we can conclude, that when he spake these Words, he was both in Heaven and on Earth, at the same time, and in the same Nature, which is impossible to be imagined.   

SECT. XXIV.  
THere is yet one Text more, which this Author cites, as if it gave some Countenance, though in Truth it yields none to his groundless Assertion, and this it is; Our Lord saith, The Father that sent me, 
John 12.49.  he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak; from which words this Man doth thus infer, That Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Doctrine, which he was to publisch to the world. And here again he saith, This is plain.  
But is it not a strange Piece of Confidence that a Man who scarce brings one probable Argument, should count every thing which he saith, to be so plain and evident, as if it were all demonstration? The thing which this Man asserts, is this, That Christ was took up into Heaven to be instructed in the Doctrine which he was to preach: But how doth this Disputant prove it? His Argument is this, The Father which sent me, gave me a commandment, what I should say. But how doth it follow from hence, that Christ was took up into Heaven, there to receive his Father's Commands?  
We are sure that God gave a Command to Moses, what he should both speak and writ, and to that end Moses was indeed took up into a Mount, but not into Heaven; God also gave Commandments to the Prophets, what they should speak and writ; and yet we do not find that any one of them was ever taken up into Heaven to receive their Instructions there. 
2 Pet. 1.21.  No, St. Peter tells us, Holy Men spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and could not our Lord, to whom his Father gave the Spirit without measure, speak so too?  
Those Words of the Evangelical Prophet our Lord applied to himself, 
Luk. 4.18.  The Lord hath anointed me to preach the Gospel. This Unction imports his Defignation and Commission for that great Office; but what enabled him to understand his Business, and fully to execute what he had undertaken? Was his human Nature carried up to Heaven, there to learn those Sacred Lessons which he was to teach the World? Not a word of that; but the Text gives us another account full as sufficient and far more certain, and this it is, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; and surely he, who had the Holy Ghost for his Instructor, so near him and always with him, had no need to be assumed into Heaven to learn any Lessons there.  
It was the Promise of God relating to Gospel-times, and fulfilled upon our Lord's Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, 
Act. 2.17.  I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh; and by virtue of this Effusion, 'tis said of these Apostles, They spake the wonderful works of God, as the spirit gave them utterance. Now, if the blessed Spirit enable our Lord's Apostles to execute their Commission, much rather may we believe that it enabled our Lord himself to execute his; for as to the Apostles, the Promise of God was only this, I will pour out of my Spirit, {αβγδ}, something of my Spirit, {αβγδ}, saith St. Chrysostom; some few drops, some smaller proportion of my Spirit; but as to our Lord, the Phrase is altered; 
Matth. 3.16. Joh. 3.34.  'tis said, The Spirit descended on him; and again, God giveth him the Spirit; not of the Spirit, but as St. Chrysostom speaks, 
Chrys. in Joan. c. 3. v. 34.  {αβγδ}, the whole and entire Power and Efficacy of the Spirit. And since this blessed Spirit did thus descend upon our Lord, and that immediately after his Baptism, instructing his human Understanding in the whole Will of God, which was to be revealed to the World; our Lord could have no need to be took up into Heaven to receive any fresh Informations there.  
So then, as those Texts, which say, Moses did as the Lord commanded him, 
Lev. 8: 4.  are no Proofs that Moses was took up to Heaven to receive the Commands of God; so this and the like Texts, wherein our Lord saith, Whatsoever I speak, 
John 12.50.  even as the Father said unto me, so I speak, are of no force to prove that he was carried up to Heaven upon any like account.  
But the Truth is, this pretended exaltation of Christ to Heaven before he began to preach, was the foolish imagination, and the filly Dream of Laelius ●ocinus, who magnified himself for this Invention, as if the Revelation of this supposed Secret had been a Token of God's peculiar Favour, an answer to his Petitions, and a reward of his Devotions. But were not our Lord's Apostles and Evangelists as devout and pious Persons, as this Laelius could pretend to be? Had they not a sure Promise from Christ, 
John 16.13.  that his Spirit should guide them into all truth? Was not St. John, that beloved Disciple, {αβγδ}, our Lord's bosom Friend; was not he as great a Favourite of Heaven as this Socinus could be? And were not those Primitive Bishops, Saints and Martyrs, who died in and for the Faith of Christ, as worthy to be entrusted with this Secret, had there really been any such thing, as this Enthusiast, who stands deservedly branded for an heretic? I am of Opinion, that this Socinus was full as much deluded, as our late John Mason; the one vainly imagining that Christ was come down from Heaven; the other, that he was took up, and both before the time was come.   

SECT. XXV.  
THE next thing which this Man endeavours, but can never do, is to disprove the Eternity of Christ; and truly considering his Principles for this attempt, though but a vain one, we cannot blame him. For the Socinian Opinion is chiefly grounded upon this Hypothesis or Supposition, that our Lord had no real Being before his Incarnation; for, if he had, he must for unanswerable Reasons, have been from Eternity, and consequently must be God, which our Socinians deny.  
Now, to disprove the Eternity of Christ, which this Man knew to be his grand Concern, he makes use of a double Argument drawn from our Lord's double Relation. 1. That to God, as his Father. 2. That to the Virgin, as his Mother.  
1. And from our Lord's Relation to God as his Father, this Disputant frames his Argument thus; 'tis impossible for Christ to be Eternal; for if God be his Father, then there was a time when the Son had not a Being; for to be a Son, and to be equal in duration with his Eternal Father that begot him, is undoubtedly impossible: So thinks this Author.  
But when will Men cease to measure an Infinite and Incomprehensible Being by themselves? When will they cease to charge those Divine Mysteries, though clearly revealed as to their truth, with Contradictions and Impossibilities, barely because the manner of them transcends the utmost reach of their own finite, shallow, and dark Understandings? We know, that amongst Men no Son can be of equal Age with his own Father, because there is a natural Impotence which disables a Man to beget, and a Woman to conceive and bring forth a Son, till they themselves be grown up to some maturity of strength, which requires several years; so that there must needs be a considerable distance of time betwixt the Father and the Son. Besides, among Men the begetting of a Son is an Act that's free and voluntary; 'tis at every Man's choice whether he will quiter forbear such an Act, or when he will attempt it.  
Thus stands the ease with Men, but it is not so with God; for, tell me, Dares any saucy Wretch charge the Almighty with that natural Imperfection and Impotence, that is found in Man? What could hinder that God from begetting a Son out of his own Substance from all Eternity, who in time created the World out of nothing? Nor doth such a begetting of such a Son import any necessity, that there should be so much as one moment's distance betwixt him and his Father; For what good reason can be assigned, why God the Father might not beget his Son, {αβγδ}, in eodem puncto, in the very first moment, if I may so speak, wherein he himself was, even from Eternity?  
We cannot conceive that the Sun in the Firmament, since it was a Sun, ever was one moment without its light; nor can we conceive that a Fountain, which alway overflows, should ever be without a Stream; and why may we not think that God, ever since he was God, never was one moment without his Son, who issueth from him as naturally and as necessary, as light doth from the Sun, as a stream doth from a never failing Spring.  
I have met with some, who, to prove the Eternity of the World, used this Argument; namely, that it issued not from an Arbitrary Act of God's free Pleasure, Choice, and Power, but from a necessity of his Nature; what these Men thought concerning the World in General, we have reason to believe is true concerning Christ, that he was, and is, and ever will be the Son of God by a natural and necessary Generation, i.e. by an entire Communication of the Divine Nature to him, which is an Act not Transient, but Eternal. And for this Reason the Father and the Son are, {αβγδ}, Co-eval and Co-eternal. A thing, which this Man thinks impossible, barely because it cannot be so among Men.  
2. The Second Argument, which this Man urgeth against the Eternity of Christ, he draws from our Lord's Relation to the Virgin his Mother and her Progenitors.  
And here he minds us, that our Lord was of the Seed of Abraham, one of David's Posterity, and made of a Woman; and therefore could not be more ancient in time, than Abraham, and David, and the Mother that bare him. All which proves no more than this; namely, that our Lords human Nature, which he derived remotely from Abraham and David; and immediately from his Virgin Mother, was not Eternal; which we easily grant.  
But notwithstanding this, we are plainly  told, that Christ was before Abraham: nay, before all things: and again, before the world was; and do not these Texts undeniably prove the Eternity of his Existence? No, saith this Socinian; these Texts prove no more than this: namely, that Christ was before all things in the Foreordination, Decree, and Counsel of God, but not that he was so in Actual being and Pre-existence. And to confirm this, he cites the Testimony of St. Peter, 
1 Pet. 1.20.  who saith of Christ, He verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times; from whence this Man draws this worthy Inference, no foreordained being can be eternal, since he, that did ordain his being, must be before him of necessity: To which I thus reply:  
In what capacity and respect our Lord was foreordained according to St. Peter's meaning, we must judge by the Contexture and Coherence of his discourse; where in the foregoing Verse having mentioned, The precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot; he immediately adds these words, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world. 'tis very evident from the Connexion of this Verse with the former, that the Incarnation of Christ, that innocent Lamb of God, who was designed to Redeem the World by the shedding of his blood, is the thing here said to be foreordained; according to which sense he is elsewhere said, 
Act. 2.23.  To be delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, and to be, 
Apoc. 13.8.  the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world: So that the only thing here intended by St. Peter, and said to be foreordained, was the Incarnation of Christ with all its consequences, and particularly that great one of his Death and Passion: and from hence no good Inference can be drawn against our Lord's Eternity; for this foreordination of his human Nature and the Consequences of it can prove no more, than that his Humanity, being the thing foreordained, was of a later date than he who did foreordain it, and who can doubt it?  
And whereas this Man would fain elude the force of that Text, where our Lord saith, before Abraham was, I am, and that of St. Paul, who saith of Christ, He was before all things, by telling us, that so he was in the Foreordination, Decree, and Counsel of God; I answer, if that were all which our Lord and St. Paul meant by those Expressions, then did they say no more of Christ, than this Clock-maker, or any Man else, may say of himself; for before Abraham was in Actual being, nay, before any thing was created, every Man, as well as the Man Christ Jesus, was in God's foreordination, Decree, and Counsel. But when our Lord said, Before Abraham was, I am, and when St. Paul said, He was before all things; whether they meant no more in reference to our Lord, than what is common to all mankind, I leave to the judgement of every Person, who hath not utterly abandoned his own reason; who is not wedded, or rather quiter enslaved, to an ill Opinion.  
But this Author is not ashamed to intimate, that if the Sense of these Texts be not, as he interprets them, They contradict both common understanding, and the greatest and plainest part of all the Bible. This Intimation is very bold and very false; for, if the sense of these Texts, different from this Man's Interpretation, do indeed Contradict common understanding, how came so many Expositors, Men of incomparable Learning and acute Judgments, to Interpret these Texts, as we do?  
I remember that Gregory Nazienzene begins his panegyric in praise of Athanasius thus, 
Gregorius Naz. de laudibus Athanas.  {αβγδ}, In commending Athanasius I must commend Virtue too; and for so saying he gives this Reason, {αβγδ}, for he had all Virtue comprehended in him. But notwithstanding all his Excellencies, I know that our Socinians hate his Writings, and to render his works the less valuable, they slander his Person, and very undeservedly bespatter his memory what they can. But yet, I hope they will allow so famous an Archbishop, who shewed himself able to contest with the most learned and subtle heretics of his Age, to have been a person of something more than common understanding.  
The question then is, how doth this Man of more than vulgar Reason Interpret those words of Christ, Before Abraham was, I am? How? In God's foreordination, and no otherwise? What thought Athanasius? 
Athanas. adversus Arian. Or. 3. p. 423.  Did he think another Interpretation of this Text to be contradictory to common Reason? No, what his Opinion was, we may judge by these words of his, {αβγδ}, &c. i.e. 'tis manifest, that our Lord's pre-existence before Abraham, is an evidence, that his Incarnation was not the beginning of his Being, but that he was for ever present with his Father, and the Maker of the Universe. It seems then that this great Man was thoroughly satisfied in his own judgement, that these words of Christ, before Abraham was, I am, are an infallible evidence of our Lord's Eternity.  
But because our Socinians are possessed with such a prejudice against the very name of Athanasius, as is enough to render his Authority insignificant to them; it will not be amiss to add the Testimonies of some other Interpreters, with whom these Men are not so much offended: That of Theophylact may be one, who observes, that our Lord, mentioning Abraham, 
Theophyl. in Joan. 8.58.  saith, Before Abraham was: this, was, is spoken of him, {αβγδ}, as of one subject to corruption; but when our Lord spake of himself, he altered his expression, and did not say, I was, but, I am; and why so? Theophylact gives this Reason for it, {αβγδ}; this Title, I am, which our Lord here assumes to himself, is peculiar to God, and signifieth the Eternity of the Divine Being.  

Chrysost. in Joan. 8.58.  So thought St. Chrysostom too, for thus he writes, {αβγδ}. As God the Father styled himself by this Title, I am, so did our blessed Saviour too; and for his so doing St. Chrysostom gives us this Reason; {αβγδ} for this Title, I am, imports our Lords Eternity, free from all intervals and limits of Time.  
Of the same mind was that great Man St. Austin, who, 
Aug. adv. Pelag.& Celest. l. 2. c. 47. John 8.56.  descanting upon those words of Christ, Abraham rejoiced to see my day, the day of my Incarnation; tells us, secundùm hanc habet tempus, divinitas vero ejus omne tempus excedit, quia per illam universa facta sunt tempora. Our Lord's Human Nature was subject to time, but his Divine Nature exceeds all time, for by it were all times made. Again, When our Lord said, 
Aug. in Joan. c. 8. Tract. 43. Tom. 9. p. 76.  Before Abraham was, antequam fieret, before he was made, I am; the same St. Austin expounds it thus, Intellige fieret ad humanam naturam, sum vero ad Divinam pertinere substantiam; the words, was made, import Abraham's Human Nature; but the word, am, imports our Lord's Divine Substance. And thus he goeth on, Qui loquebatur, seemen Abraha factus erat;& ut Abraham fieret, ante Abraham ipse erat: Our Lord, who spake these words, was made the Seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be made, our Lord in Actual being was before him.  
And that these words must needs be thus understood, is evident from the context; for they are a direct answer to the Jews question: Thou art not yet 50 years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Yes, saith Christ, before Abraham was, I am; as a very learned Divine of our own Church doth Paraphrase upon it. I have a being from all Eternity, 
Hammondus in Joan. 9.58.  and so before Abraham was born, and so might well have seen, and known him.  
To these Authorities I shall add but one Testimony more, which saith of Christ, 
Maldonatus in eun. locum.  quamvis, ut homo erat, nondum 50 haberet annos, tamen esse praeterea Deum, qui non solùm ante Abraham, said ante omnia etiam saecula extitisset. Though our Lord, as Man, was not yet 50 years old; yet, as being God also, he was, not only before Abraham, but before all Ages.  
And now let this Socinian scribbler tell us, whether these forenamed Authors, who interpret this Text, as we do, judging it to be a plain evidence of our Lord's Eternity, were not Persons at least of common understanding; but if they were more than so, Men of excellent parts and accurate judgments; why is not this Man ashamed to say, that this Text, so understood, contradicts the common reason of Mankind? But I am of Opinion, that they, who interpret it another way, do want, either the common reason of Men, or the common honesty of Christians.  
But this Trifler stops not here, but goeth on to tell us, that this Text, being interpnted as an Evidence of our Lord's Actual being before Abraham, and of his Eternity, doth contradict the greatest and plainest part of all the Bible: So he.  
'tis commonly said, Dolus latet in Universalibus: This Charge, being only in General, without some particular Proofs signifies nothing. It was indeed our Author's great Prudence not to instance in any particular Passages of Holy Writ, because he can never prove, that any one Text is contradicted by our Interpretation of this. When our Lord saith, Before Abraham was, I am; We affirm, that this Text imports our Lord's Eternity; that's our Interpretation of it, nor do we know any other Text that contradicts it; but we do know several Texts, which agree very fairly with it, and confirm it. So doth that of Solomon, where 'tis generally supposed, that our blessed Saviour, under the Title of Wisdom, speaks thus of himself, 
Pro. 8.2. Mic. 5.2.  I was set up from Everlasting; so undoubtedly doth that of the Prophet, where the messiah is said to be one, whose goings forth have been of old, from the days of Eternity; so doth that of the Psalmist, which the Apostle applieth to Christ: Thou, 
Heb. 1.10.  Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth, &c. So doth that of St. John, 
John 1.3. Col. 1.16.  All things were made by him, &c. and so doth that of St. Paul, By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, &c. All these Scriptures do undeniably prove our Lord's Eternity, either in express Terms, or by necessary consequences; and since they do so, they do fairly correspond and svit with our Interpretation of these words of Christ, Before Abraham was, I am, my Being is Eternal.  
Now, to retort this Objection, and to speak a little, ad Hominem, to the Man, that raised it; St. John tells us, In the beginning was the word, 
Joh. 1. 1● Joh. 20.28.  and the word was with God, and the word was God; and certainly if our Lord was God in the beginning, he is so still, and will be so to the end. St. Thomas, who knew him well, called him, My Lord, 
Ro. 9.5. 1 Joh. 5.20  and my God, and his Master did not disown either of these two Titles. St. Paul stiles him, God blessed for ever. St. John saith of him, This is the true God; and as for his Heavenly Father, To the Son, he saith, thy Throne, 
Heb. 1.8.  O God, is for ever and ever. These Texts do assert the Divinity of Christ in as plain words, as can well be uttered; and yet this Man, in defiance of these and other Divine Testimonies, which can never be understood in any other tolerable sense, dares lay down this as an undoubted Conclusion; That Christ is not truly God: Who then contradicts the Scriptures, we, or he?   

SECT. XXVI.  
THE Satisfaction of Christ is the next thing, which this Author pleads against; nor can we wonder that he, who denieth our Lord's Divinity, should also deny his Satisfaction, which wholly depends upon it; for, thus we argue, If Christ had not been God, the sacrifice, which he offered for sinners, would not have been of that infinite worth, which was necessary to satisfy the infinite Justice of an offended God.  
Doubtless this Argument can never be overthrown; nor can those Texts, upon which it is bottomed, ever be fairly answered: such is the persuasion of our most judicious, pious, and learned Divines; and yet this illiterate mechanic makes bold to attack it, and tells the World, The Holy Scriptures do not any where declare this Doctrine.  
How? no where? neither in express Terms, nor in direct and necessary consequences? certainly he, who proclaims such a notorious falsehood, must be supposed to red the Scriptures, either with a purblind eye, or a distempered head, clouded with ignorance, or intoxicated and drunk with Prejudice.  

Heb. 9.12.  The Scripture tells us, Christ hath obtained Eternal Redemption for us: But how did he do it? without any satisfaction, or with one? The very notion of a Redemption imports, what St. Paul doth plainly express; 
1 Cor. 6.20  ye, are bought with a Price, and a very great one too; so saith the same Apostle, God hath purchased his Church with his own blood; 
Act. 20.28.  and 'tis said again by our Lord himself, The Son of man came to give his life, 
Mat. 20.28  {αβγδ}, a price of Redemption, or, a Ransom for many.  
To all these and the like Texts, which import our Lord's satisfaction, this Man was not able to answer any thing, save only to say, These are but improper expressions; and why might he not as well have said, we are but improperly redeemed, improperly saved; Putative, as those old heretics Cerdon and martion affirmed, In show, not at all? for, if the Divine Justice be not properly and completely satisfied, no Flesh can be saved.  
But, as to disprove the satisfaction of Christ, this Man endeavours to elude those Texts, which do confirm it; so to the same end doth he frame an Argument against it, and this it is, If Christ had made in our stead such a satisfaction, as had been equivalent to the Transgressions of all men, in order to redeem them, how then could life eternal be the free gift of God? how then could we be saved by free Grace? and how could our sins be said to be forgiven? So he: to which I answer, free Gift, free Grace, are very consistent with that perfect satisfaction, which our Lord hath made to the Justice of God. For,  
1. Our Lord himself, who made this satisfaction, was the free Gift of God, who first of his own more motion and goodness promised him without any expectation or desire, and afterward sent him without any merit in Man. Accordingly the Evangelist tells us, God gave his only begotten Son; 
Joh. 3.16. Joh. 4.10. Esa. 9.6.  and our Lord stiles himself, the Gift of God: and the Prophet saith, unto us a Son is given. And since our Lord himself was freely given us, all the Benefits, which we receive by him and from him, must be so too.  
2. It was free Grace in God the Son, that he was willing to make, and in God the Father, that he was willing to accept, such a satisfaction from a Surety, which he might very justly have exacted from every one of us, who were the Principal, and indeed the only debtors. So that this blessed exchange did arise merely from the free Grace and good Pleasure of God.  
3. Though the Pardon of Man's sin, and the Salvation of our Souls, cost our Surety very dear; yet this glorious purchase comes very cheap to us, who pay nothing for it: for all the service, that we can do; all the Thanks, that we can return; are very justly due to God upon other accounts.  
And this I think is enough to answer this Man's Objection; who yet at last hath found out another way, and he thinks a very full one, to satisfy the Justice of God, and consequently to render the satisfaction of Christ needless; for, thus he writes, The Justice of God is fully satisfied in the certain punishment of Adam's Transgression; for Adam died, and we all die; and by consequence his Justice, as to that offence, is satisfied in all its demands; so satisfied, that this Man saith, 'tis plain that God in equity can require no more: So he.  
But was a Temporal Death the only Punishment due to Adam's Transgression? there are judicious Men of another mind: the threatening runs thus, Thou shalt die the Death; was it not enough to say, Thou shalt die? and why then, Thou shalt die the Death? It is the opinion of Fagius, 
Fagius& Vatablus in Gen. 2.37.  Hac reduplicatione duplicem mortem ainae& Corporis indicari; and so Vatablus, Mortem Corporis& Anima significat. This doubling of the Expression imports a double Death, that of the Body, and that of the Soul too; so these learned Men. And long before them was Athanasius of the same judgement; 
Athan. de incarnat. Christi p. 626.  for about this matter he hath expressed himself thus, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. God denounced a double Punishment against Adam for his Transgression; to his Terrestrial part he said, Dust thou art, and to Dust shalt thou return, and by that Sentence is the Body of Man become subject to corruption: but to his Soul he said, Thou shalt die the Death; and so Man comes to be divided, and condemned to go to two Places, by which he means the Grave and Hell.  
Much the same thing is meant by Junius and Tremellius, 
Junius, Tremellius,& Aynsworth in locum.  who thus explain this Text, Thou shalt die the Death; say they, In mortis corporea& spiritualis potestate eris, thou shalt be under the Power of Death, both corporeal and spiritual. Accordingly doth Aynsworth deliver his judgement thus; In this Sentence the Perdition of Body and Soul are implied.  
And indeed there is very great reason, why this Sentence should reach the Soul of Adam; 'tis justly said, Pares in Peccato, Pares in Poena: They, who have an equal share in the Sin, should have an equal share in the Punishment. Now, the truth is, the Soul of Adam, and of every Man else, hath the far greater share in all Sin; for the Body is but {αβγδ}, the Soul's Instrument, ainae famulus, the Soul's Servant: 'tis the Soul, which commands and enables the Body according to her own inclinations; and if the Body smart for acting amiss, is it fit that the Soul, which is the Spring of every Action, should quiter escape? Certain it is, if a Temporal Death had been the only Punishment of Adam's Sin, his Soul, though deepest in the Guilt, yet, being immortal, must have gone unpunished.  
And for this reason the Jewish rabbins, as Fagius cites them, did grant, 
Fagius ubi supra.  Duplici morte Adamum periisse, ainae scilicet& corporis; utrumque in homine peccavisse, animam scilicet& corpus, ideoque utrumque fuisse punitum: That Adam perished with a double Death, that of the Soul, and that of the Body too; that he sinned in both, and that therefore he was punished in both.  
Besides, though Adam's Body died, yet must it be raised again, and be made Immortal; and since Adam's Flesh, and every Man's else, must be re-united to their Spirits, and so exist without any End; if a Temporal Death were the only Punishment of Sin, the Resurrection would determine and put a final Period to it; and consequently there must be an Eternal Punishment in another World, unless we grant that the most profligate Wretches, who must be raised again and exist for ever, as well as the most virtuous and pious Souls, shall be equally and eternally happy; for, as to a middle State, there is none.  
But notwithstanding all this, our Socinian Author, according to his usual Confidence, makes bold to say, Hell is the Punishment, which is due to the breach of the second Covenant, and not of the first, and by consequence not to Adam's Transgression, which was a breach of the first Covenant only.  
This would be very comfortable Doctrine indeed, were it not false; for if it were true, it would secure from Hell all those Persons, how wicked soever, who are in no capacity to break the second Covenant. The conditions of this second Covenant are Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God; to both which those Nations of the World, who never heard of the Gospel, must needs be strangers. And as for natural Fools, and little Babes, who die in their Infancy, they cannot know what the second Covenant means, nor can they well be said either to break or keep it. Now, as the Laws of Men do not oblige us to Obedience, nor punish the want of it, till first they are made known; so neither doth the Law of the Gospel, or second Covenant, require Faith in Christ, or punish the defect of it, where Persons did not, nay could not know it.  
And yet what vast Numbers of such ignorant Persons are there, who miscarry and are damned for ever? The Psalmist tells us, 
Psal. 9.17.  The wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the Nations that forget God; but what should be the Reason? Is it because they did not perform the Conditions of a second Covenant, which they never heard of? that cannot be; the want of a Christian faith, and an Evangelical Repentance is not the Original cause of any Man's Damnation; but because Faith and Repentance are Secunda post naufragium tabula, the only means to prevent that Destruction, which we have otherwise deserved: the want of them doth leave men under that guilt, which they have already contracted; and expose them to that Eternal Punishment, which they have already deserved by breaking the first Covenant, whose Terms run thus, Do this, and live; but if not, die and be damned for ever, for so the Scriptures do often explain it.  
We cannot reasonably doubt, but the Grace and Mercy offered in the second Covenant was designed to deliver Mankind from that Curse, whereunto our Violation of the first Covenant had too justly rendered all Men obnoxious. Our Lord is called the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, 
John 1.29.  and that sin before our Saviour's time, was nothing else, but the Transgression of the natural Law amongst the Heathens, printed upon their Hearts, and a fairer Edition of the same delivered to Moses, with some positive Precepts among the Jews.  
Now, our Lord's business was, as the Angel said, 
Mat. 1.21.  to save his People from their sins, from the Dominion, Pollution, Guilt and Punishment of those Sins, with which the World then did, and still doth abound, through the manifold Breaches of the first Covenant, or Law of works. For that the moral Law is still in force, and that the Punishments of Hell are due to the Breach of this Law, this doting scribbler would not deny, were he not a double heretic; an Antinomian, as well as a Socinian. But were not this Law still in force, to what end did our Lord think fit to explain it? were it not still in force, how came our Blessed Saviour to recommend the punctual observation of it, as the ready way to Heaven and Happiness? and how came the Apostles to press Obedience to it with so much Zeal, and the strongest Motives, that could be thought on?  
And if the Punishments of Hell were not due, as this Man boldly asserts, to the Transgression of this Law, how comes St. Paul to tell us, 
Gal. 3.10.  Cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the Book of the Law to do them? 'tis evident from this Text, that the least Breach of this Law doth expose the Transgressors of it to the curse of God; and what that Curse contains, is evident from that Expression, Go ye cursed into everlasting Fire. 
Mat. 25.41. Gal. 3.13 1 Thes. 1.10  Accordingly our Lord, who is said, To redeem us from the Curse of the Law, is also said, To deliver us from the wrath to come, and doth not that import the Punishments of Hell?  
And indeed if our Lord had not delivered us from that Eternal Wrath, whereunto the Breaches of the first Covenant had exposed us, he had  shed his Blood in vain, and had delivered us from nothing at all: for from those Puments, which are due to final Impenitence and Unbelief, which are the grand Breaches of the second Covenant, there is no Man redeemed by any thing, which Christ hath done or suffered for us. Nay, 'tis so far from this, that a Man's refusal of that Grace and Mercy, which is offered to him upon the Terms of Faith and Repentance by the second Covenant, doth double that damnation, which he had deserved by breaking the first.  
But that the Breach of the first Covenant doth indeed deserve the Punishment of Hell, and that Christ hath freed all believers from it, this incredulous Author will not grant, because our Lord hath not freed believers from the Grave; for thus he saith, 'tis strange that Christ should free believers from one part of the Punishment, and not from the other; and then he adds, The Scriptures no where reveal this secret, and for that reason we need not believe it.  
But why this should seem a thing so very strange, what good reason can this Man give us? did he never hear of any merciful Prince, who spared a condemned Malefactor, as to his life, the loss whereof would have been his greatest Punishment, and yet, to make him the more sensible of his Crimes, detained him in prison perhaps all his days? doubtless 'tis an Act of Grace to give a condemned traitor his life, though his liberty be denied him. So in our present case, it was infinite Mercy in our Lord to rescue us from Hell, that place of Torment, though he should never free us from the Grave; which to a good Man is but {αβγδ}, a place of repose and rest; a place, where our Lord himself was pleased to lye; and the day is coming on a-pace, wherein our Lord will raise the Dead, and make every good man's body more than amends for all the utmost injuries which the Grave can do it.  
And as for Death, a religious man need not dread it; for to him, 
Phil. 1.21.  To die is Gain: Gain that is great, present, sure, and eternal. To him Death is but a sleep, Est consanguineus lethi sopor, saith one; nay, {αβγδ}, saith another; sleep and death are Cousin-germans; they are Fratres Gemelli, Brethren and Twins. When Lazarus was dead, our Lord expressed it thus, 
Joh. 11.11.  Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, and what harm is there in that? When a good man has done his day's work, and is wearied with the drudgery of this World, can it be any disadvantage to him, in the Evening of his Life to lye down and fall asleep? Again, when a good man death, he doth not suffer loss, but only make a change, and that for the better; he changeth {αβγδ}, Brass for Gold, Earth for Heaven, the Society of poor Worms for the Company of glorified Saints, and glorious Angels; and, which is best of all, for a more immediate Communion with God, and all this for ever. And if this be the Case of dying Saints, 'tis not, as this man thinks, strange at all, that our Lord, who hath secured them from Hell, hath not also saved them from Death and the Grave.  
Our Lord hath  told us, and there is great reason for it; It is enough for the servant to be as his Lord; 
Mat. 10.25  and if so, can it be strange that our Lord should permit his Servants to die, and lye in the Dust for a while, since he himself, and for their sakes, hath done so before them? If we consider, that our Blessed Saviour hath warmed our could Bed, and perfumed our Grave by lying in it; if we consider that he hath plucked out the sting of Death, and made it fit to be entertained within our bosoms; if we consider what will be the blessed and immediate consequences of our dissolution; every good man hath reason enough to esteem it, not as a part of his punishment now, though at first it was so, but as his privilege rather.  
But, saith this bold Author, The Scriptures do no where reveal this secret, and for that reason, we need not believe it: I answer, this is no secret, for the Holy Scriptures have very plainly revealed it, and therefore we are obliged to believe it.  
That our Lord hath not excused the very best of Men from Death and the Grave; the Scripture tells us, 
John 8.52. Rom. 5.12. Rom. 8.1. 1 Thes. 1.10  Abraham is dead, and the Prophets are dead, and in general, Death hath passed upon all men: But the same Scripture tells us, that our Lord hath secured all good men from Hell; what else doth St. Paul mean, when he saith, There is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus; and again, Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come: 'tis very evident from these and the like Texts, that our Lord hath indeed delivered all true believers from Eternal Torments, but not from a Temporal Death; from the greater part of our Punishment, but not from that, which was the lesser; and will this Socinian babbler blame our Lord for doing so? since of his Infinite Mercy he hath freed every good man from everlasting Burnings; shall we think much that he hath left us to undergo the short pangs of a natural Death, and the injuries of the Grave, that we might have the more Taste of the bitterness of sin, and become the more sensible of our great Obligations to him, who hath rescued us from the Extremity of that Divine Vengeance and endless Misery, which was so justly due to our Transgressions?  
That so it is, the Scriptures teach us in many places; there is no Truth more evident; and yet this Socinian is either so blind, that he cannot; or else shuts his Eyes, and will not see it; but wonders at it, and counts it strange.   

SECT. XXVII.  
THis Author, observing no Rules of Method, doth now abruptly attack another Argument used by Orthodox Divines, to prove the Divinity of Christ, and this it is:  
That Person, who hath been worshipped by good men, and ought to be so, is God: But our Blessed Saviour is a Person, that hath been worshipped by good men, and ought to be so; Ergo, Our blessed Saviour is God.  
The mayor Proposition being indisputable, for the proof of the Minor two things must be shewed: 1. The matter of fact, that out Lord hath been religiously worshipped in the most early times of the Gospel by very good men. 2. That our Lord ought to be so worshipped.  
1. That our Lord hath been religiously worshipped by very good men, even from the very Infancy of the Gospel, is very evident from several Texts. Those early Saints, who lived in the apostles Days, are described by this Character. They, 
Acts 9.10.  Who called upon thy Name— the Name of Christ; such as petitioned, gave thanks to him, both which are Acts of Divine Adoration.  
To this and the like Texts this man hath nothing to answer, save only this: 'tis hard to understand what is there meant by calling upon the Name of Christ: but why so hard? Doth not the familiar use of that same Phrase in abundance of Scriptures make its Sense obvious, plain, and easy? when the Psalmist complained of the Irreligion of the Heathen World, and expressed it thus; They have not called upon thy Name: 
Ps. 79.6.  did he not mean, that they had not performed that worship to God, which was his due? 
Rom. 10.13  when St. Paul saith, Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord, shall be saved; doth he not mean such Persons as offer up their Prayers and Praises to God, which are the chiefest parts of religious Worship? and if this be the usual Sense of this Phrase in these and many other Texts, who is it hard to think, that it should be of the same sense in this?  
Well, if such solemn Invocations be indeed such Acts of Religious Worship, which are due to none but God; 'tis evident that our Lord hath been esteemed a God by those pious Men, who made their Religious Addresses to him. Whilst he converted here below, he was petitioned for such favours, as none could bestow but a God. Thus prayed the Father of a distressed Child, Lord, help my unbelief; nay, as an Example more considerable, so prayed the Apostles: They said unto the Lord, 
Luk. 17.5.  increase our faith; 'tis sure, that faith is the gift of God, and so is that Grace and Peace, which, after our Lord's Ascension, St. Paul so often begged, from God the father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ. And methinks that dying Protomartyr St. Stephen, who prayed thus, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, should put this matter beyond all question.  
Now, can we think that all these Petitioners, who wanted and begged such great favours; especially they, who were inspired men, should mistake their benefactor, address themselves to a wrong Person, and beg such boons at a wrong door?  
But as good men in the Primitive times, and indeed ever since, have been wont to petition Christ for a supply of their greatest wants; so now, even Saints in Heaven do for ever bless him, as well as Saints on Earth, for such supplies, especially for those matchless kindnesses, which relate to another World. So St. John tells us, 
Apoc. l. 5, 6  To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood, be Glory and Power for ever and ever; And so again, 
Apoc. 5.12.  Worthy is the Lamb, that was slain, to receive Power, Honor, and Glory, and Blessing.  
Now, since Prayers and Praises, which are the main parts of Religious Worship, have been and still are, offered up to Christ by the very best of men on Earth, and Saints in Heaven; this is enough to clear the matter of fact, and convince this Author, that our Lord hath been religiously worshipped, and is so still.  
But, saith this Socinian Pamphleteer, no such Worship is due to Christ, nor ought a Divine Adoration to be paid unto him; and for this he gives us two Reasons, such as they are; 1. The first is this, The Scriptures do no where enjoin us to make Christ the Object of Divine Worship. 2. His second Reason is this; The Scriptures do rather expressly intimate the contrary, the worshipping of Christ is more clearly forbidden than required; so he: To both which I answer.  
1. That the Scriptures do no where require us to make Christ the Object of Divine Worship is an assertion, that is utterly false; for we find several commands for it.  
We red that Ananias, 
Oecumenius in locum  a devout man, and, as a learned Writer saith, one of the seventy Disciples, and a Deacon at Damascus, was sent by a special Commission to Saul, to give him this Command: Arise, 
Acts 22.16  and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord. Here Invocation, a solemn Act of Religious Worship, is required, and the Object of it is the Lord; but what Lord is it? Doubtless the same Lord, who had appeared to Saul in the way, and now sent Ananias to him, namely, our blessed Saviour; so thought St. Chrysostom, who thus expounds it, {αβγδ}, calling upon the Name of Christ; 
Chrysostomus in locum.  and by this injunction did Ananias, in effect, assure Saul that Christ is God, since it is not lawful religiously to invoke any other Name, but that of God; so that these words of Ananias to Saul, Wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord, do, in St. Chrysostom's judgement, import thus much: That blessed Person, whose Name is Jesus, whom thou hast lately persecuted, do thou now petition for thy pardon, do thou now worship and adore him as thy God.  
But if this Command from Ananias, though an inspired Person, were not a sufficient warrant for us to invoke, petition, and worship our blessed Saviour, we have another from himself; for thus he tells us, All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; I have already proved in another Section, that this {αβγδ}, even as, doth import {αβγδ}, honorem parem, an Equality of Honor, as the Greek and Latin Interpreters judge, and the Scriptures do warrant. And if so, since God the Father is, and ought to be honoured with a Religious Worship; this Text commands us to honour the Son so too.  
In short, the Father himself hath required such an Honour for his Son: St. Paul hath  told us so. When he bringeth his first begotten into the World, 
Heb. 1.6.  he saith, let all the Angels of God worship him: Certainly if Angels, who of all Creatures are the Noblest, and not the most obliged to our Blessed Saviour, must worship him notwithstanding; then are poor men, his only redeemed ones, much more bound to do so.  
'tis the known Precept both of the Law and the Gospel, 
Mat. 4.10  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; This is generally acknowledged to be every man's indispensible Duty; and if so, then all those Texts, which do assure us that Christ is our Lord and our God, do not only warrant, but implicitly and consequentially they do command us to pay him all that reverential respect and Religious Service, which is justly due to God. But,  
2. This Author is so far from believing the Truth of this, that he tells us, the Scriptures do rather intimate the contrary, they rather forbid than require the worshipping of Christ.  
To prove this, he cites our Lord's own words to his Disciples: 
Joh. 16.22.  In that day ye shall ask me nothing, from hence doth this man conclude, that our Lord forewarned his Disciples to pray to him, to beg any thing from him after his Ascension. To which I answer;  
The word {αβγδ}, in the Original Language; and the word Ask, in our own Tongue, are used in a double Sense; 1. They both do sometimes signify to inquire, or propound a question in case of doubt. 2. They both do sometimes signify to crave an Alms, to beg a gift in case of want.  
1. These words do sometimes signify to inquire, or propound a question in any case of doubt; and thus they are used in many places of the New Testament.  
And of this Sense doth this particular Text seem to be very fairly capable; for our Lord's Apostles had hitherto propounded several questions to him; Lord, whither goest thou? said St. Peter: Lord, who is it, that shall betray thee? 
Joh 13.36. V. 25.  So St. John; Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not to the World? 
Joh. 14.22. Acts 1.6.  So St. Judas; and after his Resurrection. Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? Now, to prevent future questions, our Lord tells them, In that day ye shall ask me nothing; ye shall have no need to propound to me any more questions at all; for, the spirit, whom I will sand you, shall resolve all your doubts, and teach you all things.  
That this first Sense of these words in this Text is at least very allowable, is the opinion of judicious men; 
Theophylactus in locum.  Theophylact expounds it thus; ye shall ask me nothing, {αβγδ}; no such question, as you lately did, as whither goest thou? 
Zegerus in locum:  &c. nay more, there is a learned critic, who supposeth that this sense of these words in this place may not only be allowed, but ought to be preferred before the other; for thus he writes: cum tàm {αβγδ}, quàm rogabitis, nunc Interrogationem, nunc Precationem indicet; hoc loci non Precationem, said Percontionem declaret: Although these two words do sometimes signify to pray, and sometimes to ask a question, yet in this Text they cannot signify the former, but the later. So Maldonate, 
Maldonatus in locum.  non dubium, quin hoc loco pro Interrogare positum sit: There is no doubt, but when our Lord saith, ye shall ask me nothing, he means no more questions; for, saith he, Nullis jam questionibus locus erit, omnia vobis mysteria patefient, ità ut nihil vobis opus sit interrogare: There shall then be no more occasion for inquiries, all Mysteries shall be plainly revealed unto you, so that ye shall have no need to move any further questions.  
So also do our own Interpreters understand this Text, as if our Lord had said, When that spirit is come, 
Hammondi Paraphrasis.  he shall have taught you all things, satisfied all the doubts and ignorances, that you shall not need ask me any more questions, so one single Divine; and thus a greater Number: 
English Annotations.  When ye shall see me risen from the dead, ye shall not then inquire of me those things, which ye now doubt of; you shall be taught of the Holy Ghost, and so understand these things.  
Now, if these words of Christ, ye shall ask me nothing, relate, not to Petitions in cases of want, but to Questions in cases of doubt; then is this Text very impertinently cited by this Man, to prove that the Scriptures do rather forbid than require us to make Christ the Object of Divine Worship, by praying to him.  
2. These words {αβγδ} in Greek, Rogo in Latin, Ask in English; do sometimes signify to beg an Alms, a kindness, such or such a favour, in case of some want and necessity; and thus are they often used in the New Testament.  
As to the use of these words in this particular Text, St. Chrysostom puts the question thus; {αβγδ}, what means our Lord, when he saith, ye shall ask me nothing? he adswers, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. And after him, Theophylact thus, 
Chrysostom& Theophylact. in locum.  {αβγδ}. As if our Lord had said, my Father himself will be so ready to grant all your just Requests, that ye shall have no great need to beg my Personal Intercession; for the very use of my Name will be enough to prevail with my Father for a supply of all your real Wants; so they. But that they should even thus interpret this Text: Miror saith Maldonate, I do somewhat wonder.  
St. Austin tells us, 
Augustin. in Joan. Tract. 101. p. 107. Tom. 9.  that to find out the true meaning of these words, ye shall ask me nothing, acrior necessaria est intentio: There needs a sharp and acute judgement, an extraordinary attention of mind, the Text being very difficult to be understood. But can this Socinian scribbler, or any man else of his opinion, produce the Authority of any Ancient Fathers, or other learned Divines, who affirmed these words, ye shall ask me nothing, to be an absolute prohibition from Christ, forbidding us to offer up our Prayers to him? Such an Inference from this Text, that great man St. Austin disclaims, and that with heat of zeal and indignation; for thus he writes: Quis andeat vel cogitare, vel dicere, in coelo sedentem Christum rogandum non esse? rogandum non esse Immortalem, rogari debuisse mortalem? What man dares to say, nay, to think that Christ, now sitting in Heaven, may not be invoked? was he to be petitioned even then, when he was a mortal man, and may he not be petitioned now in the State of his Immortality? 
Augustinus ibidem.  yes, St. Austin adviseth us to it, and that in relation to this very Text, which, as this man saith, doth rather forbid it; for, thus that Father writes: Rogemus eum, ut nodum quaestionis hujus ipse dissolvat, lucendo in cordibus nostris, ad videnda quae dicit: Let us pray to Christ, and beg, that he himself would untie this hard knot, enlightening our minds, that we may understand the true meaning of those things which he here delivers.  
But whatever the sense of these words may be, if our Lord did therein forbid his Apostles to ask any thing of him after his Ascension, either they did not understand this Command, or else they knowingly and frequently transgressed it; but we cannot reasonably charge them either with such gross ignorance, or with such wilful and repeated Acts of disobedience to a known Command of that Lord, for obeying whom they laid down their Lives.  
We red that our Lord, having blessed his Apostles, was partend from them, and went up to Heaven; and what then? the next news is this: 
Luk. 24.52  They worshipped him, but is it reasonable to believe, that they would so soon have worshipped their Lord, had he so lately forbid them that Religious Invocation, which is the most solemn part of Divine Worship? And methinks, St. Paul should know nothing of such a prohibition, when he so often begged Grace and Peace, as from God the Father, so from our Lord Jesus Christ; but, above all, St. Stephen must either be grossly ignorant of this Prohibition, or notoriously slight it, when, seeing our Lord standing at God's Right-hand; he directed his Prayer, not to God the Father, 
Acts 7.59.  but to the Son, breathing out this Petition, and his Soul immediately after it, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit: But that St. Stephen should be so extremely mistaken, as to address himself and his greatest and last Request to a wrong Object, cannot be reasonably supposed, since he was a man full of the Holy Ghost. 
Acts 7.55.   
In short, since these words of Christ, ye shall ask me nothing, are difficult to be understood; since the word, Ask, is, {αβγδ}, a word of various significations; and sometimes in case of want, and sometimes in case of doubt; and since in this later sense 'tis generally thought to be most applicable to this particular Text; 'tis impossible from hence to draw a conclusive Argument against our making Christ the Object of our Divine Worship, by offering up our Prayers to him; an Act, whereunto we are the more encouraged by the great Examples of inspired men, who, since the delivery of these words, ye shall ask me nothing, directed their Petitions to him, and adored him, as God, by their solemn and religious Invocations.  
But that unwarrantable Assertion, which this Text cannot prove, this Man endeavours to confirm by an Argument; for should we, saith he, put Christ instead of the true God, and make him alone the Object of Prayer and Thanksgiving, we should deprive him, as much as in him lieth, of his Mediatory Office; yea, and also deny the Godhead of the Father: This is the whole substance of his Argument. To which I answer;  
This man doth here seem to suppose a practise, which he obliquely imputes to us, who make Christ the Object of our Worship, as if we put him instead of the true God, and made him alone the Object of our Prayers and Thanksgivings. This Imputation is utterly false and altogether undeserved; for, indeed we cannot put Christ instead of the true God, except we can put him instead of himself; for the true God he is, and St. John plainly tells us so. Nor do we make the Person of Christ alone the Object of our Prayers and Thanksgivings; for we pray to the whole Trinity; sometimes severally to each Person, and sometimes jointly to them all. And in our Doxologies and Thanksgivings our known form is this, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; and how then do we make Christ alone the Object of our Worship?  
Nor do we by this practise, as this man slanderously insinuates, do any thing, which tends to deprive our Lord of his Mediatorship; we own, as St. Paul doth; That there is One, and, but One mediator betwixt God and Man, even, the Man Christ Jesus: We pray to him as our Advocate and only intercessor, that he will pled for us, and stand as a Reconciler betwixt his offended Father, and ourselves offending Sinners. And how this practise doth either rob Christ of his Office, or deny the Godhead of his Father, as this man affirms, I am yet to learn.   

SECT. XXVIII.  
THE next thing, which this Author attempts, is to discourse of Scripture Mysteries, and here his Design is to overthrow the Mysterious Doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, by charging it with Contradictions and Impossibilities: for, thus he writes;  
If we are to believe Mysteries, when clearly revealed, yet that doth not oblige us to believe Impossibilities and Contradictions; I answer,  
That we are to believe Mysteries, when clearly revealed from Heaven, is so certain a Truth, that if this Man doubt it, as he seems to do, he is an Infidel, as well as an heretic. But suppose, that we are so to believe, yet, saith he, it doth not from thence follow, that therefore we must believe Impossibilities and Contradictions. His meaning is, as is evident from the Design of his whole Book, that we are not bound to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity; because, in his opinion, there are Impossibilities and Contradictions in it.  
But doth this presuming mechanic perfectly understand the Infinite perfections of the incomprehensible God? Can he give us a just Account of his Eternity without Succession? Or his Omnipresence without Extension? Can he tell us, how any Being should be of and from itself, and yet such a Being there must be, and that without a Beginning? If this man doth not fully comprehend the Nature of God, the Infinity of his Essence, and the Extent of his unlimited Power, how dares he charge that doctrine with Impossibilities and Contradictions, which this great God hath so clearly and so frequently revealed for a certain Truth, and which this man doth not, cannot understand.  
But the Truth is, there is nothing of Contradiction in what the Scriptures deliver concerning the Trinity; we are there  told that there is but One true God, and we believe it; we are also there as plainly  told, that there are Three Persons in the Godhead, and we do equally believe that too, and so have the generality of good men done before us. 
Epiphan. in Pan. Haer. 74. p. 891.  So testified Epiphanius of his and former times, {αβγδ}. In the Holy Scriptures the Trinity is declared unto us, and is believed, and that without any curious Questions or Contentions about it; and so it was in the Ages before him; so he intimates elsewhere: 
Epiphan. in Pan. adv. Haer. l. 3. Tom. 2. p. 1084.  {αβγδ}. The Religion called Christian, by the good pleasure of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, hath been believed by all men, who pleased God in their respective Generations. 
Epiphanius ubi supra.  And this Trinity thus believed, he thus describes; {αβγδ}, &c. There are Three Holy ones, Three equally Holy, Three Subsistences, Three equal Subsistences, being each joined to one another, being of one Consent, one Godhead, and the same Power, &c. but then he adds, {αβγδ}. But as to the manner, how this should be, it must be left to these blessed Persons themselves to to teach us.  
And since the doctrine of the Trinity hath in all Ages been received as an undoubted Article of our Christian Faith, by the Generality of judicious men; we may conclude, that they, who believed it, discovered no Impossibilities, no Contradictions in it; and if there were none in their Ages, the doctrine being still the same, there can be none in ours. Indeed, were we  told, that there is but One God, and yet that there are Three Gods, this were a plain Contradiction, and consequently impossible that both the Propositions should be true; but when we are  told, that there is but One God, and yet Three Persons, each of which is God, there is no Contradiction in this; because their Divine Nature, Essence and Infinite Perfections are numerically the same. And although our shallow understanding cannot dive into this deep Mystery, nor apprehended how it should be so; yet ought we to be so far from judging it impossible, that we are obliged firmly to believe that so it is, because it is as clearly delivered in the Scriptures, and I think as consonant to human Reason, as some other Articles of our Faith, which yet most men within the Church pretend to believe.  
The Resurrection of the Dead is a doctrine attended with such Intricacies, and so many Difficulties, that human Reason scarce knoweth how to admit it for a certain truth, though indeed it be so. In St. Paul's time it was thought to be {αβγδ}, a thing Incredible, 
Origen. contra l. 5. p. 24. Edit. Cantabrig.  and Celsus in Origin stiles it {αβγδ}, a thing impossible, and yet we believe, not only that it may, but must be. Now, as there are some things in Nature, which are looked upon as Types, Emblems, and Representations of the Resurrection; so likewise are there some instances in Nature, which, though they cannot be urged as proofs for the certainty, yet may serve as useful illustrations to help our weak Apprehensions, and somewhat facilitate our belief as to the Possibility of the Trinity. As for instance; there is in every living Man a Rational, a Sensitive, and a Vegetive Soul; and yet the Soul of Man is but One; so here, there is in the Deity a Father, a Son, and an Holy Ghost, and yet the Deity is but One. Only here is the difference, Reason, Sense, and Vegetation, are but three essential and distinct Faculties, or Powers of one and the same Soul; whereas, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three essential and distinct subsistences in one and the same Godhead; and for the belief of this, the Scripture is our only authentic Warrant.  
But that we have there any such Warrant, this man denieth, and like one out of his wits tells us, When a Mystery is plainly expressed in some places of Scripture, if others more numerous and plain had affirmed the contrary, or had it been contradicted by any self-evident Principle of Reason, we might then have rejected the belief thereof as safely, and with as good Authority, as we now do that of the Popish Transubstantiation, which by the way is as expressly contained in Scripture, as is that of the Trinity; so he. To which I answer: In this expression there is both Blalphemy and falsehood.  
1. In this expression there is Blasphemy, and it lieth in that vile supposition of his, When a Mystery is plainly revealed in some places of Scripture, if others more numerous and plain had affirmed the contrary; in plain English, had God contradicted himself, a suggestion so blasphemous, a supposition so abominable, that he who raised it, wants and deserves a Room in Bethlehem, or in some other Mad-house.  
For this supposition can no way tend to promote this man's accursed Design; for, it doth insinuate, that the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity, which concession is enough for us, is plainly revealed in some places of the Scripture; and although he makes bold to intimate, that it is as plainly contradicted in many more; yet when he shall be at leisure to show us that such and such Texts, relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are inconsisted, and clash with one another: We doubt not, but we shall very easily and very fairly reconcile alone, and make up a perfect and lasting Peace, and a very friendly correspondence between them.  
2. In this expression of his our Author asserts a down-right falsehood; for he thus affirms, The doctrine of the Popish Transubstantiation, is as expressly contained in the Scripture, as is that of the Trinity.  
But is this man a Member of any reformed and Protestant Church? could the whole Society of Jesuits have said more in favour of their beloved Transubstantiation, and in so few words, than this man hath done? could he make good, what he hath said, he would well deserve a Cardinal's Cap, if not a Triple Crown.  
But there lieth a strong Prejudice against this unwarrantable Assertion; for if this doctrine of Transubstantiation be, as this man saith, as expressly contained in the Scripture, as is that of the Trinity; how came to it pass, that the one should not be received and established as an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith, as early as the other? Irenaeus tells us thus; 
Irenaeus adv. Hae. l. 1. c. 2.  {αβγδ}, &c. the Church, tho then dispersed throughout the whole World, received the doctrine of the Trinity, 
Ignatius in Ep. ad Philad.  {αβγδ}, from the Apostles and their Disciples; of whom Ignatius was one; who in his Epistles to several Churches, and particularly in the Inscription of that to Philadelphia, doth distinctly mention the Three Persons of the Trinity, which is an Argument that they were all owned and adored as one God in his early Days.  
So that for the general Reception and Belief of the doctrine of the Trinity, we may justly pled Prime Antiquity, even before the Days of Irenaeus Bishop of lions in France, in the second Century, a Disciple of Polycarp; and in the time of Ignatius, 
Isaaicus Vossius in praef. ad Igna. Epist.  whom Isaac Vossius stiles; Martyr gloriosissimus, Coaetaneus,& amicus Apostolorum, a most glorious Martyr, contemporary with the Apostles, and a Friend of theirs. But can any Plea of such Antiquity be justly offered for the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation? when this doctrine first began to be obtruded upon the Church as a necessary Article of the Christian Faith, we have this just Account from the Pen of a learned Man: 
Chemnit. in Exam. Concilii gridentini p. 271.  Innocentius Tertius circa Annum Domini millesimum ducentesimum in Lateranensi Concilio, modum conversionis, ante in Ecclesia non definitum, primus determinavit,& dogmati novo novam etiam indidit& accommodavit appellationem, &c. Pope Innocent the Third about the Twelfth Century in the Lateran Council was the first Man, who determined the manner, how the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are converted, into the real Body and Blood of Christ, and to this New doctrine, never defined till now, he gave and sitted a new Name, that of Transubstantiation.  
Now, may we not here very justly demand, whence was it that this doctrine of Transubstantiation should be utterly unknown to Prime Antiquity? if it be as expressly contained in the Scripture, as the doctrine of the Trinity; why was this so early and so generally professed, when the other was not so much as thought on? certainly, the only reason must be this: Ignatius, Clemens Romanus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and many other learned Men in the succeeding Ages, could find the doctrine of the Trinity clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures; but as for that Monster of Transubstantiation, they could there with their best Eyes find neither the word, nor the thing intended by it.  
For the Truth is, it is not there; 'tis a New doctrine, to which our Evangelists and Apostles were perfect Strangers; in all their Writings there is, not only no sure footing, but not so much as a plausible Pretence for it; 'tis opposed by Sense, by Reason, by several Scriptures, but countenanced by none; insomuch that although some learned Men, out of a base compliance with the Interests of the Roman Church, pled for it; yet we may justly think that they themselves do not, cannot believe it. The Scriptures, which deliver the doctrine of the Trinity are familiar, plain, and easy; such as must be understood in their common, natural, and literal Sense, and are uncapable of any other tolerable Interpretation. But those Texts, which are usually cited in favour of Transubstantiation, are improper, figurative, metonymical, and in a literal Sense impossible to be true.  
Such are those expressions of our Blessed Saviour, who said of the Bread being then in his Hand; This is my Body, 
Mat. 26.26.28. Luk. 22.20  and of the Wine, This is my Blood; and again, This Cup is the New Testament: All this is true in that Sense, which our Lord intended; but that must needs be Tropical; we cannot doubt, but Joseph spake truth, when interpreting Pharaoh's Dream, 
Gen. 41.26  he  told him thus; The seven good ki●e are seven years, and it was a truth, which was thus  told St. John; 
Apoc. 1.20.  The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches, and our Lord spake truth, when he said, I am the Door, the Vine, the Bread, which came down from Heaven, &c. All these Texts are fairly capable of a figurative Sense, but impossible to be true in any other.  
So here, when our Lord said of Bread and Wine; This is my Body, This is my Blood; his Speech must be metonymical, and his meaning must be this: Bread in this Sacrament shall be used by my Institution to represent my Body, and Wine my Blood, even as the seven golden Candlesticks represented the seven Churches. And thus do the Ancient Fathers, who never dreamed of Transubstantiation, expound this Text, Hoc est corpus meum, id est, 
tertul adv. Marc l. 4. c. 4. p. 458.  Figura corporis mei: This is my Body, that is to say, this is the Figure of my Body, so Tertullian. And thus St. Austin, Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, 
Ang. cont. Adimant. c. 12. p. 41  Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui: Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body, the Bread. St. Chrysostom stiles the Sacrament Bread and Wine; {αβγδ}, 
Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 82. Hierom. in Mat. 26.26  Tokens of Christ's Body and Blood. St. Hierom saith, that by this Bread and Wine our Lord was pleased; Veritatem corporis& saenguinis sui repraesentare, To represent the Truth of his Body and Blood: Now, if the Bread be, what Tertullian calls it, the Figure of Christ's Body; if it be as St. Austin saith, the sign of his Body; if the Bread and Wine be, as St. Chrysostom speaks, Symbols and Tokens; or, as St. Hierom expresseth it, Representations of our Lord's Body and Blood; then these words of Christ; This is my Body, This is my Blood, are metonymical; and being so: They give no countenance to the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
And since this Text doth not prove that doctrine, there is no other, that can so much as be pretended for it, without force and violence; 
Chemnitii Exam. Conc. Trident. p. 272.  nay, some Popish Writers themselves, as Chemnitius testifieth, do confess thus much; Nec verbis Scripturae, nec symbolis fidei, nec veterum sententiis cogi nos ad Dogma Transubstantiationis; we are not obliged to believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation by any word of Scripture, by any public Confession of the Christian Faith, nor by any declared judgement of Ancient Writers; whereas by every one of these Authorities the doctrine of the Trinity is confirmed and established.  
Nor is it any wonder that it should be so; for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is grounded upon such Texts, as every man of sense and reason, who is not intoxicated and miserable forestalled with groundless Prejudices, must needs aclowledge to be improper and metonymical; whereas the Doctrine of the Trinity is delivered in such words as are plain, easy, and uncapable of any figure. St. John saith, The word was God; again he saith of Christ, This is the true God. St. Thomas stiles him, My Lord, and My God. St. Paul stiles him, God blessed for ever; St. John saith, There are Three that bear record in Heaven; and our Lord himself hath name them; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now, are not all these Texts, familiar, obvious, and very intelligible? Can we imagine, that any Trope should be in them? the generality of the most judicious Interpreters have understood them in their literal sense; and why they should now be expounded any other way, neither this Man, nor any of his Abettors, will ever be able to give us one solid reason.  
And yet this illiterate mechanic, in conformity to the rest of his Book, makes bold to affirm this notorious falsehood, That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is grounded upon the literal sense of a Text or two, which being so understood, can never be true, is as expressly contained in the Scripture, as the Doctrine of the Trinity, which yet is built upon such plain Texts, wherein no figure can be found; nor can they fairly be understood in any sense, save only that which is literal.   

SECT. XXIX.  
FRom hence this Author proceeds to discourse of Faith and Reason; and here he tells us, That our Faith doth not bind us to give our assent to that, which we see no Reason to believe: And again he saith, No kind of Faith can be true, which is certainly unreasonable. And for that his Argument is this: The light of Nature is as much God's law, as Divine Revelation, and none must ever think, that God's law can contradict itself: But why then did this very Man in one of his former Paragraphs suppose it?  
Well, by all this he means, that we are not obliged by our Faith to assert the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity, nor consequently to that of the Trinity, because human Reason is not able to apprehended how one and the same numerical Nature should equally subsist in Three distinct Persons, and how the Divine and human Nature should meet and be united in One: To which I answer;  
The ground, rule, and measure of Theological Faith is the Testimony of God, not human Reason; and this Divine Testimony, which is the only standard of saving Faith, is recorded in our Bibles, and we are obliged to believe whatever we find to be clearly delivered therein for a truth, tho' the matter of it be so sublime, that the low understanding of Man cannot reach it. It was necessary for the Jewish Nation to give a firm assent to that Prediction, Behold, 
Isa. 7. 1●  a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son; and yet such a Conception and Birth, according to the common Course of Nature, to human Reason must seem impossible. And are we not all obliged to believe the Creation of the World out of nothing, and the Resurrection of the Dead out of intermingled and scattered Atoms, both which have been derided by Men of great Reason, as if these great Doctrines were no better than ridiculous Fables?  
But when we consider the Veracity and Omnipotence of God, we have all reason undoubtedly to believe whatever he hath revealed for a truth; his {αβγδ}, Ipse dixit, is sufficient; for, who dares question the Power of that great God, who by a word created the Universe? and who dares suspect the Truth of the same God, for whom it is impossible to lie? All that the Reason of Man hath to do about Doctrines of Faith, is only this; we are to exercise our understandings to their very utmost capacity, and to use the very best helps we can get, to find out the true meaning of such or such a Text; and when once that is done, whatever Doctrine may be contained in any Text being rightly understood, we must not dispute its possibility, we must not oppose our own reasonings to it, but readily embrace it as an object of our Faith.  
And whereas this Man saith, The light of Nature is as much God's law, as Divine Revelation; we grant, that the primitive and uncorrupted light of Nature during that very short time of Man's Innocence, was so indeed. There was then in Man, as the School-men speak, Cognitio plena& lucida, clara& fixa contemplatio intelligibilium; Adam, say they, habuit scientiam omnium naturaliter scibilium, He had the knowledge of all things, which by natural Principles might be known. But is it so with us now? do not even the things of Nature and their occult Qualities puzzle the most improved understandings of Men? how was that great Philosopher Aristotle himself confounded, and perplexed in his uncertain thoughts, about the motions of Euripus? was it not the confession of Socrates, that all his natural light served only to convince him of his own darkness and ignorance, that the only thing, which he certainly knew, was that he knew nothing? and how very little doth Man know of himself? how little doth he know of Angels? and how much less of God? there is still the same Objectum cognoscibile, the same objects of knowledge; but our Virtus cognoscitiva, our knowing faculty, is strangely altered for the worse.  
The light of Nature, by and ever since Adam's Fall, hath been eclipsed; the law of Nature hath been so miserable blurred and blotted, that God Almighty, being moved by his own mercy and our necessity, was pleased to give us a new and fairer Edition of it in the Decalogue, and expositions of it in other parts of our Bibles. And for this we stand much obliged to Heaven; for the law, written in the heart, being so strangely obliterated, there was great need of a fresh and clear Transcript in the Book; the light of Nature was indeed for a short time, 
Prov. 20.27.  the only Candle of the Lord; but now, there being a Thief got into it, and a great deal of snuff lying in it; the clearer light of Revelation was become so absolutely necessary, that God was pleased to sand his Prophets, his Apostles, and his own Son, to inform the World, and to rectify those gross Errors in matters both of civil Manners and religious Worship, into which the dim light of Nature had lead the generality of Mankind.  
The light of our corrupted Nature is now, at best, but a small and diminutive light, and hath often proved a false light too; compared with the light of Divine Revelation, 'tis no more than the light of a Glow-worm to that of a Star, or the light of a small Spark to that of the Sun. Now, since this Man will not believe the Doctrine of the glorious Trinity, which the light of Divine Revelation hath so clearly discovered, because he cannot apprehended it by the dim Light of Nature; let him take heed, lest that light of Nature, upon which he so much depends, as to believe nothing true, which that doth not discover, do not in the end prove darkness; for, if it do, 
Mat. 6.23.  How great is that darkness?  
But our Author goeth on, and to magnify the reason of Man, he tells us, 'tis the agreement even of the Scripture with human Reason, that makes us know it to be the word of God; so he. To which I answer;  
The Precepts of the Scripture, being morally good, just, and equal, are very agreeable to the right reason of Man; an enlightened understanding cannot but like them well; but this is not the only Character, whereby the Divinity of the Scriptures may be proved. Indeed, were its Precepts unholy, and contrary to the dictates of sound reason, it could not be the word of God; but yet the agreeableness of its Commands to the rectified reason of Man, is not enough to evidence that it certainly is so. For we find many excellent Precepts of the same kind with those in the Scripture delivered by Heathen Moralists, whose Writings yet are not counted sacred.  
But we know the Scriptures to be the word of God by evidences of another kind. As for instance; 'tis impossible that the Scriptures should be the word of Men or Angels, good or bad, as might be easily proved; and if so, they must needs be from God. And that indeed they are so, may be further evidenced by the exact accomplishment of such Prophecies, as foretold the most improbable Events; to which I need add no more Proofs, save only those stupendious Miracles, which were often and openly wrought purposely to confirm those Doctrines, which our Bibles contain; Miracles not only delivered in the Scripture, but attested and recorded by other Writers.  
These are some of those motives, which induce us to believe that the Scriptures are the infallible word of that God, by whose certain Prescience such future Events were foretold, and by whose Omnipotence, such miraculous Works, as astonished their Spectators, were effected. But as to the agreement of Scripture with human Reason, to urge that, as this Author seems to do, as the only or principal Medium, whereby we may prove or know its Divinity, is a new way of arguing: a topic, which being alone without the conjunction of other and better Evidences, is, I think, peculiar to this Man only.  
But I must crave to mind this Person, that there are in the Scriptures some matters of Speculation, some Doctrines of Faith, which are not very suitable to human Reason; but far above the capacity of finite understandings. Such is the Doctrine of the Creation; for, Ex nihilo nile fit, saith the Reason of Man; and such is the Doctrine of the Resurrection, which Men of great understanding have thought to be needless, inconvenient, and impossible. And such is the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity, and the Union of the Divine and human Natures in the Person of Christ; Doctrines transcending the highest reach of human Understandings; and yet being contained in the word of God, there lieth upon every Christian a necessary obligation to believe them.  
To this our Author, in his 46th page., makes this reply; A Just God can never lay on us a necessity of submitting to those Terms and Conditions of Salvation, which we cannot possibly understand: So he.  
Bold worm! who dares not only deny the Divinity of the Son, but also dispute the Justice of the Father; but suppose that God had dealt with Men, as he dealt with Angels; suppose that he had propounded to us no Terms of Salvation, had he even so been unjust? if not, since his own free mercy inclined him to offer us some Conditions; is it fit, that He or We, should choose them? and if his conditions do not please us, must we presently charge him with injustice, as, in effect, this Man doth? But, let him tell us, whether God, whose we are upon all accounts, may not, without any breach of his own Justice, command his Creature Man to do any thing, which may be lawfully done, in order to his Salvation? if he may, then may he justly require us to believe the Truth of all his own Revelations, tho' the matter, contained in some of them, be far above our comprehension.  
True it is, we cannot apprehended how the Divine Nature, which is numerically but One, should be communicated to Three distinct Persons, and entirely subsist in each; nor are we able to apprehended the manner how the finite Nature of Man, should be united to the infinite Nature of God in the Person of Christ, {αβγδ}, without conversion, confusion, or possibility of separation for ever. But though we cannot comprehend these matters; yet our reason tells us, that we ought to believe them, because the Scriptures do declare them either in express Terms, or by undeniable Consequences.  
So that about these mysterious Points we are not to consult our reason, whether it be fit to believe them; but whether the Scriptures rightly understood do indeed contain them; and if once we find them there, our own Understandings must needs submit to Divine Revelation, and own them all, how difficult soever they be, as the undoubted Truths of God.  
Now, whether the true meaning of such or such a Text be this or that, the Reason of Man must be the Judge; and consequently Men of the most improved Understandings, being also pious, sincere, and impartial, are the fittest Persons in the World to determine, upon mature advice and deliberation, regard being had to the Analogy of Faith and all necessary Circumstances, whether such or such a Text do signify so or so.  
This being thus premised, I do now appeal to every impartial Reader, whether it be not more safe, and more reasonable for us to understand those Texts, which are usually produced to prove the Trinity, as the most, the best the most devout, the most learned, and the most judicious Writers of the catholic Church have generally understood them, than to understand them as this Man, and a few more of his opinion, do interpret them against the judgement of Prime Antiquity, and the received Faith of the Christian Church in succeeding Ages.   

SECT. XXX.  
THE Doctrine of the Trinity being thus far opposed, and denied by this Seraphical Divine; he now attempts the Work of a Casuist, debating, or rather determining the future State of all them, who believe that Doctrine, which he disowns; and the best thoughts, which he entertains concerning us poor silly Trinitarians, he declares in this undoubted Maxim of his Salvation, and the belief of the Trinity are not inconsistent: So he.  
This favourable Aphorism contains the very highest Charity, which, in this Man's opinion, can be extended to us, or to any of those pious Persons, who formerly lived and died in the Faith of the Trinity; the whole of his kindness lieth in this, that although he thinks us to be very near the Suburbs of Hell, because we believe, what his infallible Reason tells him cannot be; yet he doth not universally exclude us from all hopes of Heaven.  
And though this Act of Charity be in itself but very small, yet in a Man of his Principles 'tis somewhat strange; 'tis such, as in him cannot arise from Nature, judgement and Deliberation, unless he resolve to contradict the Scriptures in this, as he often doth in other matters. For, considering his Principles, through his groundless Charity, he thinks some of us to be in a capacity of Heaven, not only without a warrant, but even against the express Testimony of God. For, this Man, who denieth the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, doth well know, that we adore them both as God, and give them the self same Worship and Honour, which we give to God the Father; and if so, this Man, who believes that Christ and his Spirit are not God, must needs count us, who worship both as God, to be down-right Idolaters; that such we live, that such we die; and were we such indeed, St. Paul tells what our fate must be, when he saith, Idolaters shall not inherit the Kingdom of God: And if so, how comes this Man, who esteems us to be obstinate and impenitent Idolaters, to lay down this positive Conclusion, Salvation and the belief of the Trinity are not inconsistent? may not any Man of his opinion say as well, Salvation and Idolatry, persisted in, and without Repentance, are not inconsistent; though St. Paul be of another mind?  
But this excess of his superlative Charity this Man thought fit by and by to qualify and moderate thus; Doubtless the belief of a Trinity mu●● needs much lessen the future happiness of pious and just Men, though not wholly debar them of their Salvation; so he.  
'tis well for us, that this Man will allow us any place, Inter sanctorum pedes, even the lowest Room in Heaven; it will be happy for us, if we can but shine like the Stars in the Via lactea, those gems of the least Magnitude; but why this assuming Person should reserve and appropriate the highest Orbs, the greatest Degrees of Glory, to and for Men of his own persuasion, I am yet to learn. But this I know, that his great Grandfathers Ebion, Cerinthus, Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Socinus, and some others with their Successors, do stand condemned by the catholic Church for a Pack of heretics, and have been sufficiently proved to be such indeed; and if so, I cannot think that they are like to be advanced to the most glorious Mansions in Heaven, since heresy, as well as Immorality, if St. Paul saith true, doth debar Men from having any Room there at all.  
However, as to the Degrees of future Glory, the Doctrine of the Schools is this; they tell us, that in Heaven there is, Aurea& Aureola, this latter they style, Praemium essentiale additum, an Additional Reward over and above that, which is essential to the happiness of glorified Saints in common. 
Aquin. in suppl. qu. 96. Act. 1●& 11.  Aquinas describes it thus, Corona quaedam non omnibus, said quibusdam specialiter reddita; a certain Crown bestowed not upon all Saints, but upon some particular Persons for some special Reasons. And who those most happy Persons are like to be, he elsewhere tells us, Virgines, Martyres, Praedicatores, Virgins, Martyrs, and Preachers. Now, we cannot doubt, but there have been many Trinitarians, in whom these three Characters have happily met; such as were untainted Virgins, noble Martyrs, and laborious Preachers too. Tell me then, shall their belief of the Trinity eclipse their Lustre, and intercept any part of their future Glory? shall their Faith diminish, and pare off one jot of that great Reward, whereunto their virtues did entitle them? If this Man thinks so, let him prove it at his leisure; for as yet he hath done no more than boldly affirmed, that doubtless so it is, and needs must be so; but he hath yet given us no good reason why.  
There is indeed one Text, which he cites, as if it gave some countenance to his opinion: I mean that of the Apostle, which this Man doth falsely transcribe, 
1 Cor. 3.10  but thus it runs: If any man build upon this foundation, Wood, Hay, Stubble, he shall suffer loss, yet himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire; where by Wood, Hay, and Stubble, Theophylact means, {αβγδ}, 
Theophyl.& Chrysost. in locum.  the evil Actions of a vicious Life; and before him St. Chrysostom, who saith, {αβγδ}. 'tis manifest that St. Paul here speaks of works, and means the Man, whose Faith is right, but his Life is nought: Now, the Text thus understood is nothing to this Man's purpose, unless he can prove that the belief of the Trinity tends to make its professors more vicious than their opposers.  
But withal, by this Wood, Hay, and Stubble, may well be meant such and such Doctrines, as are not Orthodox: Doctrina minùs sincera, minúsque solida, 
Estius in locum.  velut si sit humanis, aut Philosophicis, aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta plùs satis, &c. So one; and thus another: 
Cornel. à lap. in locum.  Propriè ad mentem& scopum Apostoli, lignum, foenum, stipula, est Doctrina incerta, frivola, pomposa, phalerata, curiosa, inutilis. And so our own Divines: By Wood, Hay, 
English Annotations.  and Stubble, St. Paul means, vain and curious subtleties, or Philosophical Conceits, all kind of teaching which serves to Ostentation, and not to Edification. Accordingly St. Hierom tells us, that the Persons here pointed at by St. Paul, are Magistri& doctors, such Preachers, as do, pravè instituere, teach their Flocks amiss, delivering such Doctrines, as are either false or foolish; and of these St. Paul saith, They shall suffer loss; if they be otherwise vicious, they shall have no reward; but if they be otherwise virtuous, and repent of their Errors, yet their Reward shall be so much the less.  
Now, this Text doth this Man city to prove this bold Assertion of his, Doubtless the belief of a Trinity must needs much lessen the future happiness of pious and just Men, as if by reason of this Faith of theirs they were in the Number of those Men, of whom St. Paul saith, They shall suffer loss▪ Their reward shall be diminished, and that barely, because they believed and adored the Trinity. This indeed is here very confidently avouched, but this Text can never make it good, unless it can first be proved that the Doctri● of the Trinity is, Wood, Hay, or Stubble, frivolous or erroneous; for, if it be true, weighty, and necessary, as certainly it is, and hath been sufficiently proved to be so; we may venture to call it, as St. Paul here doth; Gold, Silver, precious Stones: for indeed the Price of our Redemption depends upon it.  
But there is yet something worse behind; for, our Author goeth on thus: In case Men of false Principles( meaning us Trinitarians) are  told plainly that they are in the wrong, and yet they still do obstinately persist therein, and refuse to consider seriously the Arguments both of Scripture and Reason, that are offered( in his Book) to convince them, I see not how in any case 'tis possible for such to be saved: So he.  
The sum of which amounts to thus much; that if we are not so far convinced by his Book. being designed by himself to end this controversy, as to submit our own understandings to his better judgement, and to renounce the Doctrine of the Trinity, in his opinion, we cannot possibly be saved; as if all his Arguments were infallible Demonstrations, and his sorry Pamphlet were the Canon of Faith.  
But how comes this Man, who newly  told us, that Salvation and the belief of a Trinity are not inconsistent, so quickly to damn so many of us? 'tis because we are not convinced by his reasonings, because we give not more credit to his Book, than to our Bibles; 'tis because we are not prevailed with by his Authority, to forsake that Established and catholic Faith, which the strongest Arguments of all its opposers as yet could never shake. We are well assured that Ignatius, Clemens, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Basil, Tertullian, Cyprian, and many more Fathers, Confessors, and Martyrs in succeeding Ages, were never removed from this Faith of theirs by all the Pretences of Ebion, Cerinthus, Arius, Sabellius, Eunomius, Photinus, and other heretics; but they lived and died in the constant belief of the Trinity; and yet notwithstanding what this Man saith, we do not doubt, but these obstinate Trinitarians are very safely got to Heaven, and therefore not one whit the worse for being such.  
Nor can this Man justly charge either the ancient or modern Defenders of the Trinitarian Doctrine, with any refusal to consider seriously the Arguments both from Scripture and Reason, that have been offered against it. Was not the whole controversy maturely debated? were not the Scriptures on both sides examined? were not the Arguments of Arius duly weighed, and fairly answered by Athanasius in the Council of Nice? the Council of Constantinople condemned Macedonius; the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius; the Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches; and dare this Man so far charge these reverend Councils, as to say that they were rash in their determinations, and branded Men for heretics, without considering what they could say in defence of their opinions? did not St. Basil, and Gregory Nyssen, first consider, duly examine, and then baffle the Arguments of Eunomius? did not Tertullian take the same course against Praxeas, and St. Austin against Maximinus an Arian Bishop; and other heretics? and do not our modern Divines use the same method still? for how can we answer Socinian Arguments, if we do not duly consider them first? and if we do, why doth this Man insinuate and suppose the contrary?  
But since upon a strict Scrutiny, we find such Arguments to be but weak; since we find the Scripture to be abused, and wrested from its natural sense; since we find human Reason stretched beyond its just limits, employed about matters above its reach; nay, opposed even to Divine Revelation; since the case stands thus, though we are not convinced by any Socinian Arguments yet produced against the Trinity; yet do we not by resisting them, as this Man saith, Reject the Counsel of God, or do despite to the Spirit of Grace.  
And here I may take a fair occasion to retort this, or a like Argument upon this Man himself, and all others of his opinion, and tell them, If Men of false Principles, I mean our Socinians, will walk by a dim Candle of their own in defiance to the clear Light of God's glorious Sun; if they will set up their own dark Reason, in opposition to the perspicuous Evidences of Divine Revelation; if they will obstinately persist in an Heretical opinion, though the Scriptures and strong Arguments thence fairly deduced, are clearly against it; though I will not pass a final Sentence up on their future State; though I will not say of them, as this Man, in effect, doth of us, that 'tis impossible for them to be saved; yet say I will, that they are in great danger of damnation.  
And this I take to be the judgement of the catholic Church; why else is that Creed, which bears the Name of Athanasius, received and owned as a System of the true and undoubted Faith? This Creed, having first declared the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Union of the Divine and human Natures in the Person of Christ, concludes thus, This is the catholic Faith; which except a Man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved; which words import not only a danger, but a certainty of Damnation.  
Doubtless Athanasius himself, or whosoever else compiled and collected this Creed out of his Writings, would never have passed so severe a Censure without a very good Ground, and a sufficient Warrant for it. And were that substance of this Creed any way Heterodox and Erroneous, or were its dreadful Epiphonema, and concluding Sentence rash and groundless; we cannot imagine that the Christian Church, from Age to Age should, not only embrace it, but insert it into her Liturgies, command all her Ministers to subscribe it, and to proclaim it often in our public Congregations, thereby requiring every Man's assent unto it.  
Nor is this done without very good Reason; for our Lord himself hath said, He that believes not, 
Mar. 16.16  shall be damned; This Sentence is very plain and positive; and 'tis pronounced by the great Judge of Men and Angels, from whom there is no appeal; the only question is, what are those Objects of Faith, whereunto we must give our assent, or else be damned? Doubtless, 'tis not the whole History recorded by Moses and the Prophets; nor is it every truth delivered by our Evangelists and Apostles; there are in both our Testaments several things, whereof a Man may be ignorant without any hazard of his Salvation. But those Doctrines, which are absolutely necessary to be believed in order to it, are the Prime Fundamental Articles of our Creed; amongst which the Doctrine of the Trinity is One, and a very great One too. For,  
1. The main Foundation of our Christian Faith is this; That our blessed Saviour hath fully satisfied the Divine Justice for the Sin of the World: For, if this be not so, then is every Man left to satisfy for himself, which yet no Man can ever do, and consequently all Men without our Lord's satisfaction must perish for ever.  
Now, if the Doctrine of the Trinity were not true, no such satisfaction could be supposed: For, if there be but one Person in the Godhead, as this Man dreams, then our blessed Saviour is not God; and if he be not God, then could he not satisfy the demands of an offended and Infinite Justice for the Sin of Man.  
But that our Lord hath fully satisfied the Divine Justice is the firm Belief of the catholic Church, and 'tis grounded upon several Texts. 'tis said, 
Heb. 9.12.  He hath obtained eternal Redemption for us; but how did he do it? did it cost him nothing? St. Paul answers, 
1 Cor. 6.20.  We are bought with a Price; we are bought, there's the Purchase; with a Price, there's the Consideration paid. And what this Price was, the same Apostle elsewhere tells us, 
Act. 20.28.  God hath purchased his Church with his own Blood; and our Lord himself saith, 
Mat. 20.28  The Son of Man hath given his life a ransom for many. Certainly these Terms of buying, purchasing, redeeming, and ransoming, must needs imply a sufficient satisfaction offered, accepted, and paid.  
Now, to say, as this Man doth, that all these expressions are improper and figurative, is, not only to contradict the general judgement of the catholic Church, but even to elude the Scriptures, and force them to say, whatever Men think fit to countenance an ill opinion, and barely to serve a turn.  
But by virtue of these, and many more Texts, we stand obliged to believe that our Lord hath indeed completely satisfied the Infinite Justice of his offended Father, and the doing thereof must needs prove him God; for 'tis impossible that the Blood of any more Man could do it. And this is enough to prove, that there are at least Two Persons in the Godhead, the one satisfied, the other satisfying. And this I take to be a fundamental point of our Religion, the belief whereof is necessary to our Salvation.  
2. 'tis a fundamental point of our Religion, to believe that our Blessed Saviour ought to be Religiously worshipped, and adored.  
For our Lord himself hath  told us, That all men should honour the Son, 
John 5.23.  as they honour the Father, as I have proved in a former Section, with equal honour. The Apostles did so, 
Luk. 24.52  They worshipped him, and so do glorified Saints and Angels in Heaven. Blessing, Honour, Glory, 
Apoc. 8.13.  and Power, be unto him that sits upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever, and ever: And this was no more than God the Father had commanded; When he bringeth the first begotten into the World, he saith, 
Heb. 1.6.  And let all the Angels of God worship him; and surely, if the whole Hierarchy of Heaven are commanded to worship our Lord, the whole Race of Men are much more obliged to do so too.  
And certainly this religious Worship and Divine Honour, which is, and ought to be, done to Christ, is enough to prove his Godhead; for, the Command runs thus; 
Mat. 4.10.  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Now, since we are forbid to worship any Creature, and yet commanded to worship Christ; 'tis plain, that he is more than a Creature; but that he cannot be, if he be not God.  
The belief of this, and a religious practise suitable to such a Faith, seems absolutely necessary to Man's Salvation; for, our Lord hath said, 
John 8.24.  If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your Sins; what He doth he mean? certainly the very same, whom the Scriptures report him to be; and what say they concerning him? 
John 1.1.  The word was God; This is the true God, 
1 Joh. 5.20.  the mighty God, the everlasting Father, God blessed for ever. Thy Throne, O God, 
Isa. 9.6.  is for ever, and ever. Now, If ye believe not, 
Rom. 9.5. Heb. 1.8.  that I am such an He, as these Texts import, ye shall die in your Sins.  
But if we shall leave out this pronoun He, which our translators thought fit to supply; and render the Text exactly according to it's Original, the sense will be the same, and the words must run thus: If ye believe not, {αβγδ}, That I am. Now, since this Title, I am, is peculiar to God, 'tis as if our Lord had said, If ye believe not that I am God, ye shall die in your Sins: And if so, what is like to become of our Socinians, who deny the Divinity of Christ, and refuse to give our Lord that religious Worship and Adoration, which he deserves, expects, and most justly claims? For they, who in this sense, deny our Lord, before Men, have great cause to fear, that our Lord, may deny them before the Angels of God. 
Mar. 8.38.   
3. 'tis a fundamental point of our Religion to believe, that the Holy Ghost is God, and consequently, that he ought to be religiously worshipped and adored.  
This we learn from several Texts; that, which contains our Saviour's Form of Baptism is one, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, 
Mat. 28.19  and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: That of St. John is another; 
1 John 5.7.  There are Three that bear record in Heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One: That of St. Paul is a third; The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
2 Cor. 13.14.  and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. In these and other Texts, the Holy Ghost is mentioned as a Person distinct from the Father, and the Son, but joined with both as one of the same Rank, Power, and Authority with them. And because he is indeed in all Respects of equal Dignity with them, 
Acts 5.4.  St. Peter gave him the same high Title, and plainly styled him God.  
And upon the account of his Godhead, St. Paul thought fit to leave us these necessary Cautions, 
Eph. 4.30. 1 Thes. 5.19  Grieve not the Holy Spirit, and again, Quench not the Spirit; and for the same reason doth he tell us, that it is a most dangerous thing, To do despite to the Spirit of Grace; 
Heb. 10.29.  so dangerous it is to sin highly against this blessed Spirit, that our Lord himself hath  told us; 
Mat. 12.31, 32.  Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him; but why should this Sin be unpardonable, rather than any Sin besides, if the Holy Ghost be not God? And if he be so, 'tis necessary to our Salvation, that we own and worship him as such, lest otherwise we contract upon ourselves the guilt of that Sin, which is irremissible.   

SECT. XXXI.  
AND how this Socinian author can acquit himself from all Degrees of this unpardonable Sin, I cannot tell; for, though he doth not blaspheme this blessed Spirit at the same rate, as the Jews once did; yet he designs, attempts, and doth whatever he can, to disprove his Personality, as if he were no more than a Quality, or Power of God the Father, but not a Divine and distinct Being subsisting by himself. For with a world of confidence he tells us thus; 'tis plain from the general Analogy of true Faith, grounded on Scripture evidence, that the Holy Ghost is no distinct Person subsisting of himself: So he.  
But if this indeed be so plainly delivered in the Word of God; how comes it to pass, that such vast Numbers of judicious, learned, and pious Men, well versed in the Holy Scriptures, could never yet see it there? well, to inform us better, and to convince us of this pretended Truth, tho' it be a real heresy, he urgeth this sorry Argument. If the Holy Ghost be a distinct Person, then 'tis clear that our Lord could not be the Son of him, who is now called God the Father, since 'tis plain that the Virgin Mary's conception was occasioned by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. To which I answer thus;  
1. Our Lord, in respect of his Divine Nature, is the Son of the first Person only; and that Person alone, upon that account, is often called, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And our Lord himself, upon the same ground only is properly styled sometimes, the begotten, and sometimes, the only begotten Son of God; a Title, which cannot fairly belong to him in respect of his Manhood.  
2. Our Lord, in regard of his human Nature, may not unfitly be called the Son of the whole Trinity; the first Person contriving his Incarnation, the second freely consenting to it, and the third effecting it; and this doth rather prove than hinder the distinction of their Persons.  
And now let us try the strength of this Man's Argument; The Holy Ghost, saith he, is not a distinct Person in the supposed Trinity, but why not? his Reason is this: Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost is styled the Son of the first Person, or God the Father; and if so, it should seem that God the Fataer, and the Holy Ghost, are not personally distinguished; That's the Substance of his Argument: To which I thus reply;  
1. Our Lord was the Son of the first Person, long before his Conception of the Holy Ghost.  

Athan. in Ep. ad Epict. p. 583.  Accordingly Athanasius stiles him, {αβγδ}, and again, {αβγδ}, the Son of God before Mary's time, the Son of his substance, his natural Son, even by an eternal Generation; a Generation sure, but inexplicable. 
August. d● natal. Dom. Ser. 8. T. 10. p. 128.  For, as St. Austin demands, Quis enarrabit, quomodo natus sit Deus de Deo, nec Deorum numerus creverit? Who can declare how a God was born of a God, and yet the Number of Gods not increased? but that so it is, this great Man took for granted: For, preaching upon a Christmas Day, 
August. de natal. Dom. Ser 18. T. 10. p. 133.  he  told his Hearers thus: Hac die est natus ex virgin master, qui ante saecula aeternus est genitus ex Deo Patre. This Day was he born of the Virgin his Mother, who was begotten of God his Father before all Ages, even from Eternity. So then, our Lord, upon this account, may very well be called, for doubtless he is, the Son of the first Person; and yet this first Person may be, and is, distinguished from the third, because in this Eternal Generation of the Son, the Holy Ghost was no way concerned. But,  
2. We grant that our Lord, as being in his human Nature conceived by the Holy Ghost, was to be called, as the Angel  told his Mother, the Son of God, but how this proves, that God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, are not Personally distinguished, I cannot tell.  
For, the Angel doth not say, He shall be called the Son of God the Father, the first Person only, excluding the second and the third. Nor may we here restrain the Name of God to the first Person only; for our Lord, the second Adam, as well as the first, was the Son of God by Creation; a Work, wherein the whole Trinity had an equal hand. And whereas the Creation of our Lord's human Nature is here particularly ascribed to the Holy Ghost; and whereas 'tis said, Therefore that holy thing shall be called the Son of God, the most genuine and natural inference, which can thence be raised, is this; namely, that the Holy Ghost is God.  
But this our Socinian denieth, and tells us, 'tis evident from these additional words, And the Power of the highest shall overshadow thee, that the Holy Ghost is only that Divine and Invisible Power of God, by which he works his will and pleasure in the World; and by consequence, that God and the Spirit of God are no more two distinct Persons, than man and the spirit of man are; so he. I answer,  
This Speech of the Angel contains two things: 1. The Person, who was designed to be the immediate author, and efficient Cause of this miraculous Conception; namely, the Holy Ghost. 2. The Instrumental means, whereby this wonderful Work was to be wrought; namely, the Power of the highest, the Omnipotence of God. And if this distinction be allowed, then did the Angel speak like himself, but otherwise not; for, if by the Holy Ghost, and the Power of the highest, the Angel means but one and the same thing, then here's an Instrument mentioned, but no Agent to use it; here's a Work to be done, but no author to do it; here's a Son to be conceived and born of a Virgin, but none to supply the place of a Father.  
But, to gratify this author, let us suppose that the Holy Ghost is here called, the Power of the highest; yet now will this Title prove that he is indeed no Person; 
1 Cor. 1.24  St. Paul stiles our blessed Saviour, the Power of God, which is all one with the Power of the highest. And dares this Man take occasion from this Character, to say that our Lord is no Person, but a mere quality only? if not, if this Title, which St. Paul ascribes unto Christ, do not disprove his Personality and distinction from his Father; why should the same Title, being ascribed by an Angel to the Holy Ghost, disprove his?  
And whereas this Man boldly saith, That God and the Spirit of God are no more two distinct Persons, than Man and the Spirit of Man are; I answer, the Man and the Spirit of Man cannot be two distinct Persons, because Man without his Spirit cannot be so much as One; but 'tis not so with God. Now, to show the falsehood of this Man's assertion, I shall prove these two things; 1. That the blessed Spirit of God is indeed a Person. 2. That he is a Person distinct, both from the Father and the Son.  
1. That the blessed Spirit of God is indeed a Real Person; and such an one is thus defined, 
Ravanellus  substantia individua& singularis, intelligens, incommunicabilis, non pars alterius, nec ab alio sustentata, so one; 
Aquin. qu. 29. Art. 1.  and thus another, Persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia: In short, a Person is an intelligent, individual, and distinct subsistence, {αβγδ}; or, as some would rather express it, {αβγδ}; so Gregory Nazianzen tells us. Now, that the blessed Spirit of God is indeed such a Person, I shall prove two ways; 1. By the Testimonies of pious, learned, and judicious Men, who are {αβγδ}, such as well deserve to be believed. 2. By the Authority of sacred Writ, which is the Infallible Testimony of God.  
1. That the blessed Spirit of God is indeed a Real Person, we have {αβγδ}, 
Heb. 12.1.  a Cloud of Witnesses, such a multitude of such Witnesses, that about this matter, no human Testimony can be greater; nay, none can match it.  
I know, 
A Letter to the Reverend Clergy of both the Universities.  that to invalidate this Argument from the Authority of Men, a late Socinian Book in its Title page., tells us, Non quis, said quid; we are to consider, not who speaks or writes, but what is spoken or written; and therein the author of that Tract, and we are agreed. But withal, have we not reason to believe, that the Defenders of the Trinity in all Ages did seriously consider, Quid, what they said, and what they wrote, especially about a matter of so great Concern? Can we charitably judge that so many Men of such excellent Parts, such exemplary Piety, such acute Judgments, who made it their business to examine the Scriptures, to compare Text with Text, that they might surely find out the Truth, should be rash in their Determinations, and recommend this Doctrine, as a necessary Article of Faith, to the whole Christian Church, had they not found in their Bibles a sufficient warrant for it? Can we think that without any certain grounds, they themselves would have professed the Faith of the Trinity, lived and died in that profession; yea, and condemned for a Pack of heretics, all those who did any way oppose it? certainly, if there be any Validity in the Testimony of Man, there is as much as can be expected in any Mortal, in the Testimony of the Primitive Councils, and Ancient Fathers, who were prudent, learned, judicious, and pious Persons; and therefore witnesses even beyond all ju●● Exception.  
Thus much being premised, let us consider what these Men of great renown in the Church of God have thought, done, and writ in reference to the three Persons in the Deity, of whom the blessed Spirit is one.  
Epiphanius 
Epiphan.  tells us, that the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost was denied by the Arians, 
Haer. 69. Sect. 52. p. 774.  {αβγδ}. They speak blasphemous Words against the Spirit, and dare to say that he was created by the Son. Of the same opinion was Eunomius, 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 2. p. 76.  who affirmed, {αβγδ}, That the Son was the Workmanship of the unbegotten; and that the Paraclete, i.e. the Holy Ghost, was the Workmanship of the Son. This opinion of the Arians St. Austin expresseth thus; 
August. de haeres. Haer. 49. Tom. 1. p. 6.  spiritum sanctum Creaturam Creaturae, hoc est, ab ipso Filio creatum volunt: They would have the Holy Ghost to be the Creature of a Creature, to be created by the Son himself.  
But how did the learned Men of those times resent these opinions, and those that held them? 'tis well known; and the Historian tells us, that the Council of Nice, 
Socra. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. p. 23.  {αβγδ}, did excommunicate Arius, and all others of his opinion, as so many heretics. This Council consisted of 318 Bishops, who compiled and approved that Creed, of which that famous Emperour Constantine the Great wrote thus, {αβγδ}, 'tis nothing else but the mind of God: And for that he gave this reason; 
Id. p. 31.  {αβγδ}. The Holy Ghost influencing the Understandings of so many and such excellent Persons, revealed his Divine will and pleasure to them.  
Nor was this Council rash in their Determinations; for, saith the Historian, {αβγδ}. 
Id. p. 25.  Questions were moved, and Answers were given over and over; and again, {αβγδ}. 
Id. p. 27.  The wicked opinion of Arius was thoroughly examined and debated in the Presence of the Emperour himself, who so well approved the Decrees of the Council, that by a Letter of his own he recommended them to his Subjects, and required them to acquiesce in them.  
And as the Acts of the Nicene Council were approved and commended by the good Emperour, who heard the matters before them fairly debated; so were they afterwards confirmed and ratified by the second General Council, consisting of an 150 Bishops, who were convened at Constantinople, by the Command of Theodosius. And to what end they were summoned together, we learn from Sozomen, 
Sozo. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 7. p. 711. Socra. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. p. 264.  {αβγδ}; or, as Socrates words it; {αβγδ}; To confirm the Nicene Faith. And accordingly they did so, for their first Canon tells us, 
Conc. Constantinop. Canon. 1.  {αβγδ}. They decreed that the Faith of the Nicene Fathers should not be abrogated, but remain firm, and that every heresy should be condemned; and particularly, {αβγδ}, that of the Eunomians, Eudoxians, and others, whom the Canon names, as Enemies to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; of which this Council was so satisfied, that in opposition to the Macedonian heresy, they thought fit to enlarge that Article of the Nicene Creed, which relates to the Holy Ghost; and to assert his Divinity, they added some Clauses to it; and made it run thus, {αβγδ}. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. Doubtless, the addition of these words to the Nicene Creed, is a clear Evidence that this Council did firmly believe the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost.  
But if these words, 
Jacobus Usserius Armachanus de Symbolis, p. 17.  as some learned Men have thought, were put into this Creed originally by the Nicene Fathers themselves; yet since this Council of Constantinople did own and confirm all the Articles of that Creed, our Argument from their Authority holds as strong, as if they themselves had composed the whole Creed, or enlarged it. And the same Argument may be pleaded from the Authority of the Third ecumenical Council, that of Ephesus, consisting of 200 Bishops, convened by Theodosius the second against the heresy of Nestorius. 
council. Ephes. Can. 7  Of which Council 'tis thus recorded, {αβγδ}, &c. in effect, the Bishops, there assembled, decreed that no Man should offer, compose, and writ any other System of Faith, besides that of the Nicene Council. And yet further, the Constitutions of these three forenamed Councils were approved and ratified by a fourth, 
Pandectae Can.& council. Graec. T. 1. p. 103. Patrick Sympson's History of the Church, p. 509.  that of Chalcedon consisting of 630 Bishops and Reverend Fathers, convened by Martianus against the heresy of Eutyches. Their first Canon is this, {αβγδ}; we think fit that the Canons, which have been declared and approved in every one of the foregoing Councils should be still observed and kept in force.  
Now, the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost, being thus attested and asserted by these four General Councils, by the joint Suffrages of so many hundred learned and pious Divines met together, who seriously consulted the Scriptures about this matter; we need the fewer Testimonies of single Persons to prove the same Truth. That of Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, shall be one; 
Epip. Haer. 62. p. 515.  {αβγδ}; and again he saith of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
Id. ibid.  that they are {αβγδ}, truly perfect Names, and truly perfect Persons. Gregory Nazianzen, surnamed {αβγδ}, the Eminent Divine, speaking of God, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 32. p. 520.  saith that he is {αβγδ}, One in Essence, Three in Persons, Baptism being administered in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Gregory Nyssen stiles it {αβγδ}; 
Greg. Nyss. in Bapt. Christi, p. 804. Theoph. in Matth. cap. 28. v. 18.  The Mystery of the Three Persons. Theophylact speaking of the same Sacrament, saith {αβγδ} {αβγδ}; Our Lord did therein make mention of three Persons, of which the Holy Spirit must be one; and that so he is indeed, St. Cyril of Jerusalem proves by this Argument, 
Cyril. Hier. Cat. 16. p. 176.  {αβγδ}. The Spirit must needs be a Person, because he is a living and intelligent Being. And, to name no more, 
Elias Cret. in Naz. Or. 1. p. 83.  Elias Cretensis writes thus of the Holy Ghost: Spiritus est essentia, quae per se in peculiari Hypostasi consideratur, the Spirit is an Essence considered in a subsistence peculiar to himself. And to the same purpose might abundance of more Authorities be transcribed out of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and many other Christian Writers, who with one consent own and assert the blessed Spirit to be, not a Quality, nor the Power of God the Father, as our Socinians dream, but a real Person subsisting by himself.  
But, as to this present Argument drawn from human Authority, if any of our modern Socinians shall say to us, as one of their predecessors did, in a like case, 
Basil. M adv. Euno. l. 1. p. 5.  to Great St. Basil: {αβγδ} {αβγδ}: We desire you in the first place, that you will not judge and determine concerning Truth or falsehood by the Multitude of Voices, that you will not conclude that side to be in the right, which hath the greater Number; that you will not so far respect the Dignity of Persons, as to prepossess your judgement with prejudice; that you will not attribute so much to the Constitutions and Decrees of former Ages, as to slight and stop the Ears against the Proposals and Sentiments of later Authors.  
To this I shall return the same Answer, which St. Basil did; {αβγδ}, &c. What do these Men say? may we not show a more than ordinary respect to the Ancient Fathers? may we pay no reverence to the Multitude of Christians, which now are, and have always been ever since the Gospel was preached? may we not highly value the judgement of those Persons, who were apparently blessed with variety of spiritual Gifts and Graces?  
We cannot well deny that those early Christians, who lived nearest to the apostles time, had the fairest opportunity to acquaint themselves with the Doctrines, which they delivered, amongst which the Doctrine of the Trinity was One; so saith Irenaeus, {αβγδ}, 
iron. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 2.  &c. The Church, tho' dispersed throughout the World, received from the Apostles and their Disciples Faith in one God the Father, and in one Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Now, since this Apostolical Doctrine was generally owned by the Primitive Christians, ratified by several Councils, defended by learned and pious confessors and Martyrs, and in despite of all its Opposers, transmitted to Posterity from Age to Age; I think, no human Testimony of its Truth can be greater.  
It's true, some learned Men, tho' comparatively but a few, have vigorously opposed this Doctrine; 
August. de Trin. l. 1. c. 10. T. 3. p. 54.  and who they were, and why they did so. St. Austin thus informs us. Immaturo& perverso rationis amore falluntur. Quorum nonnulli ea, quae de corporalibus rebus, sieve per sensus corporeos experta noverunt; sieve quae natura humani ingenii& diligentiae vivacitate, vel artis adjutorio perceperunt, ad res incorporeas& spirituales transfer conantes, ut ex his illa metiri atque opinari velint: The sum of which words is this; Men dote too much upon their own crude and obstinate Reason, they measure spiritual things by things corporeal, matters of faith by matters of sense, from visible objects they raise inferences about things invisible, and the doing of that deceives t●●●.  
And thus do our modern Socinians argue against the Doctrine of the Trinity, by finite and corporeal Beings, they measure Beings infinite and incorporeal; and because the human Nature subsisting in three distinct Persons, constitutes three Men; and the Angelical Nature subsisting in three distinct Subjects, doth make three Angels: They hence conclude, that if the Divine Nature doth equally subsist in Three distinct Persons, there must needs be three Gods. But doth the Nature of Men, Angels, and God, fall under the same considerations? the Nature of Men and Angels being finite and limited, when 'tis communicated to three several Subjects, doth make three Men or three Angels specifically the same; but the Divine Nature, which is infinite and indivisible, being entirely communicated to three distinct Persons, cannot make Three Gods, but One God numerically the same. But how one and the same numerical Nature should equally subsist in three distinct Persons, how each of the Three should be God, and yet God be but One, is a difficulty very hard to be explained. But in matters of this kind, we must submit human Reason to Divine Revelation; and sure I am, if no Trinitarian were able to return a satisfactory Answer to those Arguments, which our Socinians urge against the Trinity; yet no Socinian as yet ever did, nor, I think, ever can fairly answer those Texts, which we pled for it. And if so, whether we ought to give more credit to the fallible Reasonings of Men, than to the infallible Word of God, let every impartial Reader judge.  
And judge he may with the greater ease, because, so far as human Testimony is of any value in our present case, we have the fairest on our side; for the Defenders of the Trinity are, to speak modestly, Persons at least of equal weight with their opposers; and to be sure, they are far, very far the greater Number; I think, an hundred for one; and our hundred have been as much concerned, as their one could be, not to commit the Sin of Idolatry by worshipping any Person, who is not truly God.  
It's true, in those early Ages, wherein this dispute concerning the Divinity of Christ, and his Holy Spirit was first raised, and by degrees began to grow, the Defenders of this Doctrine could have no human Authority to give it countenance; but they then had, and we still have far better Evidences to prove it. For, we do not depend upon the Testimonies of Men any farther, than as they are well bottomed upon the sacred Word of God, which, in this case especially, is to us the only rule and ground of Faith. But since we think that the Ancient Fathers, who were learned and pious Men, chiefly when met in Councils, were very able to apprehended, and very conscientious to declare the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures; and since the generality of succeeding Divines in after Ages, have approved the judgement of the four first ecumenical Councils, and many other excellent Writers; we cannot be persuaded by all the pretences of human Reason, to alter our opinion about the sense of those many Texts, which have been judged by such vast Numbers of such incomparable Persons, so plainly to assert the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And the rather, because those other Interpretations, which the opposers of this Doctrine do even force upon those Texts, which make against them, are so impertinent, wild, absurd, and indeed intolerable, that, were it not to serve a turn, they could never be owned by those Socinians, who esteem themselves such great masters of sense and Reason.  
Did a figurative interpretation of several plain Passages in the Writings of St. John, and St. Paul tend to overthrow the Socinian Hypothesis, they might as justly abhor the thoughts of any Tropes in those Speeches of the Evangelist and Apostle, as the Roman catholics unjustly do in those words of Christ: This is my Body, This is my Blood.  
But to forbear the further pursuit of this Digression. To show what Scripture evidences we have for the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost, the proof whereof is my present design, will be the business of my next particular, and the Subject matter of my last Section.   

SECT. XXXII.  
2. THat the Holy Spirit is indeed a Divine Person is very evident from the Authority of the Scripture, which being rightly understood, is the Testimony of God; and therefore, tho' it deliver some things above the reach of human Understandings; yet since 'tis infallible, we stand obliged to believe it's Truth. Now, our Evidences thence are these:  
1. The Scriptures do once and again connumerate and conjoin the Holy Spirit with God the Father, and God the Son.  
So doth our blessed Saviour himself in his Form of Baptism, Baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; here we have a clear distinction of three glorious Subsistences in the Godhead, who are mentioned as Persons of the same Order, Dignity, and equal Objects of Divine Worship; for why else did our Lord unite them in this solemn and sacred Institution?  
St. Basil mentions some heretics, who made bold to say, 
Basil. M. de Sp. S. c. 10. p. 166  {αβγδ}. That the holy Spirit ought not to be ranked with the Father, and the Son, as being, in their opinion, of a different Nature, and lower Dignity. Their thought was {αβγδ}, 
Basil. M. de Sp. S. c. 17. p. 185.  that the Holy Spirit should be reckoned, not together with the Father, and the Son, but under both. 
Id. cap. 10. p. 166.  But saith St. Basil, {αβγδ}; do not these Men manifestly oppose the Command of God? hath not our Lord charged us to join them all three together in the use of this Holy Sacrament? and what may we thence infer? doubtless the Equality of the Holy Ghost, with the Father, and the Son; for, as the same Father observes, 
Id. cap. 17. p. 186.  {αβγδ}. It becomes Persons of the same Honour to be ranked together, but Men of inferior Note to be placed below them.  
Tertullian indeed stiles the Holy Spirit, Tertius Majestatis gradus: 
tart. adv. Prax. p. 558  But he did not mean, that there is any Inequality betwixt the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in point of Dignity; but where three Persons are name together, there must be a first, a second, and a third; but such a distinct enumeration doth necessary import a priority and posteriority, not of excellence, but of order only. Accordingly doth Gregory Nazianzen thus affirm, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 20. p. 365.  {αβγδ}. The Spirit is of the self same substance and equal Honour with the Father, and the Son.  
And this Equality of these three glorious Persons, did the Ancients partly gather from their conjunction in this Form of Baptism; so did the same Father, 
Naz. Or. 32. p. 521.  {αβγδ}: we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are of the same Substance and Glory; and to prove them so, he subjoins this Reason, {αβγδ}. In them our Baptism hath its consummation. Baptism, which he calls {αβγδ}, a Confession of their Divinity.  
Theophylact in his Comment upon this Forth of Baptism: In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, tells us {αβγδ}, 
Theoph. in Matth. 18.19.  the Name of the three Persons is but One; and what is that, {αβγδ}, 'tis God, each Person being so.  
Nay, Arius himself did once pretend that he believed, even as we now really do, in the whole Trinity, and why he did so, 
Socra. Hist. Eccl. l. 10. cap. 26.  he gave this account in that Creed of his, which he presented to Constantine the Great; {αβγδ}, we have received this Faith out of the Holy Gospels; and he particularly instanceth in this Form of Baptism, as the ground of his Faith. {αβγδ}. Our Lord saying to his Disciples, Go, teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The conjunction of these three Persons in this sacred Institution, importing their equal Dignity, prevailed with Arius to believe in them all. And that this Faith of his was then sincere, he added this solemn Protestation, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. If we do not thus believe, {αβγδ}, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If we do not truly aclowledge them, as the whole catholic Church, and the Scriptures, the which we assert in all things, do teach us, God is our Judge at present, and will be so, when the Great Day comes. Thus did Arius himself from the Conjunction of these three Persons in this Form of Baptism conclude, and that with reason, that the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are of equal Dignity with the Father.  
But this is not the only Text, wherein we find these three glorious Persons thus conjoined; St. John tells us, 
1 Joh. 5.7.  There are Three that bear record in Heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One: One what? not one Person, for then they could not be Three, but what Three are they? not three Names only, for 'tis not Names, but Persons or Things, that can bear record, and why any one Person only should subscribe himself, as a Witness, under three distinct Denominations, I think, no good reason can be assigned.  
That St. John means three several Persons may well be took for a granted Truth; and if so, since the Father, who is the first Witness here name, is by our Socinians owned to be God; the Word, and the Holy Ghost, who are joined with the Father as two other Witnesses of equal Credit, must be God too; because, within a Verse or two, the joint Testimony of all Three is expressly called, 
1 Joh. 5.9.  the Witness of God. And therefore Oecumenius well concludes; 
Oecumen. in locum.  {αβγδ}. In this Text by the Word, Spirit, God is meant, for the Spirit also is God.  
Again; St. Paul joins these three glorious Persons together in that Petition of his for the Church of Corinth: The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
2 Co. 13.14  and the Love of God, and the Communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. That these words are a Prayer, I think, no Man will deny; as such doth Theophylact and Oecumenius own it, and St. Chrysostom expressly saith of St. Paul, 
Theoph. Oecumen. Chrys. in loc.  {αβγδ}, he doth here end his Discourse with a Prayer. And if it be a Prayer, to whom doth St. Paul direct it? either to no body, or to the whole Trinity in Conjunction. For, as Grotius observes, sunt hic, 
Grotius in loc.  ut& in Baptismo, apertè nomina {αβγδ}. The whole Trinity is here expressly name, as it also is in the Form of Baptism; so that if St. Paul doth here pray at all, he prayeth to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost too.  
And since St. Paul did direct his humble Petitions for spiritual Blessings to none but God; we may from this Request of his very justly infer the Doctrine of the Trinity, so thought several Interpreters of this Text: 
Estius in locum.  Hoc loco distinctè nobis insinuantur trees in Divinis Personae; so one: and thus another, Notant hic significari sanctissimam Trinitatem {αβγδ}, consubstantialem, eam scilicet ejusdem esse naturae, Potentiae, operationis, &c. And from this place doth Gregory Thaumaturgus draw an Argument. 
Gr. thou. in Exp. Symb. p. 101.  Quod venerabilis est sancta Trinitas, non separata, nec alienata: Hence also doth St. Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact, break out into this expression, {αβγδ}; where now are they, who slight the Spirit, as if he were not God; since St. Paul himself doth here address his solemn Petition, as well to the Holy Spirit, as to the Father, and to the Son?  
Indeed that Observation of Gregory Nazianzen is true, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. 604.  {αβγδ}; Things, which are not of the same substance, Nature and Dignity, are sometimes numbered together; Solomon tells us, 
Pro. 30.29  There be three things, which go well; a Lion, a Grey-hound, an He-goat. These three sorts of Beasts, though here reckoned together, are yet no way like to one another, they agree in nothing, save only their Generical Nature, as being all living and irrational Creatures. But altho' things of different Natures are sometimes reckoned together, yet this doth no way weaken my present Argument, which is, that the Conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in several Texts, doth evidence the Equality of their Dignity, and prove each Person to be truly God.  
So thought the same Father; for, in the same Oration, amongst other Arguments, whereby he proves the Deity of the Holy Ghost, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. 610.  this is one, {αβγδ}, he is connumerated and ranked together with the Father, and the Son; and that in such Texts, wherein they are all mentioned as Persons of one and the same Authority, and equal Objects of Divine Worship. But,  
2. The Scriptures do once and again ascribe to the blessed Spirit, the Name and Title of God, and that in such a manner, and upon such accounts, as prove him to be a Divine Person indeed.  
True it is, that the bare Name of God, nakedly considered, is not enough to prove every one that bears it, to be a Divine Person. It was given to Moses; I have made thee a God to Pharaoh: 
Exod. 7.1.  'tis given to Magistrates; I have said, 
Ps. 82. 6.  ye are Gods: 'tis given to Pagan Idols; There are Gods many: 
1 Cor. 8.5.  'tis given to the Devil; for, even he is called, 
2 Cor. 4.4.  The God of this World. But all these were only Titular Gods, reputed Deities; or Gods by deputation, improperly and Metonymically so styled. But 'tis not thus with the Holy Ghost, who is called God, and really is so.  
Consider we that expression of our Lord: 
Luk. 11.20  If I with the Finger of God cast out Devils, &c. but what means our Lord by this Finger of God? another Evangelist explains it thus; 
Mat. 12.28  If I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. And why the Spirit is here called the Finger of God, Theophylact gives us this reason: {αβγδ}. 
Theoph. in Luk. 11.20  Because as the Finger is of the same Substance with the whole Body, so is the Spirit of the same Substance with God the Father, and God the Son.  
This casting out of Devils St. Chrysostom calleth, 
Chrysost. in Mat. 12.28  {αβγδ}, a Work of the greatest Power; and yet the Jews ascribed it to Beelzebub, and that our Lord called, a Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and pronounced it a Sin unpardonable; but why unpardonable, if the Holy Ghost be, as some vile Wretches have imagined, a Creature, and not truly God?  

1 Cor. 6.19.  Again, St. Paul saith, The Body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost; and surely Temples ought to be dedicated to none but God; and such is the Holy Ghost; for the same St. Paul saith elsewhere, ye are the Temple of God; 
1 Cor. 3.16, 17.  and again, the Temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are: The sanctified Bodies of good Men, which one Text stiles, the Temples of the Holy Ghost, the other two do expressly call the Temples of God, and is not that an undeniable Argument, that the Holy Ghost is God?  
So thought Athanasius; 
Athan. in Epist. ad. ad Serap. p. 12.  {αβγδ}. 'tis not possible that the Spirit should be a Creature; because every one, who receives the Spirit, is called the Temple of God. And that the Spirit is God indeed, he thus proves elsewhere; 
In Epist. ad Ser. Sp. S. non esse Creat. p. 198, 199.  {αβγδ}. They, in whom the Spirit resides, are by him made partakers of the Divine Nature; and if so, we cannot doubt, but that the Nature of the Spirit himself, is indeed the very Nature of God.  
Of the same mind was Great St. Basil, who from these words, 
Basil. M. adv. Eun. l. 3. p. 83.  your Bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost; or, which is all one, ye are the Temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you, urgeth thus, {αβγδ}; If God be said to dwell in us by his Spirit, is it not manifest impiety, to say that the Spirit himself is voided of Divinity? and again, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}; If the Spirit make virtuous Men like to God, how can he, who imparts the Divine Nature to other Persons, ever be presumed to want i● himself?  
But that the blessed Spirit is indeed a Divine Person is further evident from that Speech of St. Peter to Ananias▪ Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie 〈◇〉 the Holy Ghost? 
Acts 5.3, 4.  thou hast not lied unto Men, only or chiefly unto Men, but unto God; well, and what may we infer from thence? we may conclude, as many Interpreters do; 
Lorinus in locum.  Ergo spiritus sanctus est Deus, Therefore the Holy Ghost is God: for Ananias did not lie to Men alone; but, since he lied to the Holy Ghost, he did, for that very reason, lie to God also.  
This Text is so clear a Proof, that Gregory Nazianzen bespeaks every one, which knoweth this Scripture, thus, {αβγδ}; 
Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. 611.  what a very dull sot art thou, and how great a stranger to the Spirit, if notwithstanding this and other Texts, thou dost still so much as doubt the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and yet needest a Teacher to inform thee about it.  
Gregory Nyssen, expounding this Text, writes thus; 
Greg. Nys. in Or. de Deitate Filii& Sp. S. p. 910.  {αβγδ}: St. Peter, saying that Ananias lied to the Holy Ghost and to God; doth by these two Words, the Holy Ghost and God, declare to all pious and intelligent Souls one and the same Person.  
Accordingly St. Hierom tells us thus, referring to this very Text: 
Hieron. in Esa. c. 63.  Ut sciamus ●ennem, qui exasperat spiritum sanctum, Deum offender, Petrus Apostolus significantius loquitur, &c. That we may know that every one, who exasperates the Holy Spirit, doth offend God, the Apostle Peter very plainly declares, when he tells Ananias, who had lied to the Holy Ghost: Thou hast not lied unto Men, but to God.  
From the same Text doth St. Austin also infer the Godhead of the Holy Ghost; for thus he demands: Quid? 
August. de Temp. Barbarico T, 9. p. 215.  spiritus sanctus non est Deus! What? is not the Holy Spirit God? he answers; Planè Deus, 'tis plain that he is God; but how doth he prove it? thus: Audi Petrum Ananiae fraudatori improperantem, &c. Hear Peter reproving that Cheater Ananias thus: Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied unto Men, but to God; and hence St. Austin draws this Conclusion; Ecce& spiritus sanctus Deus; Behold the Holy Ghost also is God.  
To these Authorities I shall add no more, save only that of Epiphanius, who writes thus; 
Epip. Haer. 59. p. 500.  {αβγδ}: Touching the Deity of the Holy Ghost, St. Peter doth secure us; but how? {αβγδ}, &c. Saying to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? thou hast not lied to Men, but unto God; but how is that proved? {αβγδ}. Because the Spirit is from God, and doth not differ from him.  
I conclude this Argument with the words of a late and learned Bishop of our own Church: 
Pearson in Exp. Symb. Apost.  To lie to the Holy Ghost is not to lie to Men, because the Holy Ghost is not Man; It is not to lie to any Angel or any Creature, because the Holy Ghost is no Angel, no Creature; but to lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God, because the Holy Ghost is God: So he is both in Name and real Being.  
3. The Scriptures do ascribe to the Holy Ghost such Attributes, as are proper and peculiar to a Person, but to such a Person only, as is Divine.  
To prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, Gregory Nazianzen, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. ●10. ●●sil. M. adv. ●●no●● 〈◇〉 p. ●5. Gre● Nyss. de T●in. p. 441. Ps. 143.10  and Great St. Basil have collected abundance of Epithets and Characters, which the Scriptures bestow upon him, {αβγδ}, &c. And so Gregory Nyssen, {αβγδ}, &c. the Psalmist stiles him, {αβγδ} the good spirit, essentially and infinitely Good; 
S 〈…〉  and such a good Being there is but one, that is God. But of those many Attributes, which are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, I shall insist but upon these Three, his Omnipotence, his Omnipresence, and his Omniscience; each of which is enough to prove him God.  
1. 'tis evident from the Holy Scriptures, that the blessed Spirit of God is Omnipotent; and there are three things in sacred Writ ascribed to him, which prove him so, For,  
1. The Scriptures do ascribe to the Holy Ghost, the Creation of the World, and that is a Work which requires an Almighty Power.  
Moses tells us, 
Gen. 1.1.  God created the Heaven and the Earth; and so again, 
Exod. 20.  The Lord made Heaven and Earth; 'tis he, whom the Evangelical Prophet stiles, The everlasting God, 
Isa. 40.28.  the Lord, the creator of the Ends of the Earth. And indeed it must needs be so; for, since Creation is, productio Entis ex non enter, the Production of something out of nothing, there being a vast distance betwixt these two Terms, it must be the effect of an Infinite Power, and such Power there is none, save only that of God.  
Upon which account St. Austin tells us, 
August. de Trin. l. 3. c. 8. T. 3.  Nec malos, said nec bonos Angelos f●● est putare Creatores: 'tis not lawful to think that evil Angels, no nor good ones, can be Creators. And if not Angels, much less any other Creatures; so say the Schools, 
Bellar. de effectu Sac. l. 2. c. 11. p. 156. Aquin. 1. par. qu. 45. Art. 5.  Nullam Creaturam posse instrumentaliter concurrere ad Creationem, so Bellarmine; and before him Aquinas, Impossibile est quòd alicui Creaturae conveniat creare, neque virtute pr●pria, neque instrumentaliter, sieve per Ministerium; 'tis impossible for any Creature to create any thing, either by its own Power, or as an Instrument in the hand of another. 'tis the judgement of these and other learned Men, that a creating Power, through the Incapacity of Creatures to be the Subjects of it, is absolutely incommunicable.  
Now, if we may conclude that there is no creating Power but in God alone, then must we also conclude, that the Holy Ghost is God; because the Scriptures tell us, that he was the Creator, and still is the Conservator of the Universe. Moses, describing the very beginning of the Creation, writes thus; The Spirit of God moved upon the Face of the Waters; the question is, 
Gen. 1.2.  what is here meant by the Spirit of God, and by the word Moved? The word in the Original Language, which we render Spirit, is {αβγδ} which as Aynsworth tells us, 
Aynsw. in locum.  signifieth any Spirit, Ghost, Breath, or Wind; but in this Text it cannot signify the Wind, because there was no Wind as yet created. But that by this Spirit of God, is here meant the Holy Ghost, is the general judgement of Interpreters. So saith Pererius, 
Pererius in locum.  est interpretatio fermè omnium Patrum, tam Graecorum, quàm Latinorum, per spiritum Dei hoc loco significari spiritum sanctum, quam sententiam secuta est Ecclesia Catholica. Almost all the Fathers both Greek and Latin, do here by the Spirit of God, understand the Holy Ghost, and so doth the Universal Church. Nay, Aynsworth cites some Ancient rabbins for the same opinion; as the Thargum of jerusalem, which renders this Text thus▪ The Spirit of Mercies from before the Lord; and R. Menachem, who interprets it thus, The Spirit of Wisdom, called the Spirit of the living God; or, as another expresseth it, The Spirit of the messiah.  
And indeed it could be no other Spirit, save only the Spirit of God, considering the Work, which is here and elsewhere ascribed unto him. The Text saith, The Spirit of God moved upon the Face of the Waters? but what means that? 'tis a Metaphor: the Hebrew word, Rachaph, signifying, as critics tell us, the hovering of a bide over her young ones newly hatched to cherish them; and so it here imports St. Chrysostom's {αβγδ}; 
Chrys. Perer.& Engl. Annot. in locum.  or, as Pererius words it, efficaciam vitalem; which our Assembly of English Divines express thus, The effectual quickening Power of the Holy Ghost, which upheld, sustained, and gave virtue to that great and general heap, the newly created Chaos.  
And as this blessed Spirit was thus concerned in the Work of the first Day's Creation, so had he an hand in the Work of the other Days too. For, Job tells us, 
Job 26.13.  By his Spirit he hath garnished the Heavens; some critics think the Praefix כ which we render, By, to be Redundant, and accordingly Vatablus reads the Text thus; Spiritus ejus ornavit Coelos, 
Vatab.& D●usius in locum.  His Spirit hath adorned the Heavens with Sun, Moon, and Stars. But what means he by this Spirit? Quo cuncta creavit, saith Drusius; that Spirit by whom he created all things. 'tis that which Job acknowledgeth as to himself: 
Job 33.4. Pi●eda in Job 33.4.& 10.8.  The Spirit of God hath made me; Spiritus sanctus, Dei manus altera, quae cum altera, i.e. cum verbo, hominem creavit; or, as the same Author speaks elsewhere: Filius atque spiritus sanctus cum Patre creaverunt hominem, The Son and Holy Ghost with the Father created Man. And not only Man, but all other Creatures too, of whom the Psalmist saith, 
Ps. 104, 30. Hieron. in locum.  Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, and they are created; hence St. Hierom argueth thus; Si spiritus creat, ergo Deus est; ita enim creat, quoniam& Pater: If the Spirit create, then is he God, and create he doth, because the Father also doth so.  
From these and some other like Texts, did the Ancient Fathers collect the creating Power of the Holy Ghost; 
Greg. Naz. Or. 44. p. 714. Id. Or. 37. p. 610.  {αβγδ}, and so again, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, The Spirit together with the Son created all things. And the same Father elsewhere saith of St. Paul, 
Id. Or. 24. p. 431.  {αβγδ}. He ascribes to the Spirit the efficacious Operation of God. Accordingly another Father calls the Holy Spirit, 
Greg. Nyss. adv. Eun. p. 62.  {αβγδ}, him that enlivens all things; and the same Author in another place writes very Dogmatically concerning Christ and his Holy Spirit, and of both he speaks thus; {αβγδ}. 
Greg. Nyss. in Or. Catech. c. 4. p. 481.  That the Word of God, and the Spirit of God are Powers substantially subsisting, the makers and upholders of all created Beings, is very evidently declared in those Scriptures, which were written by Divine Inspiration.  
There is a Tradition, that Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus, received a System of Faith by Revelation; a Creed embraced, 
Ger. Vos. in noris in opera Gre. Tnaumat. Greg Nyss. in vita Gr. Thaumat. p. 978.  saith Gerard Vossius, both by the Eastern and Western Churches. In this Creed, as it is recorded by Gregory Nyssen, the blessed Spirit is styled, {αβγδ}, Life, and the Cause of all things living.  
In short, Epiphanius speaks thus of our Lord, and his Holy Spirit; 
Epiphan. Haer. 74. p. 896.  {αβγδ}. These two are invested with an unceivable Power and Dominion, and create all things cooperating with the Fathor throughout infinite Ages.  
Now then, from these forenamed Texts, and these Authorities of Judicious Men grounded thereupon, we may safely conclude that the Holy Spirit is possessed with a creating Power, which being Omnipotent and Essential to him must needs prove him God.  
2. The Scriptures do ascribe to the Holy Spirit the Resurrection of the Dead, and that is a second Work, which requires an Almighty Power, and supposeth his to be so.  
There are so many difficulties in, and such strong Objections against the Doctrine of the Resurrection, that the Learned Men of the Heathen World, though some of them granted the Immortality of the Soul, yet the Resurrection of the Body they thought to be not only needless and inconvenient, but altogether Impracticable too. Such an opinion there was in St. Paul's time, who demanded a Reason for it: Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the Dead? Such were the general thoughts of the Pagans; accordingly Celsus in Origen calleth it {αβγδ}, 
O●ig. cont●● cells. l. 5. p. ●40.  a thing impossible; and again, {αβγδ}, a thing, which God neither will do, nor can.  
The same opinion was crept in amongst the Jews. 
mat 2.23.  The Sadduces say that there is no Resurrection: It was also found, if not in the Church, yet at least in the Town of Corinth. 
Mat. 15.22  How say some among you, that there is no Resurrection of the Dead? Now, the reason, why this great Article of our Faith was so generally denied, must be the consideration of those Intricacies which are found in the Nature of this word, there being much to be said against it, but nothing for it, save only the faithful Promise, the Infinite Wisdom, and Almighty Power of God.  
Now, that the Holy Spirit hath an hand in the raising of the Dead, is evident from that of St. Paul: 
Rom. 8.11.  If the spirit of him which raised Jesus from the Dead, dwell in you; he, that raised Christ from the Dead, shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his spirit, that dwelleth in you: from these words a learned Interpreter raiseth this Inference: 
Corn. à lap. in loc.  Hinc patet spiritum sanctum in nobis inhabitantem esse causam Resurrectionis& vitae gloriosa. Est enim hic spiritus in se vita, omnia animans, vegetans,& vivificans, &c. Hence 'tis manifest, that the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, is the Cause of our Resurrection; and that glorious Life, which doth attend it; for indeed this Spirit is Life in himself, a quickening and enlivening Spirit. And accordingly St. Chrysostom, mentioning this glorious Work of the Resurrection, stiles this blessed Spirit {αβγδ}, 
Chrys. in Rom. Hom. 13.  The Author of this so great an Honour. And thus Calvin, Si potentia spiritûs Dei Christus excitatus est, ut spiritus aeternam retinet potentiam, 
Calvin. in Rom. c. 8.11.  eandem in nobis quoque exeret; since Christ was raised by the Power of the Divine Spirit, and since that Spirit doth still retain the same Eternal Power, he will exert it in our Resurrection too.  
And upon the same Account did Gregory Nazianzen style this blessed Spirit thus, {αβγδ}, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. 610.  the Spirit that made us; and the Spirit that doth and will re-make us; but how so? he re-makes the Soul of Man {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, by our Baptism, and he will re-make the Body of Man, {αβγδ}, by our Resurrection. As he did at the first create our Flesh out of dust, so will he at last re-create the same Flesh out of the same dust again.  
Now then, if from the Authority of God's Word, and the Testimonies of learned Men built upon it, we may conclude that the Resurrection of the Dead hath been, and will be the Work of the Holy Ghost; we must also conclude that his Power is Omnipotent, and that Omnipotence must speak him truly God.  
3. The Scriptures do very often ascribe to the Holy Ghost the Regeneration of Souls, and that is a third Work, which requires an Almighty Power, and proves his to be so.  
When Saul was newly converted, and instead of persecuting began to pray, 
Acts 9.11.  'tis said of him thus: Behold, he prayeth; the expression intimates, that the Conversion of this Man was a Work of wonderful Power, why else is it ushered in with this Note of Admiration, Ecce, behold, he prayeth? The Conversion, Sanctification, or Regeneration of Mortal Souls is a matter so exceeding difficult, that the Scriptures compare it to such Works, as can be wrought by no hand, but that alone which is Omnipotent. 'tis compared to the Resurrection of the Dead; so the Apostle, You hath he quickened, who were dead in sins. 'tis compared to Works of Creation; so intimates the Psalmist, 
Ps. 51.10.  {αβγδ} Create in me a clean Heart, O God. 
Eph. 2.10.  St. Paul tells regenerate Souls, Ye are created in Christ Jesus; and again, If any Man be in Christ, 
2 Cor. 5.18  he is a new Creature, and this new Creature is the Workmanship of Infinite Power; St. Paul calleth it, 
Eph. 1.17.  The exceeding greatness of his Power, according to the working of his mighty Power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead. The truth is, tho' all works be equally easy to an Omnipotent God, yet in their own Nature they are not so; the making of this new Creature is in itself an harder Work than the making of the old ones; the Psalmist tells us, He spake, and it was done. 
Ps. 33.9.  In making the World God met with no opposition, but in this new Creation he meets with much; for, as St. Paul saith, the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit; this Work of Grace is so much opposed, that he spake not much amiss, who said, Difficili●s est Peccatorem justificare, quàm Coelum& Terram creare, It is an harder Work for God to justify a Sinner, than it was to create Heaven and Earth.  
Now, this gracious Work, which of all Works seems to be the most difficult, do the Scriptures very frequently and very plainly ascribe to the Holy Spirit; 
1 Cor. 6.11.  so doth St. Paul, Ye are sanctified, ye are justified; but by whom? By the spirit of our God. Our Lord himself intimates as much; 
Joh. 3.5.  Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, &c. by virtue of these and the like Texts, do the Greek Fathers familiarly style the Holy Ghost, 
Epi. Haer. 74. p. 901. Naz. Or. 37. p. 610.  {αβγδ}, the Sanctifier, {αβγδ}, the Re-creator. And because every regenerate Man is born of the spirit, he is for that very reason said to be born of God; for, since this Work requires an Almighty Power, he who doth it, must needs be truly God. But,  
2. 'tis evident from the Scriptures, that the Holy Ghost is Omnipresent, and that is a second Attribute, which proves him God.  
'tis certain that all Creatures, being finite Substances, are definitivè vel circumscriptivè, so determined, limited, or confined to such or such a particular place, that none of them, the human Nature of Christ not excepted, can ever be at the same time in more places than one. But the Divine Nature being infinite and immense, 'tis God's Prerogative, and his alone, to be every where at once; for, as his Eternity is commensurate with all Successions of Time, so is his Immensity commensurate with all distances of Places, wherein he is Repletivè, per Essentiam, Potentiam,& Praesentiam, by his Essence, Power, and Presence, as the Schoolmen speak.  
And the certainty of this Divine Ubiquity, we may learn from that demand of God mentioned by the Prophet. 
Jer. 23.24.  Can any hid himself in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord? do not I fill Heaven and Earth, saith the Lord? This Question the Psalmist thus resolves, 
Ps. 139.8.  If I ascend up into Heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in Hell, behold thou art there, &c. Certainly there is {αβγδ}, a great gulf, a vast distance betwixt Heaven and Hell, and yet God is at once in both. In short, Deus nullo loco includitur, excluditur nulle. God is neither shut in nor out of any Place whatever, but is Omnipresent.  
And such a Person is the Holy Ghost; such an Intimation hath the Psalmist left us, 
Ps. 139.7.  whither shall I go from thy Spirit? This Text doth Athanasius pled as an Argument to prove that the Holy Ghost is no Creature; for thus he writes {αβγδ}, 
Athan. ad Serap. Sp. S. non esse Creat. p. 201.  &c. All creatures are in distinst places, the Sun, Moon, and Stars in the Firmament, Clouds in the Air, Men on Earth, Angels move from place to place even as they are sent; but the Holy Spirit fills all places, and is in the midst of all at once. So saith the Wisdom of Solomon, 
Sap. 1.7. Sap. 12.1.  the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and again, Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things. And if so, {αβγδ}, saith Athanasius, 'tis certain that the Spirit is no Creature, but {αβγδ}, he is a Person far above the Nature of Angels, and no Person is so, but God alone.  
But, besides the Authority of these Texts, for the Omnipresence of the Holy Ghost we may pled an Argument from those Promises of Christ to his Apostles; 
Joh. 16.13.  the Spirit shall guide you into all truth, and again, 
Joh. 14.26  the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things; not at once, but as occasion should require; and that he might be with them upon all Emergencies, 
Joh. 14.16  their Lord gave them this assurance, I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth. Now, since these Apostles, to whom these promises were made, were, by their Lords own Command, to be dispersed throughout all Nations, how could these promises be made good? how could the Spirit be to every one of them, being apart and separated in several Kingdoms, a ready guide and constant assistant, were he not Omnipresent? but since these Texts and these Promises do prove him so, they must likewise prove him truly God. Once more,  
3. 'tis evident from the Scriptures that the Holy Ghost is Omniscient, and none is so, but God alone.  
The only Intelligent Creatures are Men and Angels, but none of these are, or even can be Omniscient: as for the generality of Men, we are so far from understanding all things, that we do certainly know very little; nay, the Text saith, 
Joh. 8.9.  we are but of yesterday and know nothing: So it is with Man in common. And as for Men that were inspired, 
1 Cor. 13.9.  St. Paul saith, we know but in part, no more than God was pleased to reveal to them.  
The School men indeed do give to the blessed Angels the name of Intelligences in the Abstract; and yet of some things even they are Ignorant; nay, our Lord, as Man confessed himself to be so, 
Mar. 13.32.  of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the Angels of Heaven, neither the Son. And if our Lords own human Nature was not Omniscient, then can no Created understanding ever be so.  
But as for God, that is truly affirmed of him, which can be so affirmed of none besides, 
Ps. 147.5.  His understanding is infinite: 
Heb. 4.15.  To him, saith St. Paul, all things are naked and open; so they are to him, and to him alone; and yet so they were, are, and ever will be to the Holy Ghost. What else doth St. Paul mean, 
1 Cor. 2.10, 11.  when he saith, the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God; and again, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. The Spirit indeed is here said, {αβγδ} to search, which Phrase, when applied to Men, imports something of present ignorance; for what need a Man search after that, which he knoweth already? but here 'tis otherwise, {αβγδ}, or as another words it, 
Chrysost. Theophyl.& Oecum. in locum.  {αβγδ}. This search of the Spirit doth not suppose any Ignorance in him, but his exact knowledge and full comprehension. For the same Phrase is elsewhere applied to God the Father, who is said {αβγδ}, to search the hearts of men, as being one {αβγδ}, that knoweth the depths which are therein; so here, the Spirit is said to search the deep things of God, 
Theophyl in locum.  {αβγδ}, as one taking much pleasure in the Contemplation of the Mysteries of God. To the same purpose writes another thus, 
Grig. Naz. Or. 20. p. 362.  {αβγδ}, 'tis testified of the Spirit, that he searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, but not as one, that was at any time Ignorant of them, but as one always highly pleased with such a Speculation.  
'tis the saying of an Ancient Father {αβγδ}, 
B●sil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 4. p. 101.  The Holy Spirit cannot be Ignorant of any of the things of God; for, if he himself had not known them, how could he have revealed them unto the World? St. Paul  told the Elders of the Church; 
Act. 20.27.  I have not shunned to declare unto you all the Counsel of God. But how came St. Paul himself to be acquainted with it? that he tells us,( though in a modest expression) I think that I have the Spirit of God. 
1 Cor. 7.40.  And indeed he might do more than think so; for, 
Athan. Contra Maced. dial. 1. p. 271.  as Athanasius justly demands {αβγδ}; what is it that hath and doth Communicate the knowledge of God and his Counsels, except the Spirit? Who was it, that revealed to the Prophets future Events of things, not only contingent, but very Improbable; nay, as to the common Course of Nature utterly Impossible too? The Prophet Isaias several hundred years before the Incarnation of Christ, foretold his Birth, though it were so Miraculous, that many would not believe it, no, not when he was actually so born, 
Isa. 7.14.  Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, matter& Virgo; that a woman should be a Mother, and yet a Vigin too, was one of St. Bernard's three great wonders.  
But how came the Prophet to understand that certainly it should be so? who was it that informed him? to this St. Paul hath left us a very Satisfactory answer: 
Act. 28.25.  Well spake the Holy Ghost by the Prophet Isaias. And not by him alone, but by all the other Prophets too, of whom St. Peter saith, the Spirit of Christ was in them, 
1 Pet. 1.11. 2 Pet. 1.21.  and again, holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, now then, since the Blessed Spirit is that Person, who revealed the will of God to all his Prophets; who certainly foretold things to come; and such things, as were far beyond the comprehension of Men and Angels; since it was he, who, according to our Lord's promise, did guide his Apostles into all Truth, and brought all things to their Remembrance, we may safely conclude, that he knoweth all things, even the deep things of God.  
And from this Consideration doth St. Hierom rightly infer the Deity of the Holy Ghost; for thus he writes, praeclarum hoc adversus Haereticos, qui Creaturam Spiritum Sanctum dicunt. 
Hieronym. in pr. Ep. ad Cor. c. 2. v. 10.11.  Unde hic ostendit non Solum Creaturam non esse, verum etiam quod ipse solus interiora Dei& profunda rimetur, quip ut ejusdem naturae atque Substantiae sit cum Christo. This Text is a very clear Argument against those heretics, who affirm the Holy Ghost to be a Creature. For in as much as the Spirit is here said to search even the deep things of God, i.e. exactly to know them; it sheweth, not only that he is no Creature, but that he is of the same Nature and Substance with Christ, who is God the Son; his knowing even the deep things of God, imports his Omniscience, and that is another Attribute, which evidently proves him to be a Divine Person; one who is truly God.  
But to enervate these Arguments, and to elude those Texts, upon which they are grounded, our Socinians tell us, that such Texts are Figurative, that there is in them a Prosopopoeia; whereby Personal Actions are often ascribed to things or qualities, which are not Persons. St. Paul saith of Charity, It beareth all things, 
1 Co. 13.7.  it believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. These and other Personal Actions are attributed to Charity, which yet are proper to the Person only, in whom that noble Grace resides. So in our present case, they tell us, that those Divine Actions are Figuratively ascribed to the Spirit, not that this Spirit is a Person subsisting in Co-operating of himself; but because he is the Power of God the Father, who thereby doth the works: So they. To which we answer.  
This pretence of a Prosopopoeia, as if those Personal Acts were really done by God the Father, which are only imputed to the Spirit, as being no more than the Power by which the Father works, will appear very absurd and ridiculous, if we can find some personal operations ascribed to the Spirit, which can never be ascribed to the Father. As for instance; the Holy Spirit is said to come, as being sent, 
Joh. 14.26.  but by whom, can God the Father be sent? the Holy Spirit is said to receive, 
Joh. 16.13, 14.  but from what Donor's hand can God the Father be a Receiver? the Holy Spirit is said not to speak of himself, but who prompts and puts words into the mouth of God the Father? the Holy Spirit is said to make Intercession for us, 
Rom. 8.26.  but can God the Father become an Intercessor? if he can, let our Socinians tell us, with whom he intercedes. These Instances are enough to evince, that the holy Spirit is not a quality; not that Energetical Power by which the Father acts, but a Person really subsisting in himself, since such Personal operations are Attributed to him, which cannot by any Prosopopoeia be ascribed to God the Father.  
2. My next and last work is to prove that the Holy Spirit is not only a real Person, but a Person so distinguished both from the Father and the Son, that he is neither the one nor the other.  
To prove this truth, as it is easy, so is it now become very necessary too, because this licentious age hath produced some Men, who have revived the old heresy of Noetus, of whom St. Austin writes thus, 
August. Haer. 36. Tom. 6. p. 4. Epiphan. Haer. 57. p. 481.  Docebat Christum Eundem esse ipsum Patrem& Spiritum: and so Epiphanius {αβγδ} He dreamed and taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were but one and the same Person. After him arose Sabellius, who promoted the same opinion, 
Idem. Haer. 62. p. 513.  {αβγδ}, That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three distinct Persons; but only {αβγδ}, three different denominations.  
This Heretical opinion is so repugnant to so many express Texts, that it is in the Language of Epiphanius, 
Idem. Haer 57. p. 482  {αβγδ} easy to be Confuted; for,  
1. 'tis very evident from the holy Scriptures, that the blessed Spirit is a Person distinct from God the Father.  
For the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father; 
Joh. 15.26  and therefore he cannot be the Father; for no Person can possibly, proceed from himself. Again, the Spirit is said to be sent by the Father, 
Joh. 14.26  and if so, the Person sending, and the Person who is sent, cannot be the same. Nay more, the Spirit is said, 
Joh. 15.26  to be sent from the Father; and if so, can any Person be said to be sent from himself? these Texts are sufficient to prove, that the Holy Spirit is not, cannot be, the Father.  
2. 'tis evident from the Holy Scriptures that the blessed Spirit is a Person distinct from the Son.  
For when our Lord was newly Baptized, 
Matth. 3.16.  the Holy Ghost descended upon him; and if so, the holy Ghost, who did descend, and our Lord on whom he descended, cannot be the same. Besides, our Lord  told his Apostles thus, I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
Joh. 14.16  even the Spirit of truth. Here doth our Lord put a clear difference betwixt himself and his Holy Spirit, whom he calls {αβγδ} another, and therefore not himself.  
But to name no more Texts, we find a plain distinction betwixt all three Persons in the Form of Baptism, which must be administered, 
mat. 28.19.  in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: If these three here mentioned, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are allowed to be, what they certainly are, the three Persons in the God head, then is this Form of Baptism very consonant to its self, and Intelligible to us: but if not, if, according to the Socinian Hypothesis, the first here named be a Person, and that Person God; if the second be a Person, and that Person no more than a mere Man; and if the third be no Person at all; then must this Form of Baptism be thus interpnted: Baptizing them in the name, i.e. by the Authority, or into the Religion and Worship of the Father, who is God; of the Son, who is a Creature; and of the Holy Ghost, who is nothing else but a Power, a Quality inherent in the Nature of God.  
And is it imaginable that our blessed Saviour, who is the Wisdom of God, who spake as never man spake besides, should institute such an uncouth, incoherent, and absurd Form of Baptism, as this must be, if so interpnted? Is it imaginable that our Meek and Humble Jesus, had he been no more than a mere Man, would ever, in this sacred Institution, have joined himself with God his Father, as if his Authority were, and his Worship ought to be, the very same with his; nor can we conceive, that our Lord would here have made a distinct mention of the Father and the Holy Ghost, if the Holy Ghost were not a distinct Person, but only the Power of God, for his Power, and all his other Attributes, though we frame to ourselves distinct Ideas and various Conceptions of them, yet they are not really distinct from his Essence, they are himself.  
And thus have I examined all this Man's pretences, and answered all his Arguments against the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity; and notwithstanding all that he doth, or ever can, object against the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy Ghost, I shall conclude this discourse with the words of a far better Author, 
Greg Naz Or. 44. p. 711.  {αβγδ}. The Holy Spirit always was, is, and will be, without Beginning, without End, coordinate and reckoned in the same rank with the Father and the Son. To which I shall add only that Epiphonema of Epiphanius, {αβγδ}, 
Epiph. in Exp. fidei T. 2. l. 3. p. 1101.  {αβγδ}. The Trinity is really perfect, the Father perfect, the Son perfect, the Holy Ghost perfect; one Divine Nature, one God, to whom be Glory, Honour and Dominion for ever and ever.  
Amen.   

A POSTSCRIPT TO THE AUTHOR OF THE TRACT, entitled, A Designed End to the Socinian controversy.  
SIR,  
IF you really have, what Men do generally pretend, any considerable Value for your own Immortal Soul, take heed of Blasphemy against the Son, but especially against the Spirit of God; for that is a Crime already pronounced to be irremissible. Take heed of persisting in your present Heretical Opinion, denying the Deity of those two glorious Persons, to whom the Scriptures do ascribe such Titles, such Attributes, and such Operations, as are peculiar and proper to God alone. When St. John saith, The Word was God, and proves it thus; By him all things were made, when St. Paul stiles our Saviour, God blessed for ever, and elsewhere ascribes to him the Creation of the Universe; nay, when God the Father saith to his Son, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: Why should you, in a flat contradiction to these and other plain Texts, deny his Divinity?  
And when St. John tells us, The Word was made Flesh, and St. Paul saith, God was manifested in the Flesh; and again, He took upon him the Seed of Abraham, when the Scriptures call our Saviour sometimes God, and sometimes Man; why should you deny the Union of the Divine and human Natures in his sacred Person? How they should be United, you cannot imagine; what then? will you deny the Union of your own flesh and Spirit; because you cannot tell by what ties and bonds they are linked and knit together? there are many things even in Nature, which were they not visible to the Eye of Man, his Reason might well judge to be Impossible; can you tell me, how a Child is so curiously framed in its Mother's Womb, how it breaths within that narrow Cloister, and how it is nourished there? can you give yourself a satisfactory Account, how a Chick with Flesh, Bones, Bill, Claws, and Feathers should be produced out of the same Egg? what sufficient reason can you offer for the variety of smells in plants, and of delicate Colours in one and the same Flower? Aristotle, that great Philosopher, {αβγδ}, the grand Secretary, and Interpreter of Nature's Mysteries, was even confounded in his thoughts about the Motions of Euripus. And if the Secrets of Nature do thus puzzle the Reason of Man, how can we hope thoroughly to understand {αβγδ}, the deep things of God? the Mysteries of his Nature and his Religion.  
I am apt to think, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is as easy to human Reason, as that of God's Self-existence, Eternity, Immensity, and Omnipresence; indeed, that there must be one self-existent Being without a beginning, our own Reason is able to convince us; but how it should be so, it can never tell us. That Man must needs be lost in his Meditations, whose thoughts should pursue and dwell upon the Contemplation of Eternity; a Nunc stans, a standing, and perpetual moment, a continued space without Succession. Nor could we frame unto ourselves any better ideas of God's Immensity and Omnipresence without extension. It was well observed by Tertullian, scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloriâ. He that shall dive too far into the Infinite Perfections of God, will quickly find himself at a loss and overwhelmed. So it was with Simonides, who being asked by Hiero, King of Sicily, Quid& qualis Deus sit, what God is, desired at first one Day, then two, and afterwards many more, to consider of it; and at last, after a long deliberation,  told the King thus; 
Coel. Rhodig. Antiq. lect. l. 21. c. 34.  Quantò diutiùs cogito, tantò mihi res videtur obscurior. The more I consider the Nature of God, the less do I apprehended it. And for this reason did Plato style God {αβγδ}, 
Plato apud Coel. Rhod. ib.  an ineffable Being, one whose Nature no Name can express; and withal he tells us, {αβγδ}, it is no easy thing to find out the True God, but fully to understand him it is impossible.  
But although the short-sighted Eye of human Reason can never take a full view of the Divine Nature, and its Infinite Perfections, its Self-existence, its Eternity, its Immensity and Omnipresence; yet these Attributes being declared in the Holy Scriptures, we do generally pretend to believe them, though we cannot comprehend them, and why then should you not believe the Trinity too? for, sure it is, that those Texts, which prove these Infinite Perfections, which pass Man's understanding, to be found in the Divine Nature, are not more express and plain, than those which prove a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead.  
And let our Socinians take heed of deceiving themselves and others, by saying that those Texts, which assert the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, are improper expressions, and must be figuratively understood. Take heed of forcing those Scriptures from their literal meaning; which cannot with any tolerable Sense, bear any other. So to do was the practise of Ancient heretics, 
Athan. ad Serap. Sp. S. non osse C●●at. p. 181.  {αβγδ}, ye have made bold to invent to yourselves Tropes and Figures. This they did to serve a turn, to this sorry shift they were driven by necessity, because they had no other way to escape the force of those Texts, which were urged against them.  
But let me advice you not to exalt human Reason too high, and degrade the word of God too low; submit your own Understanding to Divine Revelation; dare not any more charge those Doctrines with Contradiction and Impossibilities, which the Scriptures teach us for certain Truths; say not this or that cannot be, when God, who cannot lie, hath  told us, that so it is. Suppose that none of us were able to answer the subtle Reasonings of Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Socinus, or our modern Unitarians, against the Doctrine of the Trinity; yet were we obliged to believe its Truth; because the Scriptures deliver it in such Terms, as are very Intelligible, express, plain, and cannot fairly be otherwise understood And since 'tis certainly so, I must tell all the opposers of this Doctrine, what Epiphanius  told the heretics of his time, 
Epiph. in anchor. Sect. 63. p. 66.  {αβγδ}; and again, {αβγδ}. The Apostles and Prophets, being inspired Persons, deserve far greater Credit, than any of those Men, who have been either the Founders or the Promoters of such Opinions, as contradict those Doctrines, which the Prophets and Apostles have taught us. The Scripture, being a Divine Revelation, and well understood, can never deceive us; but human Reason, being now corrupted and dark'ned, may easily fail us, and often doth so; and in nothing more, than in matters of Religion.  
Epiphanius hath left us a Catalogue of Eighty Heresies, 
Aug. adv. Haer. T. 6. p. 8. Epiphan. adv. Haer. l. 1. Sect. 2.  and St. Austin of Ninety one, and whence all these arose, Epiphanius tells us, {αβγδ}, &c. Heresies and Heterodox Opinions were broached and spread in the World by the mistakes of Men, whose Understandings did miserable deceive them.  
Upon which account I would recommend to this Author that advice of Solomon, 
Prov. 3.5.  Lean not to thy own understanding, and as to the Interpretation of such and such Texts, prefer not the private Opinions of a few particular Men, above the General judgement of the catholic Church.  
And since in contradiction to the Faith of the Universal Church, grounded upon plain Texts, you flatly deny the Divinity of Christ, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost; be advised to inform yourself better; and to that end, red and weigh Bishop Pearson's most rational and learned Exposition of the apostles Creed; consider his Arguments, as if( as I am confident) neither you, nor any of your opinion can confute them; be so far convinced by them, as to renounce your present heresy, and to repent that you have endeavoured to promote it by publishing false pretences of Scripture and human Reason, thereby to corrupt the minds of Ignorant and too credulous Men.  
And now for a farewell, let me recommend to you that Counsel of the Roman Orator. Artem, quam quisque novit, eam exerceat, and those vulgar Proverbial Speeches, Ne suitor ultra crepidam, and Tractent fabrilia fabri, since the Wisdom of Nations is said to lye much in their Proverbs, it will be your Prudence to govern yourself by these; the meaning whereof is this, That every Man should exercise that Art only, which he well understands; that a Shoemaker should not presume to go beyond his Last; that a Smith should deal with those Materials and Tools only, which are proper for his Vocation. And since your Name is Smith, and, as I am credibly informed, your Employment, being that of a Clock-maker, is somewhat suitable thereunto; you may do well to lay aside the Use of Pen, Ink, and Paper, in order to the writing of Books; and to take up the Hammer, or use the Anvil; to mind the Springs, Wheels, and Movements of your Clocks; to leave the Interpretation of Scriptures, and the Decision of Controversies, to learned Men, who are able to manage them a great deal better.  
But now, for a Close of all, let me tell you, I am not your Enemy, because I tell you the Truth; but remembering that of Tertullian, Verè Christianus nemini inimicus, I am an Enemy to no Man's Person, and consequently not to yours; but withal, remembering that of the Apostle, Contend earnestly for the Faith. To every Man's Heretical Opinion, and therefore to yours, I am an Enemy, and ought to be so. The grand Articles of our Christian Faith, relating to the Deity of Christ and his Holy Spirit, plainly delivered in several Texts, and generally professed by the best and most Divines of the catholic Church, being now unworthily opposed by Men who measure the Infinite Perfections of God by the Imperfect Scantlings of human Reason; I would defend with my Pen, and if need were, ought to seal them with my Blood,  
In the mean time, I will venture to tell you, that if our Trinitarians cannot give a fairer Answer to all those Texts, which in your opinion, contradict the Doctrine of the Trinity, than any of your Unitarians can give to those many Texts, which in our judgement do clearly prove it. I will renounce my present Faith, and become your Proselyte, and own myself to be, though as yet I think I never shall be, a Socinian. To make me a Man of that opinion, the reasonings of Man's fallible Understanding will not be sufficient; but several Texts must either be proved to be no part of the Canon, and blotted out of our Bibles; or else they must be more fairly interpnted some other way, than as yet they ever have been. But to expunge any part of the Scripture, were grossly impious and sacrilegious; to expound any Text contrary to the received sense of the Universal Church, were very highly assuming; to imagine Tropes and Figures, where the literal sense is plain, easy, and very consonant to the Analogy of Faith, what were this; but, Nodum in Scirpo quaerere? to seek and pretend Difficulties where indeed there are none? what were this, but, with Origen, to turn the plain letter into Allegory? This is the Course, which heretics have been wont to take, that they might elude the sacred Writ, and force the good Word of God to serve the ill opinions of Men.  
FINIS.