"king it for granted, that Chrift is truly that God who "made the world." And if the author of this epiftle does affirm these words of the Pfalmift to be fpoken of Christ, then they must acknowledge Chrift to be the true God who made heaven and earth. But the author of this epiftle does as evidently affirm thefe words to be fpoken to or of Chrift, as he does the words of any other text cited in this chapter: and for this I appeal to the common fenfe of every man that reads them.

Thefe interpreters indeed are contented, that the latter part of this citation fhould be fpoken of Chrift, but not the former. But why not the former as well as the latter, when they have fo exprefsly told us, that "all "the words of this pfalm are manifeftly spoken of God?" What is the mystery of this? Could they not as eafily have interpreted the former part, which speaks of the creation of heaven and earth, concerning the moral world, and the new creation or reformation of mankind by Jefus Chrift and his gofpel, as well as fo many other plain texts to the fame purpofe? No doubt they could as well have done it, and have fet as good a face upon it when they had done it. But why then did they not do it? It was for a reason which they had no mind to tell, but yet it is not hard to be gueffed at, namely, that, if they had admitted the former words to have been spoken of Chrift, they knew not what to do with the latter part of this citation, y 11. 12. They shall peifb, but thou remaineft; and they all fhall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they Ahall be changed. What fhall perish, and wax old, and be changed? Why, the earth and the heavens, which the Son had made; that is, the moral world, the reformation of mankind, and the new creation of things by the gofpel. All these must have undergone the fame fate with the natural world, and muft not only have been defaced, but utterly destroyed, and brought to nothing. This they would not fay; but they did fee it, though they would not feem to fee it. And we may plainly fee by this, that they can interpret a text right when neceffity forceth them to it, and they cannot without great inconvenience to their caufe avoid it. But when men have once refolved to hold faft an opinion they have VOL. III.

F

taken

taken up, it then becomes not only convenient, but neceffary, to understand nothing that makes against it. And this is truly the prefent cafe. But, in the mean time, where is ingenuity, and love of truth?

And thus I have, with all the clearness and brevity I could, fearched to the very foundations of this new interpretation of this paffage of the Evangelift, upon which the divinity of the Son of God is fo firmly established; and likewife of the grofs mifinterpretations of feveral other texts to the fame purpose in this Evangelift, and in other books of the New Teftament. All which interpretations I have endeavoured to fhew to be not only contrary to the fenfe of all antiquity; of which as Socinus had but little knowledge, fo he seems to have made but little account; but to be alfo evidently contrary to the perpetual tenor and style of the holy fcripture.

Before I go off from this argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing wherein our adverfaries in this caufe do perpetually glory, as a mighty advantage which they think they have over us in this point of the divinity of the Son of God, and confequently in that other point of the bleffed Trinity, namely, that they have reafon clearly on their fide in this controverfy; and that the difficulties and abfurdities are much greater and plainer on our part than on theirs.

Here they are pleased to triumph without modefty, and without measure: and yet, notwithstanding this, I am not afraid here likewise to join issue with them, and am contented to have this matter brought to a fair trial at the bar of reafon, as well as of fcripture, expounded by the general tradition of the Chriftian church: I fay, by general tradition; which, next to fcripture, is the best and fureft confirmation of this great point now in question between us, and that which gives us the greatest and trueft light for the right understanding of the true fenfe and meaning of fcripture, not only in this, but in most other important doctrines of the Christian religion.

I am not without fome good hopes, I will not fay confidence; (for I never thought that to be fo great an advantage to any caufe, as fome men would be glad to make others believe it is; hoping to help and fupport weak argument by a strong and mighty confidence.

But

But furely modesty never hurt any caufe; and the confidence of man seems to me to be much like the wrath of man, which St. James tells us, chap. i. 20. worketh not the righteousness of God; that is, it never does any good, it never ferves any wife and real purpose of religion):

I fay, I am not without fome good hopes, that I have in the foregoing difcourfes clearly fhewn, that the tenor of fcripture and general tradition are on our fide in this argument; and therefore I fhall not need to give myfelf the trouble to examine this matter over again.

Now, as to the point of reafon, the great difficulty and abfurdity which they object to our doctrine concerning this mystery, amounts to thus much, that it is not only above reafon, but plainly contrary to it.

As to its being above reason, which they are loth to admit any thing to be; this, I think, will bear no great difpute; becaufe, if they would be pleafed to fpeak out, they can mean no more by this, but that our reafon is not able fully to comprehend it. But what then? Are there no mysteries in religion? That I am fure they will not fay; because God, whofe infinite nature and perfections are the very foundation of all religion, is certainly the greatest mystery of all other, and the most incomprehenfible but we must not, nay they will not for this reafon deny, that there is fuch a being as God. And therefore, if there be myfteries in religion, it is no reasonable objection against them, that we cannot fully comprehend them; because all myfteries, in what kind. foever, whether in religion or in nature, fo long, and fo far as they are mysteries, are for that very reafon incomprehenfible.

But they urge the matter much farther, that this particular mystery now under debate, is plainly contrary to reafon. And if they can make this good, I will confefs that they have gained a great point upon us. But then they are to be put in mind, that to make this good against us, they muft clearly fhew fome plain contradiction in this doctrine; which I could never yet fee done by any. Great difficulty, I acknowledge, there is in the explication of it; in which the further we go, beyond what God has thought fit to reveal to us in fcripture concerning

F 2

concerning it, the more we are intangled.: and that which men are pleased to call an explaining of it, does in my apprehenfion often make it more obfcure; that is, lefs plain than it was before; which does not so very well agree with a pretence of explication.

Here then I fix my foot, that there are three differences in the Deity, which the fcripture fpeaks of by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and every where fpeaks of them, as we ufe to do of three diftinct perfons and therefore I fee no reafon, why in this argument we should nicely abftain from ufing the word perfon, though I remember that St. Jerome does fomewhere defire to be excufed from it.

Now, concerning thefe three, I might, in the first place, urge that plain and exprefs text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft; and thefe three are one. But upon this I will not now infift, because it is pretended, that in fome copies of greatest antiquity this verfe is omitted; the contrary whereof is, I think, capable of being made out very clearly. But this matter would be too long to be debated at present.

However that be, thus much is certain, and cannot be denied, that our Saviour commanded his Apofiles to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft; and that the Apostles, in their epiftles, do in their moft ufual form of benediction join these three together. And it is yet further certain, that not only the name and title of God, but the most incommunicable properties and perfections of the Deity, are in fcripture frequently afcribed to the Son and the Holy Ghoft; one property only excepted, which is peculiar to the Father, as he is the principle and fountain of the Deity, That he is of himfelf, and of no other; which is not, nor can be faid of the Son and Holy Ghoft.

Now, let any man fhew any plain and downright contradiction in all this; or any other difficulty befides this, that the particular manner of the existence of thefe three differences or perfons in the divine nature, expreffed in fcripture by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghof, is incomprehenfible by our finite underftandings, and inexplicable by us. In which, I do not

fce

fee what abfurdity there is, fince our adverfaries cannot deny that many things certainly are, the particular manner of whofe exiftence we can neither comprehend nor explain.

Let us now fee, whether the opinion of our adversaries hath not greater difficulties in it, and more palpable abfurdities following from it. They fay, that the Son of God is a mere creature; not God by nature, and yet truly and really God by office, and by divine appointment and constitution; to whom the very fame honour and worship is to be given, which we give to him who is God by nature.

And can they difcern no difficulty, no abfurdity in this? What! no abfurdity in bringing idolatry by a back-door into the Christian religion, one main defign whereof was, to banish idolatry out of the world? And will they in good earnest contest this matter with us, that the giving divine worship to a mere creature is not idolatry? And can they vindicate themselves in this point any other way, than what will in a great measure acquit both the Pagans and the Papifts from the charge of idolatry?

What! no abfurdity in a God as it were but of yester day; in a creature-god; in a God merely by pofitive inftitution and this in oppofition to a plain moral precept of eternal obligation, and to the fixed and immutable nature and reafon of things?

:

So that, to avoid the fhadow and appearance of a plurality of deities, they run really into it, and, for any thing I can fee, into downright idolatry, by worshipping a creature befides the creator, who is bleed for ever, Rom. i. 25,

They can by no means allow two Gods by nature ≈ no more can we. But they can willingly admit of two Gods; the one by nature, and the other by office; to whom they are content to pay the fame honour, which is due to him who is God by nature. Provided Chrift will be contented to be but a creature, they will deal more liberally with him in another way than in reafon is fit.

And do they fee no abfurdity in all this; nothing. that is contrary to reafon and good fenfe; nothing that

F 3

feels