B
Txi*'
THE
SOCINIAN
Controverfy Difcufs d :
WHEREIN
The CHIEF of the
SOCINIAN TRACTS
(Publilh'd of Late Years here)
ARE
CONSIDEKD.
The Word was God. i John i.
The Word was made $ lefb. verf. 14.
The Lord is that Spirit, ii Cor.- iii. 17.
Baptizing in- the Name of the Father, and of the So» 9
and of the Holy-Ghofi. Matt, xxviii. 19.
And thefe Three are One. 1 Joh. v. 7.
By Charles Leslie
Chancellor of the Cathedral of CONNOR.
LONDON,
Printed for G. Straban, at the Coldeti Ball over againft the.
Royd-Exchange in CornhilL New-Years Day. 1708*
PREFACE.
Have been perfwaded to let this fir (I Dialogue be
Publifh'd while the reft are a 'Priming. For tho > they
T
are all one Intire Difcourfe, yet this is fome thing
-^*~ Particular from the others, being not in Anfiver to thofe
Books which are Conjider'd in them, but a SubjeU by it [elf',
jet what I thought NeedfuU as a Preparation to Remove
that Prejudice, which 9 1 may fay, only has made fo many So*
cinians, (and on which they perpetually Infift, tho y very Vn-
reafonably,) not to Believe what is ReveaVd of God, any
further than our weak Reafon can Comprehend,
I pretend not to Prove the Myfteries of the Holy Tri-
nity, and Incarnation by Reafon. 1 , am fully Satisfied
our Shallow Meafure of it coifd never have found them
out. Which is one Reafon I have given why they cou'd
not be of Human Invention, But if they are not direct
Contradictions, no other Difficulties can be any Obfirutfion
to our Belief of what we all acknowledge to be Myfteries.
And if I have folv'd thofe Popular Arguments of Con-
tradiction which are Objected againft thefe Myfteries, I have
Cleared the Foundation of that Rubbifh which was Necejfa-
ry in Order to Erect the Building more Firm and Regular.
And I have Endeavoured to do this in a Plain F*~
miliar manner fuited to Common Capacities, avoiding as
much as poffibb the Intricate School-Terms, but [peaking
their Senfe in 4 way Intelligible to Englifh Readers, and
giving fuch Inftances to Explain them as are Obvious to
every one, and wherein any body may objeff, without thd help
of Art, if he finds they come not up to the Purpofe intended.
1 fend out therefore this firfl Dialogue by itjelf. That
the Socinians may have time to Confder it, before I
eome to the Proof with them, which is only from the Holy
Scriptures. And if I [hall gain any Ground upon them in this,
U
to Remove their Rooted Prejudice, / doubt not. of their Re-
ceiving full Satisfaction in the Confideration of thoje Scriptures
which Reveal thefe Great Myfteries.
And to Others who may rather Incline to have the whole
Together, it can be but a Small Dij 'appointment ; fwce the
Re (I is in the Prefs and will foon follow , and then may be
Bound t&gether Without any Inconvenience, if they Pare
not the Leaves of this.
And in this Bufy Age, where men have fo many Avoca-
tions, And wou*d grudge to Enter upon a Larger Book, or
wou^d lay it by till the Vacation, it may be more Conveni-
ent to Entertain them with ftnall MefTes at a time, and
not to Cloy Squeamish Stomachs with the Sight of too much
Meat at once.
And becaufe I have a Regard to their Time, and that
this Matter is not Worth more Excufe, I conclude this Short
Preface. Refer ving a Larger for the whole when it is Per-
fected. The Contents of which I have put to this, that
the Reader may lee what he is to expect.
I only Add, that if any have Objections againfl this Dia-
logue, / Jball be Glad to Kjiow them, and to Confider
them by themfelves, without Intermixing them with the fol-
lowing Dialogues ; And chiefly for this Reafon, That I put
not any of the Merit of the Caufe upon it, and therefore
wou*d not have it fuffer by it. If I have not reafon* d aright t
that lies at my Door, and Hurts not the Validity of what
God has ReveaPd. But I hope what I have faid will not
Hurt it. And if it Anfwers the End for which I have In-
tended it, it will Facilitate the Converfion of Many,
Quod Deus fauitum fsxif.
ERRATA.
PAge i<;. Z. 4. f. findr. make. p. itf.Ult. r. the Prefent Cafe. p. 32. /. 31. /;
Happly r. Apply, p. 3 3. /. 1 5, r.Tbis is. p. 34. /. 10./. come r. Came. p. 4$,
i. %z.j. Sena* r. julty.
CONTENTS.
THE
Firft DIALOGUE.
INtrodu&ion. p a ge i.
All Belief founded upon Rea-
fon. p. 3.
Yet we know not the Reafon of
many things we Believe. p. 4.
No Contradiction in the Terms by
which we Exprefs the H. Tri-
nity, p. 6.
§. I. No Contradiction can be Charg'd
in any Nature we do not un-
derftand. Exemplify 'd in the Dif-
ferent Natures of ' p, 7.
1. Sight and Motion.
2. Body and Soul.
3. Ttme and Eternity.
II. The word Perfon as Apply'd to
God
p.p.
III. Of the Son being as Old as the
Of Light and Heat in the Sun. p. 1 2.
IV. OfthePro^tf/^ofS^Ww. Ibid.
1. Of the Faculties in the Soul. ibid.
2. Of the Difference betwixt Facul-
ties and Verfons. p. itf.
3. Why we fay Terfons and not
Faculties ill God. p. 17.
4. Of the Difference betwixt i 7 ^-
r ulties and Pajfwns. p. 1 8.
5. Of Extenfion and Dimenfions ,
wherein of the Parable of the
Sewer. ibid.
«5 Apply'd to the Ptr/W and At-
tributes of 6W. p. 19.
7- Thefe Conclufive to the Argu-
ment, p. 21
8. Alluiions from Body to Soul ne-
ceiTary, yet many Contradictions
in them. p.. 22.
Father.
p. u f
CONTENTS.
9. Apply'd to our prefent Sub-
ject, ibid.
10. We mull think of Three in
every Spirit. p- *3-
V. If the Trinity were a Contradicti-
on, that wou'd Prove it not to
be of Human Invention, p. 24.
1. The Objection as to Tranffub-
fiantiation Solv'd. ibid.
2. No Allufion or Parallel in Nature
to Tranf-fubftantiation. p. 25.
3. Compar'd with Con-fubfiantia-
tion. p. 27.
VI. Allufions and Parallels necefTary
in our Contemplation of the
Nature of God. p. 28.
VII. Self-RefleBion an /;»*£* of the
Holy Trinity. p. 29.
VIII. Of the Fecundity in the
J>e/>y. p- 30.
1 . Of a Third Perfon in the Trini-
ty, p. 32.
2. Why but One Production in the
Deity. p. 33-
3. The fecond Perfon Begotten, the
third Proceeding. p 34.
4. The i//>e of Chrifi. ibid.
5. And £w of the Church. Parti-
cularly in her Formation. P. 41.
XL By the word God in H. omp-
r«re the whole Bl. Trinity is
meant. p. 42.
Particular ^-
ture Inquifd into, in their or-
der.
1. Gen. 1. i.
2. Gen. 1. 26.
3. Gen. 3. 22.
4. Gen. 11.6, 7.
5. Pfal. 4$. 6.
6. Pfal. 68. 18.
7. Pfal. 97. 7.
8. Plal. 102. 25,.
p. Ifai. 6. 1, 8, 9.
10. Ifai. 7. 14.
'ii. Ifai. 8. 14.
12. Ifai. 9. 6, 7.
13. Ifai. 44. 6.
14. Ifai. 48. 16.
15. Jer. 23. 5> 6 -
16. Mich. 5. 2.
17. Zech. 2. 8, 9.
18. Zech. 3. 2.
19. Zech. 12. 20.
Teftimony of Tertu&an that the
Trinity is ColteUeA out of the
Vnity.
Anfwer to the ObjeUion why the
Trinity is not more Clearly
Reveafd in the 0/a? Tefiament.
THE
Third DIALOGUE,
T£e.m out of the New-Tefta~
ment.
1. Matth. 12. 31.
2. Matth. 28. 19,
3. Joh. 1. 1.
4. Joh. 2. 19, 21.
5. Joh. 3. j 3.
6. Joh. 8. 38.
7. Joh. 10. 30.
8. Joh. 10. 33.
9. Joh. 14. u
10. Joh. 14. 9*
11. Joh. 14. 14.
12. Joh. 16. 14.
Of the Holy Ghofi Appearing ill
the Shape of a Dove.
13. Joh. 17. 5.
14. Joh. 20. 28.
15. Ad. 5. 3. 4-
16. Ad. 7. 59.
17- Ad. 9- *4> 21.
18. Ad. 15. 28.
19. Ad. 20. 28. :
20. Rom. 9. 5. .
21. Rom. 9. 1.
22. Rom.. 2. 16.
23. Rom. 10. 12.
24. 1 Cor. 6. 1 9.
25. 1 Cor. 10. 9.
26. 2 Cor. 8. 9.
27.
CONTENTS.
27. 2 Cor. 12. 8, 9.
28. 2 Cor. 13. 14-
29. Gal. 1. 1, 12.
30. Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8.
31. Col. i. 15.
32. Col. 1. 16.
33. Col. 2. 9-
34. 2. ThefT. 2. i<5, 17.
35. 1 Tim. 6. 14, is, 1 <*-
36. Tit. 2. 13.
3-7. Heb. 1. 2.
28. Heb. 7 - 3-
39. Heb. 13. 8.
40. 1 Pet. 1. 11.
41. 1 Pet. 3. 197 20 -
42. Joh. 5. 7.
43. 1 Joh. 5. 20.
44. Rev. 5. 5.
Chrifi Called God. The i#/y Sj»V/>
Called God.
That the Trinity was the Dottrin
of the CW before the jzr/?
C*«w*7 of Nice, Proved from
Lucian.
THE
Fourth DIALOGUE.
XVII. i. A General Anfwer as
/^ to the Texts Urg'd
by the Socinians againft] the Di-
vinity of Chrifi.
1. To their Argument from the
&>» being the Image of thefvz-
3. To their Interpretation of Joh.
i7- i, *, 3-
4. Of 1 Cor. 8. 6.
5. To Cfcr*yPs having the Affi-
ftance of the Holy Ghoft.
6. To His being Call'd the Seed
of the Woman, of Abraham of
David. And a Prophet like to
.The Arguments of the Socinians
againft the Divinity of the Holy
Ghost Anfwer'd
1. That the Holy Ghoft is only
the Power or Wifdom of God.
2. That the Holy Spirit is obtain'd
of God by our Prayers.
3. That no Prayers are made to
the S/>/>*Y.
4. That God is fpoke of in the
Singular Number.
The Obje&ion of the Socinians,
That the Son or the Holy Ghoft
are not called God in the
Creed.
XVIII. The Pretence of the Soci-
nians to Antiquity. Wherein
their Origin is fhewed to be
from Simon Magus, Continu'd
by after Heretkh Conderrui'd by
the Church.
The Socinians no Church ! Differ-
ence 'twixt them and the Ari-
ans. Comparifon 'twixt them
and the Mahometans.
XIX. Th« Credit the Socinians Ex-
pert by Alledging fome Modern
Chriftian Writers as Favourers
of their Opinion.
XIX,
CONTENTS.
r. Erafmus.
2. Grotius.
3. Petavius.
4. Epifcopius,
5. Sandius.
THE
Fifth DIALOGUE.
XX. A General View and Ap-
jf\ flic at ion of what has
been Paid.
1. The Word God in Holy Scrip-
ture is taken moft Commonly
in a Complex SenPe, as including
all the Three Perfons : And Pome-
times it is taken Perfonally for
the Father.
2. The Socinians hold a Trinity
more Vn account able than what
is held by the Christians.
3. The Socinians own their Inter-
pretations of the H. Scriptures
to be Contrary to the Church
"4. Pretended Obfcurity in Scripture^
not the Caufe.
5. The Rule of Interpretation in
the Cafe of the Anthropromorphits^
will not ferve in Cafe of the
Trinity.
6. Nor in the Cafe of Trans-Sub-
ftantiation.
7. Concerning Myfterks,
THE
Sixth DIALOGUE,
/'"XF^the Satisfaction made
XXI. .
by Chrifi for our Sins
t . The Objection, That by this God
made the Satisfaction to Himfelf.
Anfwer'd.
2. How the Legal Sacrifices were
Accepted as Satisfatlion.
3. The Neceffity of Satisfatlion from
the Nature of Juftice.
Wherein Jam. 2. 13. Explain'd.
4. Of CV//? Confider'd only as a
5. Reafons the Socinians give for
the Death of Gkr//?.
To Confirm His Dotlrin.
To ihew GW'j Hatred to &».
5. Cfcrtf? Confider'd in His Types.
7. Several Texts mewing, That our
Redemption is by the Death of
Chrisl.
8. God's Covenant whith Chrift r
not Arbitrary.
9. The Objection Anfwer'd, That
the Dotlrin of Satisfatlion is an
Obstruction to P/«y.
10. The Neceffity of a Satisfatlion
Urg'd from the Nature of Z,*w,
as well as of Justice. And that
our Happinefs Con lifts therein,
and without it we mull be Mi-
ferable^ even by a Natural Con-
fequence.
The Angels of Heaven are Ruon-
cifd by OW#.
it-
C N T E N T S.
it. the ObjeBio;?, That if Christ
Underwent the whole PumJIj-
ment of Sin, He muft have had
Defpair.
12. That He muft have fuffer'd
Eternally. Both Anfwer'd.
XXIL Of the Eternity of Hell.
1. Of the Puni foment being Pro-
portionable to the Offence.
2. The Chief End of Religion.
3. If Religion may be Preach" d, with-
out Leave of the Civil-Govern-
ment.
4. All this Apply'd to the Do&rin
of Satisfaction.
5. Of Chrifl Introducing the Cove-
nant ©f Repentance.
6. The Law and the Go/pel the
fame Covenant.
7. Christ taking Our Sin upon Him,
was Typified in the Priest's Eat-
ing the Sin-Offering.
8. He made Himfelf Liable to our
Debt, by becoming our Surety.
He is our Hostage.
Heb. 7. 22. Explained.
p. The Socinian Interpellation of
Ifai. 53- II-
jo. A Notable Argument of the
Socinians^ to Excufe themfelves
for Denying the Divinity o
Chrifl. I
Arguments of the Socinians to
Prove.
1. That the Dottrin of the Trini-
ty is not Fundamental to Chri-
stianity.
2. That the Socinians ought not
to be put under any Penalties
by the Law.
3. That we ought to own them
as our Christian Brethren.
None Sav'd but by the Satisfaction
of Christ.
Concering that faying in the Creed
of St. Athanafius^ without Doubt
fa ail jerifi).
The Socinian Faith.
Compar'd with the Chriftian.
We muft Work, becaufe God Works
In and With Us.
Yet we muft be Vn-Clothed of
them all, and Clothed in the
Righteoufnefs of Chrifl.
An Appeal to the Socinians.
The Grace of God neceflary to
Work true Faith in Us.
r A Perfuafive inference from the
whole
CONTENTS.
The Years of Chrift in which thofe Ante-nicene Fathers flouriihed,
whom I have Quoted in the following Dialogues, and the
Editions, that you miftake not where I have Quoted the
Page* And if any other Edition happens to be Quoted, the
Edition is told.
Year of Chrift.
ST. Barnabas the Apoftle — — oxon. 1685.
c „ r .- Jni 5^)W's Edit. <9.v i&o.&.lZu
St, Juftinus Martyr. — S 140 *V*/2jr/. 1635. Gr. Lat.
St. Jrenaus. — — — — 1^7 Parifijs 1639.
Clemens Alex andr inns. — — — 192 iW*/". 1641. Gr. Lat.
Tertullianus, — 1 — — . — 192 Par if, 1664.
Origen. — — — — — 230 Rothomagi. \66%, Gr. Lat. Tom, 2/
St, Cypriaattsi — — . — • -—245 Oxonia. 1682.
THE
THE
FIRST DIALOGUE.
Introdu&ion;
H
socinijn. y^ X A v E y° u Read the Book l s ave
you, Intituled A brief Hi ft or y of
the Unitarians, called alfo Socini-
CHR1STIAN. I have. And I know it to be the Ce-
lebrated Book of your Party. Which therefore you have
Printed and Re-printed often, in feveral Volumes, fince
the Year 1687. when you firft did Publifh it. And
you have fince fully Employ'd the Liberty given you of
Propagating your Principles openly, and above-board.
Whereby you have GainM too Plentiful a Harveft among
thofe who, fince they muft have fome Religion, delight
in that which is fartheft from the True. But your Suc-
cefs has been moft among thofe who had not Leifure or
Learning to Examin your Pretences ; for whom this Book
is Calculated, in a fhort, eafy and plaufible Turn to fe-
veral Texts of Scripture ; which they who love not the
Trouble of Examining, arePleas'd fbou'd be True, think
it Sufficient for them; and fo Reft fatisfy'd.
B It
The Fir ft DIALOGUE.
It is a Tranjlation and a Compend, yet with Improve-
ments, of Larger Socinian Treatifes wrote in Latin, in
the fame Method, of Anfwering the feveral Texts of
Scripture, in the Order of the Books as they Lie, from
'Genefis to the Revelation, which are brought to Prove
the Christian Doffrines of the Holy Trinity, and the In-
carnation of the Second Terfbn, which is Chrifl.
And this is the True and only Method to Determin
this Controvcrjy ; becaufe thefe Docirins are Difcover'd to
Us, only by the Revelation which is given of them in
the Holy Scriptures. So that the whole Queftion is, Whe-
ther they are ReveaPd there, or Not ?
And" the way~to" know this is "Twofold, F/rfl, from
the very Words of the Scripture it felf. Secondly, from
the Current Senfe of the Church in thofe Ages where-
in the Scriptures were wrote, and Downwards ; which
is, at leafl:, the be ft Comment upon the Scriptures : They
who learn'd the Faith from the Mouths of the Infpi/d
Writers themfelves, and' Gonvey'd their Writings down
to Us, being the moft Capable of any to give us the
true Senfe and Meaning of them.
And in both thefe Refpe&s, you Pretend to -have die
Advantage. Not only in your own Interpretation of the
Scriptures : But you fay likewife, That your Dotfrin was
the Primitive Doclrin of the Church ; And Ours Intro-
duc'd as a Novelty and Corruption afterwards.
We will Difcourfe upon Both thefe Points, in their
Order. But. firft let me ask you a Queftion, in the fame
Freedom of Converfation which we Have always Us'd ;
and that is, Whether your Corwi>xion or Scruples Began
upon either the Vn-certainty oi the Scripture- Exprcjjions
themfelves, or the Senfe of the fir/i Agts of the Church ?
But, on the other hand, is not this tritely .the Cafe, That
you thought thefe Doftrins Irreconcilable to your own
Natural Reafon\ And therefore by no means to be Ad-
mitted, let the words of the Revelation be never fo Ro-
fitive
The Firft DIALOGUE. 3
fitive, or the Testimony of Antiquity never fo Clear in the
Matter ? And therefore that you were Oblig'd to Turyi and
Wind, thefe the beft you Cou'd, and to Force fcfrem to ■
Comply with your Hypothecs ?
SOC. I will not Deny, but that, if ther were no
Difficulty in Apprehending how Three can be One A oxGod
cou'd be Man, I fhou'd, without more ado, Acquiefce
in fuch Texts as thefe, That thefe three are one ; That
the Word was God? And that The Word was made Fltjb.
But, I fuppofe you will Allow me, That where ther is
Manifeft Contradiction , we mutt Turn the Senfe of the
Text another way. Will you -fay, That we are Oblig'd
to Believe Co-ntradiB'tons ?
CHR. No. But we are to be Ware, that we think
not things to be Contradictions thro' the Weaknefs 'of our
Vnderfiandings, which are not fo in themfelves.
SOC. I grant you all that. Therefore if you can Re-
concile thefe things from being plain Contradictions \ I
confefs you will Clear the way very Confiderably towards
my Receiving the Texts you bring, in the Eafy Literal
Senfe. And like wife for my Joining in the Teftimonies of
the Ancient fathers of the Church; with both of which
(I have no Scruple to tell you) we have Trouble enough,
to fatisfy our felves, and Ward off the Force. of the Ar-
guments you bring againft Us.
CHR. Therefore if I can fay any thing towards your
Satisfaction in this, it will be a good Preparative for
what is to follow, that is, the Confederation of the Scri-
pture Texts j and the Senfe of Antiquity in the matter.
SOC. If you can do that, your Bufinefs is more than ah Belief
half done, And therefore I fhall be glad to know l^° n un ^L upr
you have any thing to offer upon that Head. But I mult ° n *
Caution you not to Trouble me with Subjecting my Rea-
fon to Faith, and fuch Topics, with which I have been
Teaz?d, till I have no Patience left. For I muft tell you,
That I cannot Believe any thing, but what I think I have
B 2 Reafon
4 The Firft VIALOGVE.
Reafon to Believe. Elfe, I cou'd not Believe it: And
whoever tells me, That I mufl Believe, becaufe I mujl
Believe, I will not Anfwer him one word more. But
look upon him as Abandoned from Common Senfe, and only
fit for Bedlam.
CHR. I readily agree with you, That we not only
ought not, but that it is not in our Power to Believe any
thins, but what we think we have Reafon to Believe.
The Reafon we go upon may not be Good, that is, the
Weaknefs of our Under/landings ; but ft ill we muft Think
it Good, elfe we cou'd not Believe it : For that wou'd be
to Believe, what we do indeed not Believe. Every Man
has a Reafon (fuch as it is) for what he Believes ; tho 7
every Man cannot always Exprefs it. My Barber told
me fo, may be a Rea/on with iome: But they cou'd not-
Believe it, if they did not Think, it a Good Reafon.
Vet we But after all this, you will Allow me, That we may
know nut the ^aye g 00( 3 Reafon to Believe the Matter of Fact of many
S^in f gT a " tbin S s > tbat fuch thin S s are truly fo and f ° ; 0f ths Cau f es
that we" Be- of which, or the Nature of the things themfelves, we
Ueve * may be Ignorant to a Great Degree; And not able to
Solve many Difficulties and Objections may Arife from the
Nature of the things. We know not the Nature of any
one thing under the Sun, but a po/leriore ; by Guefling
at it, from the Effects we fee it Produce. Our Knowledge
here, is nothing but Obfervation. We fee Trees Grow,
and Produce their Like; fo of Beafls, and Men. We
find fuch and fuch Venues in Herbs and Minerals, &c.
But we know not the Reafon of any one thing, no, not
of a Pile of Grafs, why of that Colour, Shape, or Vertue I
But this we AiTuredly know, not only from Obferva-
tion, but from Reafon; That nothing can Produce, its
ielf. For that wou'd be to fay, the Caufe is not before
the Effect: It wou'd be to fuppofe the fame thing to be
before it felf : That is, to Be, and not to Be ; a; the fame
time, which is the Height of Contradiction. Therefore
we
The Firfl DIALOGUE.
we are Forc'd, even from plain Reafin, to Acknowledge
a firfl Caufe, which gave a Being to all other things, and
from whom all other things have Proceeded.
But then, from the fame Reafon, we muft Believe that
this Fir ft Caufe did not Produce It Self. For that wou'd
be the fame Contradiction as before. Neither that it was
Produc'd by any other: For then It wou'd not be the
Firfl Caufe. We muft likewife Believe that this Firfl
Caufe had no Beginning \ for then It muft have a Caufe-,
And there muft be a Time fuppos'd wherein It was not.
And if that were fuppos'd, then It cou'd never Be, be=
caufe it cou'd not Receive Its Being from Its Self nor
from any other. From hence we muft Believe that it's
Duration cannot be by Succeffion or Time ; for then It
muft have a Beginning.
Now, how can we Apprehend a Duration without
Time; an Eternity all Prefent together! A Being that is
Self-Exiftent, neither Produc'd by Its Self nor by any
other ! Yet all this hinders not our Belief of a firfl Caufe,
being forcM to Confefs it, by Undeniable Reafon; thV
we cannot Solve thefe and a thoufand more Difficulties,
and feeming Contradictions, which neceffarily arife from
fuch a Suppofition.
And becaufe you cannot Solve the Difficulties which
occurr to you in this fame Incompr 'ehenfible Nature of
God, as to the Trinity and Incarnation, you Reject the
Revelation that is given of -it, in the Holy-Scriptures, and
the Current Senfe of the Catholick-Church in the Firfl and
all following Ages of Chriflianity. And ftrain your Wit, to
Turn and Screw thefe to your Purpofe. Which you-
Confefs you wou'd not otherways have done.
SOC. I make a Difference betwixt things Incomfre-
henfible, and which Exceed our Vnder [landings, many of
which are in the Nature of God, befides thofe that you
have Nam'd ; And betwixt thofe Pofnions which are
downright Contradictions, for thefe cannot be True, And
B i wr
The Erfl DIALOGVE.
we muft force all the Teafa* and all the Authority in the
>ild, rather than Admit of them. As that God {hou 7 d
be Man: Or, that three fhou'd make but One.
No cotm-a- CHR A (tontradi'tfiw is only where two Contraries
dutim in tin aie predicated of xh&'fiwe thing, and in the fame Refbeff.
whShwlEx'-Per '^ ^**> or '-^* Thouf.nd may make but one
prefs the Ho- Company, or one Jrmy : There is no Difficulty in this.
hlitJf ' Now I will Grant you, That it is a Contradiction
to fay, That Three Perfons are but 0#e Per [on. But that
!W* Perfons may be in One Nature is no Contra-
diction.
SOC. Come let us be Plain. Is it not a Contradiction
that TVW.
From hence I may Conclude, That tho' it were a
Contradiction in Human Nature, for fe vera 1 Perfons to Par-
take of the fame Nature, and not to be feveral Men 9
that is, feveral Natures, as well as Perfons. Yet it will
not follow, That it is fo in the Divine Nature. Which
is lnft*itly more Diftant and Diverfe from Our Nature,
shan the Motion of Sight or Thought is from that of
oup
The Firfl DIALOGVE. 9
our Leggs; than Body is from $firit\ or 'Time from Eter-
kitf. And if it be Impoflible for all the Philofofhy and
Defcription in the Wor!d, to Give to a Man that is Born
Blind, any Idea w hatfoever of the Nature of Sight, or of
its Motion ; or to Reconcile its Going two yards as foon
as one from downright Contradiction ; For he cannot but
Compare it with that Motion which he only knows, of
Leggs or Arms : Or, if we couM Sappofe a Man with-
out Thought, it were Utterly Impoflible to Reconcile to
him the Progrefs of Thought, from the molt Palpable Con-
traditions : How then fhou'd We Object Contradictions
m the In-comprehenfible Nature of God, from Comparing
it with our Fr^/7 State ot Flejb and E/^ / Therefore I
think we may fafely Depend upon this as a Standing
Conclufion ; That we cannot charge that as a Contradicti-
on in one Nature, becaufe we find it fo in another, un-
lefs we Under (land Both Natures perfectly Well. And
the Divine Nature being Allow'd on all hands, to be
In-comprehenfible, Oonfequently we cannot Charge any
thing as a Contradiction in it, becaufe we find it fo in
our Frail Nature.
And we find it thus in many other things. It is com-
mon to fay, This is Impofflble, it is a Contradiction. But
being Explain'd to us, we fay, now it is Etfy, I did not
Underfiand it before, I took it quite Wrong. Therefor
We muft Under ji and things firrY before we charge Con-
tradictions in them. It is our Ignorance often which makes
the Contradiction. A s of the Blind Man Judging of Colours,
or of the Nature Sight, arid Comparing it with his Walking:
SOCl It is Eafy to Apprehend the Difference between II#
Walking, Seeing, and Thinking. The very Words do Ex- of the word-
prefs it. And it wou'd be Improper to Confound the p ^(f as -^p*
Words, to Call Walking, Seeing-, or Seeing, Walking, ^^
Therefore, tho' Dbubtiefs r ther are many things in the
Divine Nature, which Infinitely Exceed Our Under-
standing ; yet, for that Reafon, we ought not to Apply
to God thofe Terms which 'are Proper only to our felves.;
C as
io The Firft DIALOGV E.
as the Word Perfon, to fay there are three Perfons in
the Godhead. This raifes the Contradiction we fpeak of:
Becaufe we cannot Comprehend how Three Perfons can be
Oat, in our Nature.
CHR. I told you before, That we do not make three
Perfons to be one Perfon, but one Nature, And tho*
the Motion of the Feet is called Walking, of the Eye
is call'd Seeing, and of the Mi#i is Call'd Thinking :
Yet to a Man Born Blind, the Word Seeing is alto-
gether Vn-intelligible. He knows Nothing at all of it.
.And you cannot give him any Idea of Light, or Colour,
but he muft Apprehend it as fomething that may be Felt,
Heard, SmelPd, or Tafled. For he Cannot Conceive but
according to the Senfes that he has. Now if ther
were Words which Cou'd Exprefs the Nature of God
Properly, or as He is known to the Angels of Heaven,
they wou'd be as Vn-intelligible to Us, as the Word See-
ing is to one Born Blind. The Jpoftle faid, That when
he was Caught up into PARADISE, he heard "UN-
SPEAKABLE Words, which it is not Poffible for a Man
to Vtter: And if they were Vtter^d, it wou'd be Im-
poffible for Us to Vnderfiand them.
SOC. I can Readily allow, that we muft fpeak of
God, in Words not Stritfly and Properly adapted to Him,
but Borrow'd from Terms we Ufe among our felves.
As when we call God Father, we mean that we have
our Being from Him ; but not in that Manner as a
Son is Begotten by his Father among Men.
CHR. And thus we underftand the word Perfon.
As when Chrifi is call'd The Efjirffs Image of His
(God's; Perfon. We mean fomeching of a quite Diffe-
rent Kind from the Perfon of a Man upon Earth. But
it is a Word we muft Ufe, like the word Father, be-
caufe we have no other Word to Exprefs it by.
And we find what we call Perfonal A&iofib. j i
buted to the Father, to the S>n, and to the tidy
Spirit', as the One to Send, the Other to be Sent. The
One
2 Cor.
xii. 4.
The Firft DIALOGV E. u
One to Proceed from the Other. The One to Beget,
the other to be Begotten of Him. The 0^ to take
FleJJj and not the o/A*r, &c. Therefore we call thefe
Perfons, becaufe we find Perfonal Actions attributed
to them. And I cannot fee but you have full as
much Reafon to Quarrel with the word Father, as the
word Perfon ; they are both Scripture-Words. Therefore
keep the word Perfon, till you can find another word
more Proper, Still Remembring that thefe are words only
ad Captum, in Condefcention to our Capacities, and ther-
fore not to be taken Strictly and Properly as to God. And
from a feeming Contradiction that may Appear in thefe
things, as they Relate to Men, we muft not Infer a Con*
tradicUon in God, to whom thefe words are but Im-
properly Apply 'd. And whofe Nature we do not under«
ftand. And therefore, as I faid before, we cannot Charge
a Contradiction in Him, from what we find fo in other
Natures which we do underftand. For we connot In-
fer from the One to the Other, unlek we underftand Both ;
as in the Inftances before given of the Motion of Leggs,
Sight, and Thought, ot Boy and Soul, of Time and Eternity
SOC, But is it not a Contradiction that the Son fhou'd
be as Old as the Father. As you fay of the Perfons in the
Trinity. For muft not the Cauje be before the Effect t m
CHR. This is (till Meafuring from one Nature to ano- of the s as if It
were not.
Then when we Understand a thing, and are thus in
Pcffeffion of it, we find that our Soul has Another Faculty
of Remembring it, that is, Preferving its Being, as to Us.
For without this 3 our Understanding of any thing wou'd
laft no longer than the Imprefflon of a Seal upon Water.
And when the Thought was Paft, it wou'd be gone for
Ever, and we cou'd never Recover it. By which means
we cou'd have but one Thought at a time. But we cou'd
not Compare Thaughts and Things, and Inferr or draw
Conferences from One to Another. Which we Call Rea-
fining. Which therefore is Attributed Chiefly to this Fa-
culty of the Soul. So that a Man of found Memory, which
is the Form in Wills, means the fame in the Conftructi-
on of Law, as a Man of found Judgment.
This Refembles the Afy§l or Word of God. Which Just
Martyr in his ^0/. Calls the Reafon of God. For the word
Afyp^ fignifies Reafon , and fo is ufed, L*£. : xvi. 2.
Rom. iii. 28. xii. 1. il Pet. ii. 12 Matth. xvi. 7, 8.
JLȣ. v. 21. and feveral other Places of ' Holy Scripture.
And indeed Reafon, which is the Reflection of the Mind,
is properly call'd the Word of the Mind, as near as an
Jtlufion can be made from Body to Soul. For W'Wj do
outwardly Exprefs the Reafoning that is inwardly in the
Thoughts ; And the Reflection of the Mind, is (peaking
WV^r to its felf. Every Reflex- A ft is a Colloquie.
When things are thus as it were Created to Us by
the Under ft anding^ and Preferv^d by the Memory, that we
may Reajon and Reflect upon them, then they Appear
either Agreeable or Dif agreeable to Us. We Contract
either a Liking or Di(hfl to them; That is, We L^w
or Kt/c* them. And this is the Operation of a Difim£t
F.w 7 is Pleafure and Happinefs \ And to be jfo/V^ to
what i
I4 The firft DIALO GV E.
what we Hate, is Mifery and Affliction. Ther are fe-
veral things which we Kjiow, and which we Remember)
But they are Indifferent to us, we neither Love nor Hate
them; and therefore they afford us neither Pleafure nor
Trouble, Thefe Paffions, are &W in the Will ; and
come not, till the Wr'// has Exerted an Afl: either of Low,
or Averjwn. Thence arife Love, Fear, Joy, Grief, Hope,
Defpair, and all the Paffions. The Will is the Seat of
all the Paffions,
This is a Refembiance of the third Per/on in the Holy
Trinity, who is therefore calPd the Spirit of Low, and
the Comforter,
Now of thefe three Faculties of the Soul, the Vnder-
flanding may well be call'd the FATHER Faculty. And
the Memory may be faid to be Begotten by it. For we
cou'd not Remember what we did not firft Kjtow, And
the Will Refults or Proceeds from both of thefe. For
we cannot Love or Hate what we do not both Kjwrv
and Remember.
But in how many things fhou'd we Err and be
Miftaken, if we fhou'd think to Draw an Exact Parallel
betwixt this Generation in the Faculties of the Soul,
and the Generation of Bodies ? In that of Bodies, it is a
Contradiction the Father fhou'd not be Prior in Time to
the &w. In that of the Soul, it is a Contradiction the
So/z fhou'd not be as Old as the Father, becaufe the Soul
cannot be without the three Facilities. They are of the
Conftitution of the Soul: And it cou'd not be a Soul
without them. Therefore each of them muft be as Old
as the other, and all as Old as the Soul,
SOC. That is, becaufe the words Father and Son are
not StnBly and Properly belonging to the Faculties of the
Soul, only by way of AUufton to the Generation of Bodies,
Therefore what is a Contradiction in the one, is none in
the other.
CHR.
The firjt D1AL0GV E.
CHR. How Readily you can give this Avjwer in the
Parallel \wht Body and Soul? And yet how do you flick
to give the fame Allowance in the Parallel betwixt Mar-
tal Man and the Infnit Being ? But you will find that
to be a Contradiction in the one, becaufe you find" it to
be fo in the other!
SOC. I grant ther mud: be a vaft Difference betwixt
the Production ther is in Bodies, and that in Spirits.
r JJiey are not of the fame Kjnd. But methinks ther
fhou'd be an Exa£l Parallel in the Production of Sprits ;
For tho' ther is Higher and Lower among them, yet they
are all Spirits, and fo of the fame Kjnd. Now fee if ycu
can find an Exatl Parallel betwixt the Faculties of the
Soul, and the Perfons of the Godhead. And I will be Con-
tent.
CHR. Think you not, That ther is Infinitely greater
Difference and Difprcportion, even in Kjnd, betwixt the
Soul of Man and the Eternal Incomprehensible Almighty^
than ther is betwixt the Body and Soul of Man ! So
that you Ask of me what I will no ways Undertake.
Only T ft ill In lift, that from a Contradiction in the one,
if you cou'd find it, you cou'd not Inferr a Contradiction
in the other* becaufe you underftand not Both the Natures
you fpeak of. And what is fpoken of the One, is by way
of AHufton only to the Other,
In the next Place, the Contradictions you Allege are all
by way of Parallel 'twixt God, and the Bodily Perfons of
Men upon Earth. And fince you have Granted me, that
a Contradiction will not lie in the Parallel betwixt the Body
and Soul of Man ; I can much more ftrongly Argue,
that it will not lie in the Parallel betwixt the Body of
Man and God } fo as that a ContradiUian in the one fhou'd
Inferr a Contradiction in the other. 1.1
But ftill I will go as far along with you as I can.
And having Enter'd my P rot eft, that I put nothing of
the Merits of the Caufe upon it, I will go on to fhew
you
IS
r6 The firft D I A L G V E.
you what is no Contradiction in the Faulties of the
Soul,
It is no Contradiction, That thefe three Faculties fhoiTd
be One Soul. And the Soul nothing elfe, that we can
tell, but thefe three Faculties. That thefe three Faculties
fliou'd be all Coeval as to Time, and yet one Before the
other in Order of Nature, as Proceeding the one from
the other. That they are perfectly Diftinct the one from
the other, having Different Objects, and Different Manners
of Operation. The Vnderfianding being Converfant about
what is Prefent, the Memory about what is Pafi, and the
Will about Love and Hate. Yet that they all Act in
Concert, and no one of them can A7 without the other.
For as the Memory cannot Ad but upon a Previous Ad
of the Vnderfianding, and the Will upon the Ad both
of the Vnderfianding and the Memory, fo even the IV-
derfianding do's not Act, nor the Memory, without a
Concurrent Aft of the Will which Confents to it. So
that tho' they Act Difiinctly, yet not Separately. And the
Soul is not Divided or Multiply* d, among them, but the
whole Soul Ads in Each and All of them.
2. ^ 60C. And now you think you have Solv'd all our
d Bference Objections as to the Trinity, of three being one, and one,
'tvoxt Facul- tktee. And of their being Co-eternal, tho' one Proceeding
ties and per- f rom t h e ot h ert j>ut y 0ur Parallel will not hold betwixt
Faculties and Perfons.
CHR. I pretend not to 'P/w* any thing by Parallels:
They are but Illustrations. Nor do I think ther can be
any Exact Parallel betwixt God and any Creature. But
if the Objections you bring may be Solv'd by what we
can obferve in Created Natures, it fhews your Vnreafona-
blemfs to Infift upon fuch Difficulties againft what is
ReveaPd of the ln-co'mprchenfible Being. Therefore let me
hear what ufe you make of the Difference betwixt Fa-
culties and Perfons in the Perfons Cafe. ?
SOC.
The Firft DIALO GV E. i 7
SOC. You know the Difference betwixt Subfiance, and
Subpftence. It is the Latter only makes a Perfon. And
we give not different Subfiftence s to the faculties of the
Soul. Therefore they are not different Perfons. And we
fay, that three Perfons or Subfifiences cannot be one Per fori.
CHR. And fo fay we too. We fay that three Perfons
are always three Perfons, tho' they may be one Nature-
But let me ask you, can three Sub/lances' be one Subft&mei
or three Faculties one Faculty, more than three Subfifiences
or Perfons can be one Perfon f If not, then your Diftincfi-
on is of no ufe in the prefent Cafe. For the Difficulty
of three being one, and one three, lies as much in the one
Cafe as in the other, and all you can fay from this Pulling
piece of Phihfophy fignifies nothing. For whatever other
ufes may be made of it, it cannot help you in this Cafe,
lince one Subftance can no more be Another Sub/lance^ not-
one Faculty be another Faculty, than one Perfon can be
another Perfon. 3-
SOC. But why do you not fay three Faculties inftead r ay %"$, nT
of three Perfons in God} And then we fhou'd not f© and not /*«*/-
much Quarrel with you. . ties m God.'
CHR. Becaufe we muft not Alter the Phrafe of Scrip-
ture, which calls Chrift the Exprefs Image of His (Father's)
Perfon. Heb. i. 3. ^^.zr^ ^ 'Tw^e*; 'a^ra the
Image of His Sub ft fence or Per finality.
For a Son, being a Diftinft Perfon, is the Image of his
Father's Perfon, but not of his Nature: Becaufe °the Son
partakes of the fame Nature, in as full and ample Man-
ner as his Father, and is as much and truly a Man, ha-
ving the fame Human Nature with his Father : In which
he is Equal to his Father ; But Inferior as to his Perfon,
The Relation and Subordination between them, is only
upon a Perfonal account. As it is among the Perfons of
the Holy Trimly. Tho' all Equal in Nature, which is but
One. For if we fay ther is not more than One Human
Nature, we cannot fay ther is more than one Divine Na-
ture, tho' feveral Perfons partake of it.
D -Again,
,8 The Firft DIALOGVE.
Again, a Perfon being the moft Compleat and Perfect
Subjhwce, as Subfifting by its felf, and not in Another
(like Faculties or' Qualities') muft be given to God. Ther
are no Accidents, Faculties, or Qualities in Him. But
every thing in Him is Him f elf. And the Faculties of the
«SW are but a Refemblance of the Perfons of G^.
SOC. How come you to make but three Faculties in
oftheDif-the &«*/? You may make three hundred if you will.
ference be- -yj^ £ Q not y 0U m ake every Pafflon 2l Diftincl Faculty ?
Lvfand^V Anc * *° °^ l ^ e ^tributes of G/// it felf,
and of perpetual NeceJJity to its Confitution. So that with-
out thefe the Soul wou'd not be a Soul. Therefore they
are always in the Soul. Not fo of the Papons. They
go and come. A Man is not always in Joy, Grief, Fear,
Anger, &c. But he always has an Under (landing, a Me-
mory, and a Will, And it is as thefe are Converfant
about any Object, that the Pafflons arife. The Faculties
are the C on ft it ut ion, the Pafflons the Complexion of the
Soul. The Complexion often Changes. But when the
Conftitutiou is Broke, it is Death. And the Complexion
arifes from the Confiitutien. Not the Confiitution from the
Complexion.
Now tho' the Pafflons are jlf^ and Various, yet the
Faculties are but three, and they can be neither w^«?
nor Le/r.
5. The Difference 'twixt thefe is like that of Colour and
of E / te !*' Dimenfion in a #0^. The Colours are HM/^r and various ;
vlmenfwu. ° The Dimenfions are but three, and can be neither wcr?
nor lefs. That is, Length, Breadth, and Thickntjs. Thefe
muft be in every fcx**/ /Jm. They are ol the Nature of
Extenjion, t nd therefore Tvjiptralk from it And tho'
thefe three make one Exoemfon-, yet they are perfectly
Dijlinguiffj'd, tho' nevei ffttf from one another.
Length
The Firft VlALOGV E. i 9
Length is not Breadth, and neither of them is Thicknefs.
Yet no One of thefe can be without the other T-,vo.
They are Dift/ntfly Three, yet 'hthely but One. They
all make up but one and the felf fame Extehfton,
The Colours Change according to every Variation of
the Light, But the Dimensions are ft ill the fame, and
ftill Nuejjfary to the Body. Which Alters not in its Na-
ture, from the Change of Colours in it. But wou'd Ceafe
to be a Body, if it were PoUible it cou'd want any of
the three Dimenfions; For then it wou'd be no longer
an Ext en ft on ^ that is, no more a~ Body.
Thus we fay of the Soul: It cou'd not be a Soul, if
it wanted any of the three Faculties, for they are of its
Nature. But the Paffions may Go and Come, without
any Alteration in the Nature of the Soul. The Paffions
fuppofe the Faculties, for the Paffions are an Operation of
the Faculties. But the Faculties fuppofe no more than
that we are Capable of the Paffions, not that they are
always Necejfary to Us; foe fometimes we are without
Any.
And our Blefled Saviour in the Parable of the Sower,
defcribing the feveral ways by which the Seed becomes
Unfruitful, Ranges them into Three, according to the
three Faculties of the Sonl, but not after the Paffions
which are many. The firft was of thofe who Understand
not; the fecond was of thofe who Retain or Remember
not ; and the third was of thofe whofe Wills or Jffeciions
were Corrupted, through the Cares and Pleafnres 'of this
Life.
Now this Allufton 'twixt the Body and the Mind, *. t
\wixt Colours and Dimenftons in the Body, and the Fa- t ie ? plJfi?
culties and Paffions in the Soul, will not Come up bofa&Ltarftofj
Anfwer exa&Iy in every thing, becaufe of the vaft Difr ' God -
ference ^ ther is in the Natures of Body and Sprit, and
the Different Manner of their Operations. But tho' they
fail in fome things, yet they Anfiver in others, and ferve
D 2 for
20 The firft VIALOGV E.
for Illustration. And fo much the more, bccaufe, while
we are in thQBody, we conceive of Spiritual things, even of
our own Soul, in fome fort, after the manner of Body, And
if our own Soul, by which we Move and Act and Think,
is fo Hidden from us, that we cannot Conceive Rightly
of it .- How much more muft the Input and In-compre-
henfible Nature be Remov'd far above our poor ^Under-
standing ! Seeing we cannot Conceive any thing of it,
but by Allufion to what we Vnderjland here of our felves,
and other Creatures that are before us. Therefore fuch
Allufvws are given to us, and God fpeaks to us of Him-
felf after the manner ot Men, becaufe we cou'd not other-
wife "Under (land any thing at all of Him. Thus Ged a-
fcribes Pzjfions to Himfelf, as Joy, Anger, Grief, Repen-
tance, &c. And we Defcribe Him by what we Call His
Attributes, as Power, Wifdom, Goodnefs, Jujlice, &c. And
thefe we Conceive to Flow from His Nature. Tho' at
the fame time our Re of on tells us, that ther can be no
Accidents in Cod, nor any Change in Him. And therefore
that whatever is in God, is God: But by the three Per-
fons in the Godhead, we mean the Divine NATVRE,
which Confifts of the three Perfons, as the Srul do's of
the three Faculties, and Extenfwn of the three Dimenfe-
ons, without any Confufion of the Faculties, or Dimen-
fions ; or Divifwn of the Soul, or of the Extenfion. As
we fay the three Perfons are God, neither Confounding
the Perfons, nor Dividing the Subfiance. But what we
call the Attributes of God, are the Different Manners of
our Apprehenfion of the Actions of God, and fo are many
and various. As Pajjions are in Man, and Colours in Bo-
dies. But Colours do not make the Body in which they
are, tho' they fuppofe it. And Paffions do not make the
Soul, tho' they are in ic. But the Faculties are the Soul,
and the l>nnenfions are the Extenfwn. Thus we fay, the
Perfons in the GoSead, are God, but we Conceive of the
Attributes of God, after the manner of Pajfions in the Soul. ,
Tho'
The Firft VIALOGVE, 2J
The? we know, at the fame time, that the A&
lufwn do's not, cannot Anfwer. But we cannot Conceive
otherwife of God. And thus it is when we ufe the
words, Father, Son, Spirit, Perfon, in Relation to God, we
muft not fuppofe them to Quadrat and Anjwer exactly
to thefe Words as us'd among Men. They are only
Allufions, but they are Neceffary, becaufe we cannot o-
therwife fpeak of God at all. 7 ,
Hence appears the unreafonablenefs of Inferring a Cen* Thin- Con-
tradiction m the Nature of God, from what we find to^!^ J ho
be fo in rhe Nature of -Mm, and in thefe words as Ap-""""
ply'd to Man. Which is the Topick I have Infilled upon
from the Beginning. And I have Illuftrated it by the
Comparifon of thofe Ir- reconcilable Contradictions which
mult Appear to a Man Born Blind, in any Defcription
pofTible to be given him of the Nature, Motion, and Pro-
grefs of Sight. And you connot Help him with any At-
lufion or Image of it, in any thing that he Vnderftands.
He can Apprehend nothing Like it, in any manner what-
foever, tho' at never fo great a Diflance. It cannot be
faid he has a wrong or imperfect Notion of it, for he has
not, nor can have any Notion of it at all > not the Jeaft
Glimps. Whereas on the other hand, as to the prefent
Subject we are upon, and to which I apply this; tho'
it be impofTible for any Creature to have a Full and
Comple&t APPREHENSION of the Infnit Nature; yet
ther are fuch Allusions and Similitudes given us of it,
Chiefly in the Soul of Man, which is faid to be made
after His In? Age, as Enables us to have fome fort cf Idea
and Apprehenfon of it, tho* we mull: ftill fuppofe at In-
fnit Diftance,an& that we Prejume not to draw Inferences
from the one to the other, from Man to God. And even
as to that Ineffable Myftery of the Holy Trinity, ther is
no obfeure Refemblance of it given us in the Frame of our
own Soul, Confirming of three diftinQ: Faculties, as I have
before explain'd it And even in the three Dimensions
which
o 2 TheFirft DIALOGUE.
which make up every Extenjton, fo far as Body is Capa-
ble of fuch a Reftmblance. At leaft it folves the C -
traditions you Ailed tie as to the H. Trinity , when we
iee how Three may be O/w, even in Bodies: Nay that
0#/>, even of our own So*/, but by y*/-
nv caitbdt- tefioM to fWy, to fomething Material. Hence fome. have
ffiwj in them Contended that our &?/// is Matter, that is, a Body.
Nay, that 6W Himfelf is fo. That ther is nothing but
Matter. And yet we find many Contradictions in this
Allufion. As what I mention'd before of the Prefence
of a Body which is fo Circumfcrib'd, that it Cannot be
in two Places at once. And yet how 0»* and the fame
Soul can Act u at all the Diftant Members of the IW/,
without being either Multiply* d or Divided among them,
is what we can find no Reftmblance of in Bodies. And
yet we cannot frame a Conception of a Sonl, without
Allufion to fomething Material. And yet all this Not-
withstanding, we Charge not this as a Contradiction in
Soul, becaufe we find it fo in Body. Tho all our Notices
9- of the Soul comes from the Body.
oufrrSnt° Now to Apply. The Imperfed Notices we have of
SubjeEt. the Nature of Go^' come from His Works of Creation
\\ hich we have feen. Yet in none of thefe do we find
any Refemblance to His Eternity, Se/f-exifienee, and Owm-
Prefence, &c. Nay, they wou'd be flat Contradictions,
if Apply'd to any Creature. Yet we Call them not
Contradictions in God, How then can we call Three and
Otf* a Contradiction in Gtfd, tho' we found it fo in all
Crea*
The Firft DIALOGVE. 23
Creatures? But when we find it not to be a Csntiaai-
ciion, both in the Nature of Body, and of Soul, wiH
we ft ill make it a Contradiction in God, whofe Nature
we Under [land not ? And for this only Caufe, Reject the
Plain Revelations that are Given to us of it. ? 10.
But pray, let me Ask you what Notion have you . w , e ™; ft
c i ■ .* r ^ /"^ i- /» 1 j think of 7Z"v*
01 any spirit, or an Angel ( Can you Apprehend an j n eV ery s/i-
Angel, without an Under -ft an ding, a Memory and a ff 7 /// ? rh.
Can you think other wife of God the fWw of Spirits,
and who made them after His own Image ? Ther can-
not be a Thought without thefe Three. For every
Thought is the Act of thefe T^ree. We have no nea-
rer an Idea of God than an Omnipotent Mind. And
whofe Thoughts are Omnipotent. Therefore G^ mult be
thefe Three. And thefe T^e are God. Our Notion of
His Attributes are the .<4ou cannot fliew the Figure. They are
no Figurative Expreilions. This we fhall fee plainly
when we come to them; So that if ther be a Contra-
■diction, it mufl be in the Words, not what we Infer from
them.
Secondly, We put no New Conftru&ion upon them,
but the fame that was Taught in the whole Cbriftian
Church from the Beginning, which likewife I fhall fliew
you. Whereas, in the Cafe of Tran-fubftantiation, we
fhew the Novel Conftruclion they have put upon the
Words, contrary to the Senfe of all Antiquity. This is
Vn-anfwerably done in Bifhop Cofws his Hiftory of Tran-
fubflantiation.
Thirdly, Ther is no Temptation in the World to fet
up the Dotfrin of the Trinity. But ther was very Great
in that of Tran-fubftantiition, of Reverence, and even
Adoration to the Prhflhood, to think that four words Pro-
nounc'd by a Friefl fhou'd make Godl
But Fourthly, ther are Contradictions in Tran-fubftanti-
&t ton, which cannot be Alledg'd in the Doctrin of the
Trinity. For Example, That I fhou'd Dif-believe my
Senfes, upon the Credit of a Revelation made to my
Senfes, Which is to Believe, and not to Believe my
Senfes, at the fame time : If I Believe the Revelation, I
muft Dif-believe my Senfes. And yet unlefs I Believe my
Senfes, I cannot Believe the Revelation. They who were
% prefent
2 S The Firft D1AL0GVE.
prefent: at the Institution mull: Believe their Senfes, that it
was Chrijl who fpoke to them, and that they Heard fuch
Words: Yet they muft not Believe their Senfes, that it
was Bread and Wine which they Saw, and Tafled \ But
that they Eat and Swallowed the very P*r/ew whom they
Saw fit fl^We and £**/>* before them, and who was
then Difcourfwg v/ith them/
60C. And do's not the Do&rin of the Trinity Con-
trad id our Senfes as much as all this ?
CHR. No. Not at all ; It Contradicts none of our
outward Senfes. Pray, which of them do's it Contradicl ?
Is it our Seeing) Tafl, or Smell?
SOC. None of thefe can Reach to it.
CHR. No. Nor to our Soul. They can neither Touch,
See, nor Smell it. A £/>/>/> is not the Object of outward
Senje. Therefore no Contradiction to it. It is Above it,
and of another Kjnd. But an outward Revelation is an
Jppeal to our outward Senfes. And without the Tr#/&
of our Senfes fuppos'd, we cou'd Believe neither Revela-
tion nor Miracle Exhibited to our Senfes. And no Mira-
cle that ever God wrought, or Revelation that He gave,
did Contradict any one of our Senfes, much lefs All toge-
ther. For, as I faid, it wou'd be a Perfect Contradiction
to our Believing them.
And as you Sscinians make ufe of this of Tran-fub-
flantiation, to fhew that Chriftians Believe Contradictions',
And Compare thofe you fuppofe in the Trinity with this.*
So the Church of Rome Iniiits mainly upon this againft
Us, why we fhou'd make fuch Difficulty in Believing
Tran-fubjlantiation, fince we Believe the Trinity, which
They and Tou fay, lmplys as many Contradictions as the
Other.
*• And I will Add this to what I have faid, That ther
o^p°arfudZ' ls not an y thin S in Mature, which bears the leaft Re-
Nature to femblance or Likenefs to Tran-fubflatiation, that we might
Tranfubflan- ^ a j-,i e t0 f ra me any fort of Notion of*it. Whereas £*W
has
The firjl DIALO GV E. 27
has given us feveral Allufwns and Images of His Holy
Trinity, in as near Proportion as Unit can Bear to In-
fmt, chiefly in the Frame of our own Soul; Whereby,
tho' we cannot come to a Clear and Full Perception ot
His Nature, for that is Impojfible: Yet we fee fo much
of Him in the GUfs of His Creatures, as to give us fame
Idea, of Him ; and to folve what is Revealed to us of
Him, from being Contradictions, by Comparing it with
the Likenefs, tho' Faint, that is found of it in Creature:.
But Tran-fubflantiation is the very Reverfe to Nature ;
and all Natural things. Not only Above them, but (lands
in Direct Opposition to them, and leaves nothing Cer-
tain, no not our Senfes. And what then can be Like to it ?
The Lutherans Endeavour to get Clear of this, who
take the Words of Inftitution, This is my Body, as Lite- C3O
rally as the Church of Rome do's. But they Deny not ^cTsli
the Certainty of our Senfes, and own that it is Tvtfctfmianon.
and Real Bread and Wine which we See, Smell, and
Tafi. But then ther is no Refemblance in Nature, nor
Ground in Reafon, and as little in Revelation, that fnw
I&d/W fhou'd be Con-fubflantiated under the Accidents of
0#* of them, and which, are not Accidents proper for
the other. In which, tho' ther is not a Deception of
the Senfes as to the Bread and Wine, yet ther is as
to the Body and Blood of a Man, which if hid under
the Accidents of Bread, my 6>/?/w are Deceived, for they
have no Other way to Diftinguifh Subftances, but by
the Accidents Proper to them. And when I Eat a Piece
of IfoW, my 6^/j/, 7W/;, Smell, and T*/?* irnform me
that it is not Flefi. ' Which if it be, they have all De-
ceived me : And I can be Certain of nothing in the World.
Befides the Lutheran Notion gives Vbiquity to Body,
as well as that of ' Tran-fubftantiation. Which 1$ a Con-
tradiction to the Nature of Body, which muft be- Cir-
eumfcriPd, elfe ther cou'd not be a Greater or a L^r
Body. ?
E 2 So
2 8 The firft DIALOGVE.
So that, upon the whole, Con-fubjiantiation is very lit-
tle Remov'd from Tran-Jubflantiation.
SUC. But was not Con-fubfl antiation the Invention of
Luther. So you fee Men may Invent Contradictions.
CHR. That will not follow. For Lather was Bred
up under T r an- fub ft antiation. In which finding Abfur-
dities, he thought to Mend them by this New-coin'd
DiflinBion. I grant that Men may Invent Difinctions^
and upon Examination they may be found Contradictory ;
which themfelves might not fee at firft. But that is
not Parallel to the Inventing a Downright Flat Contra*
diction in Terms, without Ground or Foundation, or any
Previous Principles leading to it. As it wou'd be in you?
Notion of the Trinity, if it was Invented. And, aslfaid,
without any Temptation, or ferving any End or Purpofs
in i he World, lfther was no Foundation for fuch a thing
in Reafon, as you fay, nor any Revelation of it, how
cou'd it have come into the Head of any Man living ?
Mufionswd SOC* Do you think ther is any thing in Reafon for
Tirxiids Ne- it ? Or that all your Allufions and Parallels will Prove it ?
CoSpiad- CHR l brin g them not for . Proo f> but t0 Clear our
©n of the nu- way towards the Proof, which is the Revelation of it in
tureoi God. pjoiy Scripture. And to take off your Objection and Great
Prejudice towards the Receiving that Proof, which
is, your Conceit of Contradiction in the Thing, and which
Blinds your Eyes againft the Proof, let it be never fo Plain-.
Yet this I will fay on Behalf of Allufions and
Parallels in the Preftnt Cafe, that they are not only Vfe-
ful, but Necejfary. For we cannot other wife come at
any Notion or Apprehenfwn of God at all. His Being,m
it felf, is far Exalted above all Created Vnder (landing.
Therefor we cannot come at it Directly ; it is LIGHT
Inacceffibk and wou'd ftrike us Blind. \Ve muft know
it then by the Reflection of it in Creatures, like beholding
the Sun in Water, which is too Bright for our Eyes to
look upon, without fome Means to Darken it's Rays.
And.
The firfi D IALO GV E, 2p
And God difcovers Himfelf to us by fucn Allufiom.
For how cou'd He do it otherwife? He calls Himfelf
our Kjng, and our Father : Is it not Lawful then to
Contemplate Him under fuch Allufions, when it is IrnpofH-
blefor us to do it otherwife? We come at the Knowledge
of Him, by thofe Images of Himfelf which he has Cre-
ated in us. He has Planted Wifdom in our Hearts, and
a Fore fight or Providence in Managing our own Affairs,
as likewife Juflice and Mercy, and other Noble Endow-
ments. Thence we Frame our Notions of his Infinite
Wifdom, Power, Providence, &c. And we can have no No-
tion of him at all, but by AUufion to what he has Crea-
ted in us. All the Reft is Clouds and Thick-darknefs to us.
Therefor I have Infifted upon thefe Parallels and Al-
lufwns, to fhew, That ther is an Image and RefembUnce
of his Holy Trinity, Imprinted in our very Souls, as
well as in Bodies, fo far as they are Capable of it. But
ftill with that Diftance and Dif 'proportion that muft Ne-
ceffarily be fuppos'd betwixt Finit and In-finit.
Having faid thus much, to Remove your Prejudice; S Z 11 ' *
I will go on, and fhew you yet further Parallels, whereby we ahn i'Sige
may Rife up Higher, as on a Ladder, and view more of the °f the hm--
Perfection of God, by that Image of it which he has Imprefs'd*"^
upon Creatures.
To be Beneficial to others, is an Image of God, from
whom all Good things do come. This is Exprefs'd in
the Heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and their In-
fluence upon the Earth. But they are not SenfMs of it,
nor have any Pleafure and Happinefs in it. The Sun fhines
to Others, not to Himfelf
It is then a Nearer Image of God, to Kjiow when we
do Good, and to take Pleafure and Satisfaction in it.
To do it Voluntarily, and when it was in our Power
not to do it. Whereby it becomes Our Act, and we
Gain the Name of Benefactors. And Rejoice in it, as
God did in his Works, and faw ihey were very Good.
We.
3 o The firfl DIALOGVE.
We by this Partake of the Happinefs we give to others.
But ther is an Higher Degree of Happinefs (till, and
a yet nearer Image of God, and that is, when we cur
felvcs are made the Ohjett of our own Benefactions ; as I
may fo call it. When we can do Good to Our Selves,
and can Tafle our own Happinefs, can Rejoice and take
Pleaj'ure in Our Selves. This is the Neareft to us of any
thing. And this Joy no Man can take from us, no ftran-
ger can Intermeddle with it. This is Performed in us by
what we call Self Reflection, whereby we become the
Oljeit of our own Knowledge, and Love. And this is Recipro-
cal in us, we are the Perfon Knowing, and the Perfon that is
Kjiown, the Perfon that Loves, and the Perfon that is Loved.
And this couM not be Done, but by the Operation of fe-
ral Faculties in the Soul, which are an Image of the- fe-
veral Perfons in the Deity. And the Original of this Self-
Refleciion is a Rflex-JcJ of the Understanding, the Fa-
ther Faculty, as has been before Difcours'd. And this
Refembles the Father, the Fountain ( as I may fo fay )
of the Diety.
In this Confifxs the Effential Happinefs of God, in the
Kjtoyledge and Love of Himfelf. And this Reflected Per-
fectly from one Perfon of the Godhead to Another. Which
is Inrinitly more Compleat than the Shadow of it in the
Reciprocal Reflation of the Faculties in our Soul. But a
Shadow and //»*g* of it, it is. And without which we
ITiou'd not be able to have the leaft Glimps or Apprehen-
fwn of the other.
V j tL This leads me to Another Step up this Ladder, which
ofthe Fe- NecelTarily follows from what has been faid, or is rather
cuvihy iR the j^ a f urtner Profecution of it.
Detx *' We all Agree that whatever Perfection is in Man mufl
be much more Eminently in God from whom it came.
Now to the Happinefs ther is in T hough t,\X\zv is a fur-
ther added, which is, to Communicate that Thought to
Another. Without this, the Soul wou'd be a very Solita-
ry
The Firft DIALOG V E. 3r
ry thing. And wouM grow Weary of it [elf, in a little
time. As we find it, when we are left too long Alone i
Without Converfation, Life would be a Burthen. Who
wou'd be Content to Live, if ther were never a Man
left in the World but himfelf ? This Communication , of
Thought is done, among M?#, by Words. Whence in
Compliance to our Manner of Apprehenfion, the Son is
likewife CalPd the Word of God. Self Reflection is very
Properly call'd, the Word of the Mind. And this Word
was the firft Communication which God gave of himfelf.
He is alfo callM the Word, as He was the lnflrument
by which God made all things and Comunicated of Him-
felf to Creatures. Whence the Creation is Defcrib'd as
being all Spoken, He Spake the WW, and it was done,
He Commanded, and they were Created. God Said, Let
ther be Light, &c. And by his Word were the Heavens
made, and all the Hoft of them by the Breath of his
Mouth. So the Son is calPd the Word, in Refpect of
God's Communicating Himfelf to Himfelf. And like wife
of his Communicating Himfelf to Creatures.
But ther is another Communication beyond the Comma,
nication of Thoughts by Words, and that is, to Commu-
nicate ones felf, our whole Nature, full and Entire. To
Produce ones Like, in full Perfection as ones felf. Thus,
we fee Trees fpring from Trees 9 Beafls, Fiflj, and Fowl
and Man. Propagat their Kjnd. And (hall God who gave
Fertility to Creatures, be Barren Himfelf? He that made
the Eje, do's he not See ? And is not the Fertility of
Creatures an /»wge of a much more Eminent Fecundity
in G^. ? As he fays, If ah. 66 9. according to the Vul-
gar Tranflation. Numquid Ego, qui alias Parere faci^
Ipfe non Pariam f dicit Dominus. Si Ego, qui Gemrationem
Ceteris tribuo t Sterilis ero ? ait Dominus Deus tuus. That
is, Shall not 1 who caufe others to bring forth, bring forth my
fe If l faith the Lord. If I give to Others the Power of Ge-
neration, (hall I be barren my felp faith the Lord thy God.
Since
3 .2 The Firft J) I A LOG V E.
Since therefor tfee Communication of ones N£ Lev £, Wifdom, &c.
(,.) SOC. Whatever ther may be in thefe Reafons for two
Ot* flirt p e rfons in the Godhead, the O^e to Contain and Receive
Vm^T lhe AU of the °^ fr ' y et what can y° u fa y for a Third ?
what need is ther of that?
Cf/K. Firft, that it is ReveaPd which we are to fee.
In the next place, by the Image God has given us of
Himfelf in our own Sou/, we have feen already, That
the Sou/ is not Comp/eat, nor can Ac~t, without three
Faculties. And no Two of them can J0 without the
Third. And toHapply this, the Communication of Infi-
nite Power and TViJdom (which are Reprefented in the
Two firft Faculties of our Mind) cannot be fuppofs'd
without an Infinite Reciprocal Love, betwixt thefe Per-
fons. And ther being no Accident in Cod, but that
whatever is in God, is God • Confequently the Recipro-
cal
The firft DIALOGUE. 33
.cal Love ( to which Anfwers the Third Faculty of the
Soul) which Vnites thefe two Perfons, mufl be a Per/9#
too, and God, for it muft be lnfinit. And ther is an
Image of this in Human Production, wherein ther muft
be juft three Per fins, neither More nor Li?/}, that is,
Fattier, Mother, and CA/'/af. Which Names God ufes in
Relation to Himfelf. Therefor we may life" them? Thus
the Son of Sirach ufes them EccluJ. 24. where he fpeaks
of the fecond Perfon by the name of Wifdom 5 and as
that Word of God he Introduced Him faying, ver. 5.
Z came out of the Mouth of the mofi High, firft Born be-
fore all Creatures. I caufed the Light, &c. And fo fpeaks
of the other works of Creation, all of which he afcribes
to Himfelf. Then fays, ver. 20. I am the Mother of
Beautiful LOVE. Thisjjie third Perfons of the Holy Tri-
nity. But more of this, when we come to the Texts of
Scripture.
SOC. If the Divine Nature fliouM Repeat this Pro- 1.
dutlion of Perfons, then you might have as many Per- Why ^ ut
fons in the Divine Nature, as in the Human, and Con- kuhe 'dcii™
fequently as many Gods as Men.
CHR. Your Conception is Grofs. For Firft, three Perfons
in the Divine Nature do's not make three Gods, more
than three Faculties make three Souls. As we have Dif- '
cours'd before; But Secondly, ther Cannot be another
Production in the Divine Nature, more than ther can
be another Divine Nature. For the three Perfons are
of the Ejfence of the Divine Nature. As the three Facul-
ties are of the Soul. -Therefore Unchangeable and Un-
alterable. And as to the Argument I have Proceeded up-
on of lnfinit Communication from one to Another, if it.
be lnfinit, it can be no More. And to lnfinit Producti-
on nothing can be Added. But Human Productions
may be oft Repeated, Becaufe they are all Finit, and
therefore Additions and Additions may be Made to them.
From all which follows.
F Firft,
34 The Firft DIALOGVE.
Fir ft. That an lnfinit Paver without an Input Pro-
duction, is a Contradiction. For it fuppofes Infinity to be
Limited.
Secondly, That ther can be no lnfinit Production but
in the Per fins of the Bleffed Trinity.
Thirdly, that an lnfinit Production cannot be Repeated,
Becaufe it wou'd Add to lnfinit, and make more ln-
fnits.
SOC. The Heathen, Philosophers might' have talk'd at
this Rate. How come they not to find out a Trinity
as well as you?
CHR. They did talk at this Rate. And did hold a
Trinity in the Godhead, as I fhall fhew you by and by,
when we come to that Head.
SOC. But your St. Athanafius the Creed- Maker will
IThlfecond not only have us Believe all this, but takes upon him
Texion Begot- to Determin the very Manner forfooth, as if he knew it,
jw.the third j ]0W a j] t j 1 | s j s done, x nat the Father is neither Created
wee ing. ^^ ^gotten 5 the Son not Created, but Begotten ; the Ho-
ly Ghojl neither Created nor Begotten, but Proceeding.
CHR. You Soanians pretend of all Men to Argue
without Paffion, and Pergonal Reflections, but Fairly and
upon the Square, keeping Clofe to the Argument. And
have been Propos'd as a Pattern for this, by fome that
Lov*d you better than they Kjiew you. For none have
Exceeded you in Bittemefs and Foul-Language. Even in
this Brief Hifiory wt are now upon, the Common Epithet:
you beftow upon Chriftians are Ignorant, Brutal, Stupid,
without Common- fenfe, &c. Hence came your Witticijm,
in your Brief Notes upon St Athanafius's Creed, whom
you call Sathanafius, and Creed Maker there, and in other
* of your Books. And Pleafe your felves with this Pro-
phane Jeft and Contempt caft upon that Great and Learned
CHAMPION of Chrifiianity.
But to leave your Dirt. You Charge very Unjuftly
upon him the Inventing of thefe Ter?ns and Diftinfoidns.
He
The FirJlDIALOGV E. 35
He follow'd the fame Terms us'd in Holy Scripture, and
by the Catholick Church before him. The Terms of Fa-
ther and Son, and the Son being call'd the Only Begot-
ten of the Father, you cannot be Ignorant are Scripture-
Phrafes. But the word Begotten is never Apply 'd to
the Holy Ghoft, but the word Proceeding is, as Joh. xv.
26. The Spirit of Truth which P ROC EEDETH from the
Father.
SOC. But you fay He Proceedeth, from both Father 4 .
and Son. The miy
CHR. Then He Proceeded from the Ftf/fcr. If He
not by way of Force, but Choice. For the Will do's
every thing by Choice.
IX. 50C. But who can think, of this Diverfity of Perfons
0i f tY God m **od, without a Breach of his Vnity ? It makes Him
mj> ° ' as it were Compounded of the three Perfons, whereas we
know God to be a Being that is moft Simple and One*
in His Nature, and cannot be Compounded or Made upo[-
any thing.
CHR. God is not Compounded or- Made up of anything.
His Vnity is the moft Perfect of all Vnities. But in-
Every Vnity thev is an Vnion of fomthing, and that munV
be Divers things. For ther is no Vnion of One.
7> This Vnity in Bodies is by . way of Compofttion. For
The ynitj of every Ifo^y is Compounded of other Bodies, which are'
The Firfl DlALOGVE. ?7
Farts of that Body. As a Brick is Part of an Houfe*
And my 2*//^ is Part of my IWy. And ther are feve-
veral IVtt in my Finger, and P^m of thofe Parts again,
and fo without End. And tbefe Parts may be Divided
the One from the other. And other Parts may be Added
to them, and the Body made Bigger. So that Every
Body is many Bodies, that are Compounded and f#f ft?-
gether.
But it is far otherwife in the ZM/y of a ty/>/>. For 2.
a Spirit is not Compounded, or made up of P<*r//. And f3«>i^°'
therefore cannot be Divided. It is not capable of ^-
d///0# or Multiplication. We fay not that our &?#/ is
Multiped or Divided among its three Faculties. Or that
it is Compounded of them. They cannot be taken from
it, as a Part may be taken fi om a /tofy. Therefor its
Unity is more Perfect than that of a Body. It Confifts
not of feveral Parts, tho' it do's of feverai Faculties, We
call not the Faculties Parts of the Soul. They are Ra-
ther Powers of the &>*/. EfTential Powers, by which it
AUs, and without which it cou'd not Aft at aU, nor
be a /-
ofthe am- ^ ? D » Qt ore spfrjf j Q ' m w j t ^ Another and Par-
tial Cmm-' . ' r. „ ,. , -/ J
ritaim of */*«* of it, as B^/^i do r
r/irfti. CHK. Yes furely, and in much more tetimate manner
than Bodies. All the Enjoyment and Satisfaction in the
"Onion of Bodies, is from the IJtaflMf of their AW*. This
is what we call Love. Without this Bodies are Infenfible
of their Vnion, and can take no PUaJure, or Satisfaction
in it, as in the Production of Trees, Plants, flowers, Sec.
And the Vnion of Souls is ftronger, the lets of Ccrpo-
scronger ™/ is mixt with it. Therefore Friendship is the ftrongeft
than that of j^ am ong Af«*. This is the Chief Cement of Conjugal
Bodies. AfTe&ion. Where that is wanting, 'tis a Ti^e indeed.
And upon the Comparifon the Preference is given to
Friendship. Deut. i$. 6. Jf the Wife of thy Bofom, or thy
Friend, which is as thine own Soul y entice thee y &c. And
2. Sam. i. 26, Thy Love to me was Wonderful (faidD/z-
vid of Jonathan) faffing the Love of Women.
But the Comparifon of the '"Onion ther is in Flefh and
that which is between Spirits, is carry'd much Higher
by the Apoftle 1. Cor. 6. 16, 17. For two, faith He,fhall
be One Flefh, but he that is Joined unto the Lord, is one
Spirit. To be one Spirit with God\ And that more nearly
than Man and Wife are one Flefh. This feems to be one
of thofe Vnfpeakable things which St. Paul fays, are not
Lawful (or PofFibleJ for a Man to utter. 2. Cor. 12. 4.
?• But this muft be the Foundation of thofe frequent At-
thf\t%oh lu fi om ' ia Hol y Scri f ture ^ where chri f is call ' d theBr/*fe-
■tire. groom, and the Church his S/w«/*. "And Heaven is Ee-
icrib'd as the Eternal Marriage- Feafi. And He having
taken our Nature into the D^/'j in his own Perfon, what CW-
munications thence may be Given even to our IW/>j when
Glonjfd, by our Participation of the fame Human Nature
with Christ, is nite £je /W; SWf /f?//, tfor £*r heard, nor
can Enter into the Heart of Man to Conceive, That they
all ((ays Christ, Joh. 17. 21, 22, 23.) hm^ fo .%
tantum Dei opus erat, fed et Pighus. i. e. Whatever the
Earth of Adam was made , : Chrifl was Meant by it,whofjoii y d
become Man So the Earth then putting on th 2 Image of.
Chrifl to come in the Flefi, was not only God's Workman-
(hip, hut his Pledge. That is, that Chrifl fhou'd come in
the Flefb.
And as Adam was a Type of Chriff, fo was Eve of $•
the Church, which fliou'd bring forth Children unto God. of th g church.
And as the Church is Budded upon Chrifl her Rock and Particularly
Foundation ; fo was Eve made or Builded (as our Margin, "
after the Hebrew , reads G*?/;. 2. 22,) out of Adam. And
as the Church has no Li/v but what flie Derives from
Chrifl, fo neither had Eve but what fhe DerivM from
Adam, And as the Side of C/;r/.tf was Opened, after His
£>Wj: And by the Second we are
Perpetually Nourffid with His B/00^ into Eternal Life.
Now thefe fc^ not out of Chris? s fide, till after He
was Dead. For till then He had not fully Paid the Price
of our Redemption. The C^nfummatum eft was not Pro-
nounc'd but with His la 3reath upon the Crcfs. For
till His Death, all was no* Finipd. Then came out the
Water and the Blood, wf ch are the Life of His Church.
And the Church, being then Perfectly Redeemed, may be
faid to be Born, and taken out of His Dead Body. So
it is faid Gen. 2. 21. T/tf JLW Gaev6^\Xtm
etwrrw vsrSf'lW'TD, 7rpos svS'eifyv $ Tidvrwv ^wmws vvixa.
He made it Male and Female to (hew the Generative
Power of all things, which they Deriv'd from it ; or by
which He made all things. And Proclus upon the TV-
maus, p. 95 Quotes this among other Orphick Verfes,
Jupiter n ^ M*#, Jupiter « 4^0 anlm-mcrtai Woman.
It was very common among their My flick Writers to
ftile God °Af p£3»Aw', that is, Man and Woman. And
Synefius a Learned and Pious Chriltian Bifhop follows this
Form of ExprefBon in fome of his Hymns to God, as
Xv 7rccnp, 2u 3, e ree, fometimes three Principles, fometimes
three 'Gwfc, fometimes three Natures, fometimes three
Perfons, t_p«s vs»s*V«s, and Tpos \Qcry-to Aa^t7r« T£*a>j r!> MoVcw app^e*.
In all the World ther fhines a Trinity, of which
an Tter/f? is the /-&W.
This is Inferted among the Oracula Xproafri en Platon-
cis Colletfa. ,p. 8. This Treatife of Zoroafter's is Publiih'd
by franc. Patricias, at the End of his Nova de Vniverfij
Philofophia. fo!. Edit. Venit. An. 1595.
The Heathen Philofophy is full of this Doclrin. And
they placM a Gradual Sub-Ordination of thefe three Di-
vine Hypoftafes or Perfons. And from thence they Argu'd,
that ther was a Neceflity for thefe three Hypoftafes to
be in the Nature of God. And that they cou'd be nei-
ther more nor lefs. And that they muft Proceed from
one another. Porphyry is Quoted to this Purpofe by St.
Cyril. Cont. Jul. 1. 1. p. 34- Edit Par if. 1638. in Fol.
Yhf>(pi£t-QS $ (pyn, 77v\.aTWJ'^ c^-St^©* ^o^xv <%%& r&aiu
•SnGsxaewp nrloj Q&v mpczXSr&v vtnav. That the Di-
vine Nature do's Extend or Communicat it felf to
the three Hypoftafes or Perfons. And Philo the Jew calls
thefe three Perfons or) or, Ato-mfi-(pv ttvra Xo/V and i#-
/#/> ? Do's not this Imply a Contradiction ?
CHfl. How can the fame Per/00 be Mortal and 7^-
mortalt Do's not this Imply a Contradiction? But it is
none, while it is not fpoken of the fame thing. It is
fpoken of the fame Perfon, but not of the fame Nature.
Thus we fay of the fame Man, that he is Mortal, and
likewife that he is- Immortal. But the one is fpoken in
Relation to his Soul, the other to his Body. And can
any Man tell the Links and Chains by which Mortal
and Immortal, by which Spirit and Flefh are Join'd to-
H a get her,
5 2 The firft V1AL0GV E.
gether, fo as to make but one and the fame P.erfou?
Thefe things we cannot Explain in our felves And
wou'd we Explain them in Godl Whofe Power is Infinity
and what is Impoffible with Men,, is Eafy to God, for
with Him all things are Poffible.
SOC. But can the Godhead be Converted into any thing
elfe than what it is? That wouM Argue Mutability in
God. How then can the Godhead be Converted into the
Manhood.
CHR. The Godhead- is ■ not Converted into the Manhood.
As the Soul is not Converted into the Body, in the Vmon
of our Per/ons. Therefore the Creed of St. Athanafius fays,
That God and Man are 0/w in the Per/on of C£r//?, aW
fy the Conversion of the Godhead into Flefb, but by taking
the Manhood into God.
SOC. I fee that Athanafius went upon Parallels as well
as you. But you Urge Parallels no further than as lllu»
(Irations, to Remove our Prejudice from taking the Scrip-
tures in your Senfe. Therefore the Scriptures muft Deter-
min the Caufe. And now let us come to to them.
xiv. CHR. Ther is another Preliminary Neceflary to be
The cur- fettl'd, in order to our Right Vnderftanding of the Holy
[ltc£ l c l\htScriptures. And that is, in what Senfe we fhall take them.
beft imcTpre All words are are Equivocal. And Capable of Different
* erof } heUo ' Meanings, either Literal or Figurative. And for us to
iy scriptures, j.^ ^^ fancies on work what this or that word may
be Screw* d to, and to put our own Inventions upon them,
is Endlefs, and of no Certainty when we have done. Who
wou'd Build his Faith upon the Criticifm of a Lexicon ?
Tho' I deny not but ther is ufe for this fort of Learnr
ing too, in its Place. And many times it ferves to IRu*
pate and Clear up things very much.
But the Ground and Foundation we have to go upon,
in Difputed Places of Holy Scripture, is the Senfe in
which they to whom they were Deliver'd did Vnderjland
them. They whoLearn'd the Doclrins from the Mouths
of
The Firft VTA LOG V E. 53
of the Jfefll a<. well as from their Writings. Thefe,
furely, mu(t belt l0 anfwers which the Hi ft. of Vnita.
gives to this Text, do Contradict one another. The
Firft fuppofes the Word to be Real God. The Second
to be but Man y and call'd God in a Borrowed Senfe as
ther are Gods by Office or Deputation from God. The firft
anfwer makes the Word not to be any thing Different
from God. The Second fays that it is Man and w*
GL a i. c cv> ' ' ,, * wur-
A**; ^P #«*« i. e. Chrifl, whom St. >/>* calls The word.
And I think you will not difpute that any thing but a
Per-
The feconcf DIALOGV J£
Perfon can be an object of Worfhtp: Therefor, if C
be a. Per/on, which you confefs, the Word muft be a
Perfon, becaufe you cannot deny that in the Firft of Sr,
John, He is call'd the Word,
I fhall have occafion to fhew you hereafter, that the
Chaldee Paraphrase and the Jewtjh Targnms do all along,
in the Old Te ft anient, make the word of Jehovah Synony-
mous With Jehovah Him/elf, and yet a Diftinft Perfon,
from Him ; and do attribute to the Word the lame Per-
final Jettons, as to Jehovah; and to be Equally Adorable
as Jehovah. As, the word of Jehovah Raining down fire
from Jehovah upon Sodom. Gen. 19. 24. The word of Je-
hovah fhall be my God. Gen, 28. 21. Abraham wor-
fhiped and called upon the name of the word of Jehovah,
and faid Thou art Jehovah, &c. more of this I will fhew
you, when I come to Explain what Notion the Jews had
of the Logos or word of God, how they efteem'd Him
to be both God, and a Diftin£l Perfon. But now, as to
the Scrtpture, in the plain words of the Text. Pfal, no.
1 . The Lord faid unto my Lord r fit Thou on my Right hand,
tiM 1 make Thine Enemies Thy FootftooL That the Second
Lord, here fpoken of was Chrift is plain from Matt. 22.
44. and that the Jews fo Underftcod it ; whence the Tar-
gum of Jonathan renders it thus, The Lord faid to His
word. In the Language of St. John, who calls Chrift the
word of God, And ther cannot be a greater Diftin&ion
of Perfonsy than one to Speak to the other, one to fit on
the others Right Hand, one to Subdue the. others Ene-
mies, &c.
And therefor where k is faid, The word is God, by
the word a Per fan muft be meant, and not only a Property
or Attribute of God. Which, as your Author fays, is
not fome thing different from God, but is God, and yet in
the very fame anfwer he fays, that it is fo God, that it s l
is not ail that God is. This is as unintelligible, to- me as
the Trinity can be to him. To be Gcd and to be nothing
different
Hift. p. 8 :
The fecond DJALOGVE.
different from God ; and yet to be fo God as not to be
all that God is ! This is paft all Human Underftanding, for
if you be not all that God is, you cannot be God, but a
Piece of God, and if you be not fomething different from
God, then you muft: be all that God is.
SOC. The Def. of the Hiflory, pag. 44. means no more
by, The word was God, then that the word was in fome
manner like God.
CHR. He dees not deferve an Anfwer. Let his Hi-
fori an anfwer him, or let him anfwer the Hifiorian, for
in this, he difputes againft him inftead of defending him.
Nay, let this Defender anfwer himfelf, he fays, p. $? c
that the Knowlege which Chrifi had was by the hi-
>vtne Word abiding on him, which agrees with the Hi-
(torian, p. 1 20. who likewife tells of the Divine Word
being communicated to Angels and Men, p. 8$. and 84.
and that the word was made Flefh means no more than
the words abiding on or inhabiting an Human Perfon,
the Perfon of J efts, p. 87. fo that here the word is kept
as adiftin£t thing from Jefus, and according to this the
word was not a Man, was not Jefus, but only did In-
fpire Jefus; and yet the Defender p. 46. fays exprefly,
and gives it as his Paraphrafe upon that Text, The
word was made FlefJj, that the word did not only Inhabit
and Infpire Jefus but was that Mm Jefus ; thefe are the
words of his Paraphrafe. The word (Jefus) was a Man
like unto us in all things, Sin only excepted, and to fortify
this, he quotes Mr. Limborck, fpeaking thefe words. The
true Senfe of this Place, u, that the WORD WAS FLESH
that is, a TRVE FLESHLT SVBSTANCE, ftbjefi to
all the Inf.rmities that attend our Fleflj, that is to fay y He
was Mortal, Vile, and Contemptible, which appeared more
especially in the Days of His Paffwn end of His Death
which are called Heb. 5. 7. THE DATS OF HIS FLESH
that is, the Flefh, Death, Paffion, &c. of the WORD OF
GOD. And yet in the fame place he fays, now is it not
more
The fecond D I A L G V E. i
more Agreeable to Reafo/i and Scripture to interpret thefe
words thus than to fay, THE WORD WAS 1NCAR-
NAT, which is a Language unknown to Scripture, &c.
Is not this Aflonifhing ! Pray, what is the difference
'twixt, The word wat made Fle/b, and the word was Incar-
nat, but that made Fief) is the Englifb for lncarnat ? Do
thefe Men fpeak againit Myfteries!
Ther are multitudes of more Quotations out of Scrip.
ture, may be given to prove the Word to be a Perfon.
John i. 14. The Word was made FlefJj. You will not fay
it was the Bible that was made Flefo? Or any outward
Speech or Declaration of Gods ? Was it not a Per [on that
was made Flefh.
SOC. By God's word there, is meant God Himfelf, and
not any thing diftind from God, as I told you jijft
now.
CHR. Was it God Himfelf than that was made Flefi ?
SOC. The word was made Flejb, that is, Did abide on, Hi ft. Vni-
and Inhabit an Human Perfon ; and fo was in appearance P- s 7«
made Flefi or Man, or the word became lncarnat, that
is, abode on the Perfon of Jefus Chrift. ^f*
CHR. I muft ftill ask, what was it that was made Flefb
or Man ? If by the Word of God you mean God Himfelf
then God was made Man, which you will not allow.
If you mean only fome outward Speech or Declaration
of His, as the Book of the Scriptures t or the like, Then
that Book was made Man or lncarnat.
SOC. You do not obferve that he fays, the word was
in abearance, made Man.
CHR. I did obfeive it, and fee the utmoft pains ta-
ken to efcape the force of this Text. But this, like all
other Fallacious Subterfuges will involve you in greater
difficulties: For- was ther nothing really made FUJh in this
Text r* Thofe Hereticks wou'd be beholding to you, who
fay that Chrifi affunYd only a Body of Air, and fuffer'd
only
§ The fecotut DIALOGUE.
Oiily ia Appearance and Show, but had no real Flefh' : ov
Word.
But thefe your H;Jl. calls falfe Prophets and Teachers,
p. 151.
But pray how did the Word appear to be Flefh? Or
how was it Incarnat*.
SOC. Becaufe it did Infpire .or abode on the Perfon of
Jefus.
CHR. Do's that make it Flefh ? Or appear to be F/ at all, by any Infpiration
// gives to Men? Does it Contract Corruption and be-
come Flefby by its Infpiration of Man ? Can It be tainted
by touching one Nature ? Is the Spirit lncarnat when it
abides upon any Mm ?
$oh. 3.34. SO.C* All thefe you fpeak of did partake of Gods Spi-
rit, or Infpiration in their feveral Degrees, But it is
faid of Chrift, That God giveth not the Spirit by meafure
unto Him ; what Alteration this will make, is to be
Confider'd.
CHR. It is indeed, and by the Argument you have
already heard, it will prove Chrifi to be God-, for as
we faid before, nothing can hold L/fnit, but Infimt.
And therefor nothing can hold the Spirit of God, without
meafure, that is the whole Spirit of God, but what is it
felf as lnfmit and without meafure, as that Spirit.
Irenaus
The fecond D I ALO GV E. 9
'hen&as ( advef. Her. 1. $. c. 17.; Difputes againft thofe
who (aid that Jefus was the Receptacle of Chrift, upon
whom Chrift Defcended like a Dove ; So you fee this is
no new fhift of our Authors to avoid this Text.
Origin (in John, p. 416. 2. Tom J fays, That the Son
is the Brightnefs of all Gods Glory, as it is delivered by
Paul. Heb. 1. }. who being the Brightnefs of his Glory.
But ther are particular Brightneifes, which come from
this Brightnefs of all the Glory. But none can partake
of the Whole Brightnefs of all Gods Glory %ri$v dun
Except His Son. And, fays he, if you add His Spirit:
too, you will think and fpeak moft truly and perfe&ly
of God. Thefe are the words of Origin.
SOC. I muft not now be Diverted, I have had my
faying to that Argument already. Therefore I defire to
know if you have any more to prove the Diversity of
Perfons in God, or, which is the fame, that either of the
two, the Word, or the Spirit, are Perfons.
CHR. John. 16. i}, 14. Chrift fays of the Spirit — 2 .
He (hall not fpeak of Him/elf, He (hall receive ef mine, and The Holy
jhew it to you ; and in anfwer to this, the Hi(l. of Vnita. Gho ^ z?cr ^ on '
pag. 99. fays, That of thofe who are Unitarians,- all the
Arians and very many Socinians do acknowledge that the Holy
Sprit is a PERSON.
SOC. -But in the fame Place, they deny Him to be God.
And make Him only Chief of the Heavenly Spirits, and
prime Minijler of God, and of Chrift.
CHR. Then you make Him not only to be a Creature,
but to be a Subject or Minifter to another Creature, which
is Chrift.
SOC. I cannot help that.
CHR. But what fay you of the Word of God ? Is that
a Creature too?
SOC. The Divine Wifdom and Power is calld, The Word.
As faid before,
' C CHR.
io The fecond DIALOGV E.
CHR. Does the Wifdom or Power of God differ from
the Spirit of God ?
SOC. No fure, for what is the Wifdom or Power of a
Man, but the Spirit of a Man ? They are but different
Expreflions of the fame thing.
CHR. Then the Word of God, and the Spirit of God
are the fame thing.
SOC. Yes. At moft but a different Expreffion of the
fame thing. And we ufe thefe words Promifcuoufly : The
Word or Power of God abiding on Chrift, and the Holy
Chop or Spirit is Meerly the Power of G »4- notcarry'd by Votes. Let uscomcto the Argument; Chrift
fays,
Thefecencf DIALOGUE. n
fays, That the Spirit /ball not /peak of Himfeif. He
(hall receive of mine, and (bew it to you. To this Objecti-
on you have repeated one Anfwer of all the Avians, and
very many Socians; and I mult own, upon our Principles,
that you have Confuted it.
But ther is a fecond Anfwer there given, p. 99. which
is that I flick too, and that is, That Actions proper to
Perfons are, by a Figure, apply'd to things, and even to
Qualities of' things. As God's Commands are call'd Coun-
cellours ; Wifdom is faid to lift up her Voice, build her Houfe,
hew out her [even Pillars, &c. And this is the Anfwer
my Author gives to John. 1. 5. all things were 'made by
him, (the Word ;) for here, fays he, the word begins to
be fpoken of as a Perfon y by the fame figure of Speech Hift.p. s.
that Solomon faith, Wifdom hath builded her Houfe, &x.
But farther, the Def cf the Hifl. p. 40. fays, that the
Creation of the world cannot be prov'd from this Text,
That all things were made by the Word-, becaufe he fays,
that the words Heaven, Earth or Sea, are never omitted
in the Defcriptions we have in Scripture of the firft and
true Creation. For you mud know that this Defender
of our Hiftorian understands all this PafTage in the firfl
of St. John, not of the Creation, but only of the firfl:
Propagation of the Gofpel.
CHR. Then he thinks that Heaven, Earth and Sea,
are not included in all things that were made ? But he is
very pofitive that the Creation is never mention'd in
Scripture without mentioning Heaven, Earth, or Sea.
And confequently that where it mentions the Creation
cf Heaven, Earth or Sea f it is never attributed to Chrift.
This is a very bold AfTertion, but it is neceiTary to
his Caufe, to avoid the plain Texts which fpeak of the
World being made by Chrift. Let us fee therefore if we
can pleafe him in his own Method, tho' it be no ways
neceflary ; for none of Common Senfe can deny, but the
Creation may be Spoke of in General words, which in-
C 2 elude
I2 The [econd DIALOGVE.
elude all Particulars, without mentioning the particulars,
or any of them.
But to take way all his excufe, thefe Words are exprefly
apply'd to Cbrift. Heb, i. 10. Thou Lord in the Beginning
hafi laid the Foundation of the EARTH and the HEAVENS
are the work of thine Hands. We fhall have occafion to clear
this further by and by. verf. 2. it is faid by whom (Chrift)
He (God) made the World. But your Author will not let
this mean the CV^iwz,becaufe the words Heaven or Earth or
Sea are not there, for the fame reafon he will except againft
ver. 3. of Chap. ii. The Worlds were framd by the Word of
Gjd y fo that things which are fee n, were not made of things that
do appear. Thefe things which are feen muft be Heaven,
Earth or Sea. But it is no matter, if they be not nam'd it
fhall not do : Befides the Jpoftle is here making a Regular
Deduction down all along trom the Creation, which he be-
gins verf. $. in the words I have Repeated, then verf.
4. he comes to Abel, verf. <;. to Enoch, verf. 7. to Noah
verf. 8. to Abraham, and fo on. But all this is nothing,
that muft not be the Creation whence this Narration be-
gins, but it fhall be what came to pafs, fome thoufand
years after, and which has no Relation to the Narrative
the Apoftle has in hand. But that the Creation may be
meant without the Mention of Heaven, Earth or Sea, ap-
pears from Adi 17. 24. there it is faid. God that made the
World and all things therein. That this was fpoken of the
Creation no Socinian dare deny. It is St. Paul's Argument
to the Heathen Idolaters, who knew nothing of the Gofi
pel being calPd the Creation of the World. Indeed Hea-
ven and Earth are mention'd afterward, where it is faid
that God is Lord of Heaven and Earth, but ther is no
mention of Heaven or Earth, where it fpeaks of the Crea-
tion, and fo fpoilt our Authors Obfervation. Tho' if it
were Granted him, it cou'd do him no Service, becaufe
the Creation is attributed to Or//?, with txprefs mention
of Heaven and Earth, as before is fliewn. Heb. 1. ic».
again
The fecond DI£LOGV E. 13
again. Col. I. 16. By Him. (Chrift) were all things Created
that are in Heaven, and, that are in Earth. And ther are
feveral other Texts to the fame purpofe.
But ther is nothing better to confute a Socinian then
plainly to fet down his Paraphrase, and fhew how it fills
the words of the Text. Thus then the Def. of the Hiftory
Paraphrafes this v:rf. Joh^ 1. $. all things were made by
him, and without him, was not any thing made, that was
made. Paraphrafe. All things neceffary to the Propagation
of the Gofpel, were Perform* d by him'. And without his Directi-
on there was not any thing performed, that was performed.
A little of this art wou'd turn the whole Chap, of Gen,
from meaning the Creation, or any thing elfe. I am
weary of purfuing fuch Extravagance.
But let Creation mean only the Preaching of the Gof-
pel, or what you pleafe, yet is not that it felf a Perfonal
Action ? How come you then to deny the Word to be a
Perfon? You dare not truftyour Caufe, and all your De-
fence is becaufe Wifdom is faid to Live, & r c.
I have told you already, That the Second Perfon
of the Trinity is defcrib'd by the name of Wifdom, in
the Proverbs Particularly, and in many other Scriptures.
But I need not this now, for I will freely acknowlege, *
That Actions proper to Perfons are fometimes, by a Fi-
gure, apply'd to things, and even Qualities,
But at the fame time you will allow me, that ther
is a way to diftinguilh 'twixt Figures and Plain fpeak-
ing ; and that a Figure will not do in every place ; and that
notwithstanding oi figures t we may deftinguifh Perfons from
Qualities. And no where more plainly than in the pre-
fent Cafe. How coud you diilinguifh one Perfon not to
be another Perfon ; or that the thing you fpeak of is not
a naked Quality, more than to fay, He fhaS not fpeak of
Him felf — He fhaH receive of thine, and fhew it to you ?
Do men ufe to fay, that a Quality (hall not fpeak of it
felf, which certainly canoot {"peak at all ? Wou'd vou make
' Chri/i
i 4 The [econcf DIALOGVE.
Chrifi guilty of fuch a Figure of Speech as this ? Do men
fay that a Quality, fhall Receive of one, and give it to
Another ? If thefe he not Marks by which to diftingutfli
Perfons, I wouM defire to know any others that are mote
certain.
All Actions are Perfonal Actions : And when they are
afcrib'd to Qualities, it means, That it was by fuch Out-
lays that the Perfon perform'd fuch an Action, other wife
it is not proper to akvibe Perfonal Actions to Qualities.
You will lay it was great Wifdom, Built fuch a Pa brick,
Erected fuch a Monarchy, or the like effects of Wifdom:
But you do not fay, That Wifdom walks in the Garden, ov
Rides fuch a Horfe, or calls jfuch a Man by his Name, or
grants him a Commiffton to go to fuch a Place, to do fuch
things, which otherwife he had not Authority to do, let
him have never fo much Wifdom as to Command a Troop
of Horfe, to be Governor of fuch a Town, to Grant a Par-
don or the like, Thefe are a little too Perfonal to afcribe
to naked Qualities 3 and no man wou'd underftand you,
if you fpeak at fuch a Rate, you might as well give a
Quality Power to Raife Money, declare War againft Prance,
and name every Amhaffdor, and fay Lord 13— fhall not
% not go, but Lord £>— — fhall go.
SOC. This indeed wou'd be out of all roads of Speaking,
but can you find that the Holy Ghofi ever fpoke fo par-
ticularly as this, and nam'd Perfons of Himfelf to do this
or that, without Acting by Minifters, that is Infpiring
Prophets to name Men, and the like.
CHR. Yes, as positively as ever wasfaid of any Perfon,
and in Actions as Perjonal and Particular,
jtff.iy*. The Holy Ghoft faid feperate rne Barnabas and Saul, for
the Work whereunto I have called them.
The Spirit faid unto PHILIP, go near and join thy
Mi ' % ' 79 ° felf to thts Chariot. And again, The Spirit of the Lord caught
away Philip, ver. 39. Was not this a Perfonal Action ? Cou'd
a naked Quality catch a Man up in the Air, and carry
him
The feconcf DIALOGUE. H -
carry him from one place to another? The Spirit [aid
unto Peter, behold three Men feek thee. A& 10. 19, Peter
cou'd not tell by his own Wifdom, that ther were three
Men feeking him ; therefor this cannot be made Parallel
to the Expreffion of Wifdom building a Houfe, or the like
Effects of Wifdom in a Man ; for this was no Effect- of
any Wifdom in Peter, but a Revelation to him from the
Spirit ; which therefor muft be a Perfon.
It is not call'd a Revelation which I find out by any
Wifdom God has given me.
Chrift fays, / will fend the Comforter to yen from the #. 6
Father. Do Men fend Qualities of Errands ? Is not the
Sender a different Perfon from him that is fent? Or
do's a Man fend himfelf from himfelf? Befides Chrift was
Conceived by the Holy Ghoft in the Womb of the Vir-
gin, which fure is a Perfonal A&ion. Naked Qualities
do not ufe to Beget or Generate.
SOC This muft be Confider'd of: But go on.
CHR. I wou'd defire you to tell me what Spirit it
was which Chrift fpeaks of, Joh. 16. ij, 14. wfeere he
fays, That the Spirit (hall not fpeak of Himfelf &c.
SOC. That is told you in the fecond Anfwer which
we are now upon pag. 100. of Brief Hiflory. That it
was the Holy Spirit, or Power of God.
CHR. Is this Spirit or Power any thing different from
God?
SOC. No. That has been told you already from
pag. 8$. where it is faid in plain and exprefs Terms,
That the Divine Wifdom and Power is not fomething
different from God, but is God, and that 7 Tis the common
Maxim of Divines ; that the Attributes and Properties of
God, are God.
CHR. Then it was God, who was not to fpeak of him-
felf ; but to receive of Chrift \ Chrift was to DicJat, and
God to Repeat I
SOC.
U The fccond DIALOGUE.
v C Pag. ioi. it is faicl, That He was not to fptak
of Him! elf, hut to jpeak what he cotTd hear from Gcd.
CHR. Then it was God who was to hear from God?
And God was not to fpeak of Himjelf; but only what
God fhou'd tell him /
SOC. AW this Non-fenfe cannot be Charg'd upon my
Author, becaufe he fuppofes this Spirit to be a Creature,
and not to be God.
CHRT. That is the fir (I Anfwer, which you have 1 reject-
ed. And you have prov'd pag. 85. and elfewhere, That
the Spirit is not any thing different from God, but is God.
And even in this very fecond Anfwer which you mention, p.
100. (that you may not be charg'd with fergetfulnefsj you
call this Sprit, by the name of the Holy-Spirit, or Power
of God,
SOC. We do fo, and we keep conftant to this now,
tho' we part with all the Arians, and very many of the
Soc'mians in fo doing.
CHR- Then the Nonfenfe which you faid juft now,
cou'd dot be charg'd upon your Author, muft be laid to
his Account again, viz. To make the Spirit or Power of
God, which is God, not to fpeak of Himfelj, but to re-
ceive from God, and fpeak what God did diktat to God,
&c.
SOC. I muft take time to Confider of this.
CHR. But befides, I'm afraid the Conftancy which you
bragg you have to this Opinion now, viz. That the Spi-
rit is not any thing different from God, but that it is God^
Does not hold very well with you, but that you are forc'd
to part with it fometimes, when it is for your Conve-
niency.
SOC. If you can fhew me any fuch thing, I will
truft no more to any thing our Unitarians fay.
CHR. Look into the Hiftory p. 125. and therein an-
fwer to that Crabbed Text, 2 Cor. ij, 14. he replys
in thefe words. This Text Demonftrats, thtt neither the
Lord
The fecond DIALOGUE. i 7
.Jhrd Chrifi, nor the Holy Spirit are God, for it plainfy
Dijlinguiffjes them Jrom God.
Here the Holy Spirit is plainly Diflingaifffd from God,
and is not God. And before, as you have laid, It is
not any thing different from God, but it is God.
SOC. It is time to go to the fecond Anfwer which
the Hifi. Vnita. gives to that Text John i. i. The Word
was God. For ther is enough faid as to the frft Anfwer,
viz,. That by the Word here is only meant God's Power
and Wifdom, which is not any thing different from God,
but is God. The fecond Anfwer, is, That the word
God is given fomerimes to Creatures, to Angels, and even
to Men. And therefor that Text may not mean that
the Word was the Supreme God, but only a God as
KJngs are call'd Gods, &c.
CHR. To reduce the State of the Cafe as fhort and
clear as pofTible, it is thus. The Diftin&ion is 'twixt
a God by Nature, and a God by Office, or Deputation.
By Nature, we all agree, ther can be but one God ? But
by -Office ther be Gods many, and Lords many, whether i.cor. 8.
in Heaven or in Earth. *•
Now in which of thefe Senfes the Word is call'd God
is the Queftion ?
SOC. That indeed is the Queition, and if you can
make .it clear, this Caufe, for ought I can fee, will re-
main decided for ever.
CHR. If I can make appear what St. John's meaning
was, who wrote thefe words, I fuppofe that will fatisfy
you.
SOC. Yes fure, what he meant by it is the whole
matter.
CHR. I have told you before the Notions of the Jews 3 ,
and Heathens as to the Trinity, That they did believe , The &**-
three Hjpoftafes or Perfons in the Divine Nature-, and^S^"
ccnfequently each of thefe Perfons muft be God by Na-
D tare
18 The frond DIALOGUE.
tare. The fecond of thefe Perfons they did call the Aoy&.
the Word
This is fo notorioufly known that I might fpare any
Proof of it, therefor I will give you but a few Autho-
rities that I _ might not feem to fpeak wholly Precari-
oufly. Plotinus, Ennead, 5. 1. 5. c. $. fpeaking of the
Logos calls Him God by Nature Oecs aunn a Q Koytv G«o«/ £AgXa£, TBTO) W£?cr>-dj€
f EvQuua>v t *£ptcT/>j< vaeeJv vj£i(§h, M ' S"' 'f^i^ctjis
'Ar&t.'Tn'TVy uvwv cTWd£# •>($€• [Agio Nyaticvx
ASuvcltiv » ■■ '
Porphyry
The fecond D I A L G V E. i 9
"Porphyry (Quoted by St. Cyril Cont. Jul. 1. i. p. 32. Edit.
Paris, fol. An. 1658.) calls the Logos "A^r©. >Sa« £
■/jy'ns ajto'w©*. without time, always, .and alone Eternal,
Tertullian (Apolog. adv. Gentes. c. 21.) fays, that X§no
call e d this Logos, the Maker of the World, who formed
all things in order, and that He was cafl'd Fate, and
God, and the Soul of Jupiter, and the Neceffity of all things.
Hum enim Z^enon determinat Faclitatorem, qui Cuncla in
Difpoftione formaverit, eundem & latum vocari, & Deum,
& Animum Jovis, & neceffltatem omnium rerum.
And as the Heathen, fo the Jews underftood the Logos 4.
in the fame fenfe, Philo (Qu&ft. & Solut.) calls the Logos The 5F? W
in the fame words of Plot in. above quoted AdMny&v** 01 ™ **'
Geov a fecond God, next to the na^'e^ £$ ttoIvtuv to the
Father of all, and in his Legis Allegor. 1. 2. p. 95. Edit.
Paris: fol. An. 1640. he fpeaks, thus of the Logos, Kojo
gvrctK&K) r^/xwTOT©, «©* Xoy®*. in which t His (Goa s)
frfi-born Divine Word, is High-Prieft. de fmn. agreeable
to this, the Chaldee Paraphrafe makes the Logos and God
or Jehova Synonimous, and inftead of Jehova often ul
the Logos or Word of God, as Exod. 20. 1 , Deut % \ j
&c.
D 2
2 o The Jecond D IALOGV E.
But does plainly diftinguifh them from being the fame*
ferfbn, as Gen. 17. 7. I will eftab/iflj my Covenant between
my Word, and Thee. Where God fpeaks of His Word, as
of another Per/on.
The Jerufalem Targum is yet more Exprefs, upon
Gen. 3. 22. thus.
The word of the Lord faid, behold Adam, whom 1 Crea-
ted, is the only begotten upon Earth, as 1 am the only k~
gotten in Heaven. And Philo (de Agricult. 1. 2.) introduces
the Logos fpeaking thus of Himfelf, K«J yi In d$Jvr&,
ok Qeo7 flfy, «tb ^hti5 co; vjaJIs. 1 am neither Vn-begotten
as God, nor Begotten, after the manner that you are.
Here the Begotten Word is diftinguifhed from the Vn-
Begotten father of the Word, and the Creation of Adam
is attributed, in exprefs Terms, to the Word; and the
Text fays he was Created by God, which makes God
and the Word to be Synonimous, and Onkelos Paraphrafe
of Gen. 28. 21. thus renders it, If the Word of the Lord
will help me the Word of the Lord (hall be my God.
Let me add to this, at lead to fhew the jewtfb Notion
in this matter, the Stile in which the Apocrypha ExprefTes
it. Thus we find it.
SOC. But my Bufinefs now, is not what the fews or
Heathens meant by their Logos or Word of God, but what
St. John meant by the Logos he mentions in that Text
you have quoted.
CHR. Where do you Imagin that St. John gat this
Term of Logos, or the Word of God f
SOC. I have often Reflected upon that, and really it
appear'd very ftrange to me, the beginning of his Go/pel
feem'd to me to be out of all the Common Road of fpeak-
ing : And therefore I put it upon the Account of fome
Extraordinary Impulfe of the Spirit of God ; and that he
fpoke Words, which never Man had fpoken before. And
therefore I thought you to blame to draw Arguments
from
The fecond DIAbtfGV E, k t
from fuch uncouth Phrafes, whofe meaning feem'd as hid-
den as the Revelations.
CHR. But I hope you are of another Opinion now, and
believe that thofe Terms were not of St John's Inventing,
but were us'd before he was Born, and were known
Common Terms in the World.
SOC. I muft not deny plain matter of FacV
CHR. Why then fhou'd St. John ufe common Terms
in a different Sen/e from the whole World ?
SOC. I can give no Reafon why he fhou'd.
CHR. He muft not intend to be underftood if he did,
and fo cou'd not be a fincere Writer. He muft intend
either to Confirm the World in the Opinion they had
of the Logos, or to difprove it; now you find plainly that
he did not Abfolutly deny or Reject the Logos. But he
Reforms, fome Errors concerning it, and teaches the
Truth of it. For, as was faid before, The Heathen Phi*
lofophers had Corrupted the Tradition of the Trinity which
had come to them ; and confequently of the Logos, which
was one of the three firft Principles, whom they acknow-
leged.
SOC. What Corruption did St. John intend to correct:
in his Treatife of the Logos ?
CHR. The Cerinthian Hereticks denyed the Logos to
be in the Beginning: But made many Ages diftance be-
tween the Eternal Being of the Father, and the Emana-
tion of the Logos, wherein they fancy 'd the Father, in
jilentio et Qutete multa fuiffe in Immenfis JEonibus, as
lrentus expreffes it. adverjl Here/. 1. i. c. i. to have been
in Silence and deep Quiet for immenfe Ages, And they
fuppos'd that the Logos was at laft producM by' the Fa-
ther km aiyys out of this Silence ; which they made one
of His Emanations; As I have faid before : And I defire
to Repeat to you again, that you may Remember it,
what I before Quoted out of St. Ignatius his Epift.. to
the Magnefians, where he calls Chrift the X&y(& am cnyZi
3> '&*
22 The fmnd DIALOGUE.
T^h^y, The Eternal Word who did riot proceed from
Silence.
And you will believe Ignatius to be the beft Inter =
preter of St. Jofofs meaning, who was his own Scholar,
and Learn'd the Gofpel from his Mouth, Irenxus adverf.
Haer. 1. ii. p. 257. fays exprefly that St. John wrote on
purpofe againft Cerintbus, to vindicat the Logos, being
Prior and Superior to all fancy' d JEones or Emanations ■■;
and to that very End, wrote the words of this Text,
John 1. 1. In the Beginning was the Word, &c.
I have here given you two of the Ancient Fathers,
long before the Council of Nice, for Our Expofition of
this Text, in Dire ft Oppofition to your s\ And Averting
the fame Doclrin concerning God and His Word which.
We Believe and Teach at this Day. But I can give
you more. And firft More of St. Ignatius, who fays of
himfelf, 'E^ ,mJ' iw dvcLu cIotoV oTSbt. i. e. I fiw
him fChrift) in the Flejh after His Refurretfion. Epift.
ad Smyrnens. Edit. Vjfer, p. 112.
This Ignatius (Eptp ad Ephef. p. ^ of Edit.Vjfer)
Speaks of Chrift in thefe words ' E%psi> Ikt&v, % ¥ jw-
qkov nwjbv ©sop IjjfffcV ^ X£^St>j> t 7rgp c^oo'jwj> uov Mowfyvi y hoyov,
v&gpv q ly" AvQpooTov ex MagjictA t •-TupOeVy, ?\cy(§k y> oicp|; l^y'g-
7©. ©* 6njT£ C60(xocn, r\ £<07i c& , fifiju&s $ ttolS-atov mavftpccirvy. \. c.
Who was Impaffible as God, but for us was Paffible as Man,
He calls Him there Ax&vw o» ^^fivtu^acs^rw t? cupKi &C. i. e. Without Time in Time, Invifible in his
Nature, viable in the Flefb. And more to the fame
purpofe.
Clemen. Alexandrin. Admonit. ad Gent: p. £. fays that the
Word ivas Christ, 'Ofj{gv^ <^fjL(pa>,©eds re ^olvfyuTTDi; who only
was both God and Man* And in his Pddagogus l, i.e. 8.
p. 1 1 $. He fays, that God hates Nothing, neither The
Word: for both, fays he, are One, that is God : for he
faid, In the Beginning was the word, and the word was
with God, and the word was God.
Juft. Martyr. Dial cum Tryph . p. 284. 285. fays
"that God, before all Creatures, begot out of Himfelf
AvvoLfup hoytww a Rational Power, which is calPd by the
Holy Ghoft, The Glory of the Lord, and alfo the Son,
and fometimes Wifdom, (as by Solomon in the Proverbs
&c) and fometimes God, and Sometimes Lord and that
it was He who appeared in the form of a Man to
Jojhua, as Captain of the Hoft of the Lord : and that
theie Appellations belong to Him as being begotten by
the Voluntary Generation of the Father ; And that the
like Generation may be feen in fome fort in our felves,
for when we bring forth a Word, we do in a manner
Beget that Word; not by Cutting or Parting it,
as if it were made lefs in us who beget it; but
as in Fire, another is kindled by it, without any Di-
minution of that Fire whence the other is Kindled. And
that this Word or Progenie of God was with God, before
all Creatures, and that all things were made by Hi?n, and
nothing made without Him, and that it was to Him God
fpake, Let us make Man, as you have heard.
Irenaus is full and large upon this Text, ad'vsrf Heres,
I. 5. c. 11. 1. 5. c, 18. 1. 1. c, 19. 1. & c 2. 1. $. c. 8,
II. j 1. . Tertuti,
2 4 'The jecond-VlALOGVE.
Terttili. Jpologet. c. a. i. (bows ^hat Opinion the
'Heathen Philofophers had of the Logos, whom they own'd
as the Maker of the World, and call'd Him, Fate, and
God, and the Soul of Jupiter. Him (lays TertttMia^
ex Deo prolatum dicimus, a* proUttone general urn, et id-
ctrco Yiliam Dei, & Deum dictum ex V nit ate SubflantU
De Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus, ut Lumen de Lumme
accenfum. We fay that the LOGOS is deduced from God,
g.nd in that Deduction is Begot, and therefor is call'd the
SON of God, and God from the VNITT OF SVB-
STJNCE — - that He is Spirit of Spirit, and God of
God, as Light is K^indled of Light. And (De Praefcrip.
1. 13) This Word, or Son of God, appear'd varioufly
to the Patriarchs in the Name of God, was always
heard in the Prophets, and at laft by the Spirit, was made
Flefb in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, &c. But Tertullian *
is fo full and in fo many places, that I fuppofe our Adver-
faries will not contend for him. Read his jth Sect ad-
verf.Frax. p; 503. and 504. and fee how exprefly heDi-
fputes again ft our Authors Notion of the Word, being
nothing different from God, as we fay of the Word which
a Man fpeaks, it is not a DiftinQ: Subftance from him:
quid efi enim dices ■ for you will fay, what is a
Word but the Voice or Sound of the Mouth a fort
of an Incorporeal empty thing ? But I fay that nothing
Void or Empty could proceed from God nor could
want that Subftance which comes forth from fo great a
Subftance, and which made fo Great Subftances How
can he be Nothing, without whom Nothing was made ?
Can that Word of God be a Void and Empty thing,
who is called the Son, who is nam'd God Himfeif ; and
the Word was with God y and the Word was God? This
certainly is He, who being in the Form of God, thought it
not Robbery to be Equal with God- Therefore whatever
the Subftance of the Word is, Perfonzw Dico. I call it
a
The fecond DIALOGUE. 25
m Perfon, and Vendicat to it the Name of the Son, Thus
Tertullian.
Origen upon this Text p. 17. means by the Word «r *p^m -wf •
fomething diftincl from God. In the Beginning was the *by°s Aoyo*
Word, by The Word here, he Vnderftands the Son, who i^'fl.^
J aid to be in the Beginning, becauje He was in the rather, h 7 a varel
You would not make God to be in and with Himfelf, ^>% ^ »
to Beget Himfelf, to be His- own Son, &c. and without """"'*>*■'
faying this, you cannot reconcile the Senfe of thefe Fa-
thers upon this Text, to that Senfe your Hifiorian puts
upon it. vifi. That the Word in this Text, is not fome-
thing different from God.
SOC. Our Brief Hiftory^ fays p. 80. The Trinitarian
Expo ft ion of this Chapter is Abfurd and Contradictory.
CHR. This is his Civil way of Treating Us !
Thefe are the Patterns for Gentile Difputing, without
Paffion or HeM \ But what Reafon do's he give for
this Hard C-enfure.
SOC. He lays, "*Tis this, that In the Beginning fhou'd
be -Meant from all Eternity. For, fays he, From all Eter*
nity t is before the Beginning.
CHR. What! Before the Beginning of Eternity ?
SOC' Eternity has no Beginning.
CHR. Then ther is no fuch thing as From Eternity.
The word From Implies a Beginning. Do's any body
fay From no Beginning ? Or can any body Think it ?
SOC. We cannot fpeak Properly of Eternity. We can-
not fpeak of it but by worcls of Time. For we have
None other.
CHR. Then take your own Anfver. And what
word of Time is Before the Beginning ? But all Phrafes
of Speech muft be taken in the Common Acceptation.
And I have Shew'd you from your Beloved urotixs,
that In. the Beginning was a Common Hebraifm for Eter-
nity. And that it was fo Us'd in this Text. Do we
not fay, that God was in the Beginning before all things ?
E And
26 The fecond DIALOGVE.
And Origen has juft now told you the Meaning of the
Word being faid to be in the Beginning, that is, That
the Word was always in God, and therefore muft be in
the Beginning with God. And I have fhewM you that
the Cerinthians Deny'd the Word to have been in the
Beginning with God, but Produc'd many Ages, or ALones
after. Therefore the Apoflle Afferts that He was in the
Beginning winh God. And St. Ignatius Calls Him Ao}®.
'AiSi©« the Eternal Word. And from the Beginning is a
Scripture Phrafe whereby to Exprefs Eternity, as the
fame Logos or Word fpeaks of Himfelf by the Name of
Wifdom (whereby he is Commonly Exprefs'd in Holy "
Scripture) Prov. 8. 23. I was fet up from EverUflw?, from
the Beginning, or ever the Earth was. God the Father
wou'd not fay, That he was fet up. Did any other Set
Him up ? Yet he that was fet up is faid to be from £-
verhfling. And from the Beginning is made Synonymus
with from Everlafting.
SOC. But my Hiftorian fays p, 80. That IN THE
BEGINNING muft Refer to fome Time and Thing, it
muH he in the Beginning of the World, or of the Gofpel,
or of the Word. He fays, it muft he fo. But gives no
other Proof Therefor I go on to the Next.
CHR. To which of thefe Times do's the Beginning
of Wisdom Refer ? And the Wifdom of God is CalPd His
Word: As your Hiftorian Confeifes p. 82. Was not Wif-
dom then tn the Beginning with God ? Or was ther any
Time when God had not Wifdom ? Now go on to your
Next.
SOC. He fays, p. 81. The word was with God. That is,
fays he, The Son was with the Father. But was not the.
Son aljo with the Holy Ghoft ? And is not he too {accor-
ding to the Trinitarians) God, or a God f If he ii\ why doth
St. John fay, the Son mas with the Father : And Low crmes
the Father to Engrofs here the Title of God, to the Exclu-
sion of the Holy Ghotf ? Then he goes on and fays in
the
The fecond DIALOGVE.
the Next words, The Word was God. Upon which he
Argues in the fame way, and fays, What pd we do
here ? Was the Word the Father ?• For fo they Interpreted
GOD in the foregoing Claufe.
CHR. That the word God Includes the Father is True.
But who told him if was to the Exclusion of the Holy
Ghojl? Your Hifiorian knows well enough that is not
the Docfrin of the Trinitarians. Why then did he Ob-
jedl it? I have told you before, That the word God
do's Generally Mean the Godhead, which Includes all
the Three Perfons. And fometimes it means the Father,
as the Fountain of the other Perfons. And that fome-
times the Godhead is Exprefs'd without the word God
at all, where the three Perfons are Enumerated, as in
the Form of our Eaptifm.
I Illuftrated this to you, by way of ParaEel, that the
Vnderftanding, being the Father or Fountain Faculty, is
often us'd to Exprefs the Soul: But that this was not
to the Exclufwn of the other two Faculties. It is laid
j Luk. 24. 45. That CHRIST Opened their Vnderftanding,
'that they might Vnderfland the Scriptures. Your Hifiorian
might come inhere as well, and fay, what fha/lwe do now?
Was this to the Exclufion of the Memory, and of the
wm
It is not faid in thtText we are upon, That the Word
was the Father, but that the Word was God. That is,
did Partake of the Divine Nature ; which is not to the
Exclufton of Either of the other Perfons, But it do's De-
monftrate the Word was One of thefe Perfons, as Par-
taking of the fame Nature with them. Let us hear if
your Hifiorian has any more to fay.
SOC. Upon thefe words, The fame was in the Beginning
with God, he fays, p. 82. How comes this to be again Re-
peated ? for John had [aid once before, that the Word was
with God. They care not, 'tis faid, and that's wough.
E 2 CH
2 8 The fecond DIALOGV E.
CHR. He gives a Pretty account of our Anfwers I t>o 9 s
he Name any Trinitarian that gave that Blunt Anfwer ?
SOC. No. But he go's on and fays, The Truth is, ac-
cording to their Senfe of this Context, no Accouut can be
given of this Repetion, and they mufi Allow it to be a User
Tautology. .. , -,
CHR. What is the Socman Senfe he puts upon it ?
SOC. He fays, That in the Beginning (that is, the Be-
oinmm of the Creation of Heaven and Earth) was the
Wordf And that by the Word the Power and Wifdom
of God is meant.
CHR. Well. But how do's this folve the Tautology 1
For St. John had faid once before, that the Word was
with God. And whatever is Meant by the Word, the
Tautology is the fame. Thus then the Text go's,
in his Senfe, in the Beginning, that is, of the Creation,
was the Word, that is, the Power and Wifdom of God,
And the Power and Wifdom was with God: And
the Power and Wifdom was God. And the fame Power
and Wifdom was *"» f/;e Beginning with G<^. Let him
now iolve the Tautology he Objects, even in his own
Senfe. Men are very willing to make Objections, when
they cannot fee how eafily they are Retorted !
But this will bring us to a better Underftanding of
this Text. For in the Socinian Senie, it is not only a
Tautology, but the whole is to no Purpofe. For who
Deny'd that God had Power and Wifdom, from the £e-
giMng, not only of the Creation, but from all Eternity I
Againll whom did St. John Difpute, in this Senfe ? But
I have (hew'd you againft whom he did Difpute, that
is, the Cerinthians, who Deny'd this Wifdom of God,
call'd the Word, to be a Perjbn; or if a Porfon, not to
have been from the Beginning, but Created by G^ many
^ej or j£ f^e Beginning with G^, and muft be Gai '
And by this God made all things, and without this was
not any thing Made, that was Made. But they Deny'd
Chrifl to be this WORD. They fa id He was Metapho-
rically call'd the Word and the Wifdom of G^, from the
Great Wifiom BeftowM upon Him. And that He was
Created by the True and Natural WOR D of God. Thus
the Arians (after the Cerinthians) held as you may fee
in the Synodicd Efifile of Alexander Bifhop of Alexandria^
upon the Condemnation of Arius. Socrat. Hifl. 1. 1. c. 5.
Now fee how Direct and Pungent the words of St.
3^ are againft thefe Herefies % where he fets about to
Prove that Chrift was the Word of God. Not a Afoafc
or Created WORD, which was not from the Beginning,
but the very Word, which was in the Beginning, and
which was God; by whom G^ made all things, and
without whom Nothing was Made, that was Made, that is,
He was the EfTential Wifdom of God, and therefore Al-
ways in God. Which is the Reafon Origin gives, as I
have before Quoted him, why Chrift is faid to be in the
Beginning, becaufe He was always in the Father. And it
was this fame Word, St- John tells us, that was -made
Flefb.
SOC. But you have forgot to iolve the Tautology Ob-
jected by our Hijlorian, ^Yeu have indeed Retorted it
upon him- But you have not AnfveVd it as tovourfelf.
CHR. Every Repetition is not a Tautology ; But to En-
force what you fay the More. And your Hifiorian is fen-
fible of this, for he fays, p. 87. upon the liih-.vetf: of
this
io The fecortcf DIALOGUE.
this Chapter, His own Received Him not, 'TV* tgtin Re-
peated (fays your Hiftorian) to Brand the Ingratitude and
Stupidity of the Jems. And, p. 91. upon Joh. }. 1 }. he
fays, It is Repeated, Majoris AiTeverationis caufa,/cr its
greater Confirmation. Thus the fame Apofile having Af-
ferted the Word to have been in the Beginning. And to
have been with God, now Joins both together, and fays,
He was in the Beginning with God. To fhew what Be-
ginning he meant, viz- The fame Beginning with God,
fince we muft fo fpeak. And it was likewife for the
Wronger Confirmation of this moft Important . Truth.
But fays your Author to the next words that follow
i/er. 3. All things were made by Him: And without Him
wns not any thing Made', that was Made,
SOC. He fays, p. 84. That the WORD begins here to
be fpoken of as a PERSON, by the fame figure of fpeech
that Solomon faith, WISDOM hath Builded her Houfe, &c.
This is the fame as I told you before, That by the Word
he means the Eternal Power and Wifdom of God.
CHR. What do's he fay to the next words Immc
diatly following, In Him was Life, &c.
SOC, He fays p. 8$. In him. i. e. In him when be was
in the World, and was made Flefb.
CHR. But had the Eternal Power and Wifdom of God
no Life, till Jeftis was Born ? Indeed a Quality or Attri-
bute has no Life in it- Therefor if the Word have Life,
it mult be a Per] on- For which Reafon, you will not
let it be a Perfon y till it Infpir y d or Dwelt in Jefus. But
all that will not make it a Perfon, more than it was a
Perjon in all the Holy Men ic has InfpiPd. Nothing lefs
than Incarnation can do that, whereby the Natures united
become one Perfon, and cannot be Separated again, with-
out the Death of the Perfon.
But fee how you are Caught in your own Snare. In
Anfwer to ver. 5- you make the Word the Eternal Power
and Wifdom of God, and to be God. But in Anfwer to
ver.
The feconct DIALOG V E. 3 r
ver. 4. you make the fame Word to be a Creature, ami
to have had no Life, till the Birth of Jf*d
thing may do, as the Book of the Scriptures when Read.
But how do's the Word or Wifdom of Garf INSPIRE, *•
if it have no Life in it? Or do's it borrow L*/e ^.muftmf
the P erf on whom it Infpires? As your Author feerns tojrom ara/wr.
fay, That the WW had no L*/f, till it was made Fleffj.
For ?&* he fuppofes, and confequently not till then, that
Text verify'd, In Him was Life. But if Lfe was in Him
before, then he was a Per/on before, and confequently
from all Eternity, He being the Eternal Wifdom of God,
as your Author has AfTerted, And He having Life in
Himfelf, might give Life, to Another, or Infpire Another.
For a Quality do's not Infpire, but is that which is In-
Jpired. But your Author fays, that He the Word was gwA
J/f/fr. This is fomething more than Infpiring.
SOC. We can ufe the Term of being made Fle[b, and 7<
of In-carnation too, and yet mean no more by it than What the-
bare InfpiraUan. Thus our Hiftorian, p. 86. fays, Tfe s ° c J? ia Z ,„
TUrtnn ; t r ■ *; » i r? r ..mean by /ff*
vrVRD became ln»carnat, that is, Abode on- the ret Jon of caution,
Je/us Chrijf. For God communicated to him an Effufwn of
his Power and Wifdom. And p. 87. in Anfwer to ver.
14. The Word-mas made Fltfh, that is, fays my Author,
did abide en and inhabit an Human Perfon, the Perfon of
Jefus Chrift, and fo was, in Appearance, made Flefo or Man.
CHR. The Text (ays, was made Flefi. That was only
in Appearance, fay you. This is a pretty Latitude in In-
terpreting of Texts \ And looks like a downright
Denyal of the Text. For if it was only in Appearance,
then it was not made Flefli- This is Adding to the Text,
not Interpreting. And let rre have the like Privilege of
Adding only thefe two Words- in Appea^me, to what
Text
92 The feco?id DIA'LOGV E.
Text I think fit, I wou'd fain know if you couM Prove
any one thing upon me out of the whole Bible!
But where was the Appear. vcce? If God Endows -a
Man with Extraordinary Qifts and Graces, and Power
of Working Miracles, is this any appearance of Gtf^'i
being Made Fle/h? Then ther was an Appearance of it
in Afo/w, and many of the Prophets, and Apojlles, Chrifi
faid to tfeem Job. i<\. 12. Verily, Verily I jay unto yoa y
He that believe th in Me, the works that 1 do y (hall he do
aifo, and Greater works than thefe jfjall he do, becaufe I go
unto the Father. Was God therefor In-Carnat, or will
He be In Carnat in any who have,- or may hereafter
do thefe Greater Works ? Or will ther be any Appearance
of His being Made Fleftj, in any of thefe His Saints'?
Where then was the Appearance of God's being made
Flejh in Chrifi, becaufe of the Mighty Works which He
did ? For that was all which cou'd Appear to our View.
XIV# SOC. We have dwelt a long time upon this fir ft of
The other St. John. As if it were the Onely Text in all the Bi~
rexts in h. ^ g y 0U j^ t0 depend upon.
qSTnto.' CHR. You (hall fee the whol© Current of the Holy
Scriptures Run all in the fame Strain. But ther being
feveral things Needful to be Known, in Order to the
Explain-ing ot feveral Texts. I have Chofe to fet them
down in thisPlace, to "Avoid Repitition. Therefor it will
Shorten our Work in what Remains, And now I am
Ready to Look over with you the Anfwers which your
Htfiorian gives to the Texts of Scripture in the Order
he has Rang'd them.
SOC. lie begins upon this in his Second Letter, p. 42.
And the firft Text he Names is Gen. 1. 26. Let us
Make Man in our Image. Whence you draw Arguments
from the Maimer of the Phrafe of God being fpoken of
in the Plural Number.
(1) CHR. He fhouM have begun at the firft Vers.
In the beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth.
Where
The feconci DIALOGV E. 33
Where the word Elohim, which we Tranflate God, is
in the Plural Number, and Bjtra did Create is in the
Singular Number, which Laterally Render'd is thus, Dii
Creavit, that is, He, the Gods, did Create, And ther
are three Perfons here vifibly fpoke of, Firfl he that
fpoke, Let ther be Light, Let there be a Firmament. &;c-
Second, The Word fpoken by Him, Of which we have
Difcours'd largely before. Third, The Spirit of God,
which (Ver % 2.) is faid to have Moved upon the face of
the Waters, And thefe Gods, are here laid to be the
God that did Create. And we know how ExaQ: the
Hebrew is as to Every Letter of a Word, and the Import
they draw from thence. As in that little Alteration
which God Made in the Names of Abram and Sarai,
into Abraham and Sara}). Gen. 17. 5. 1$. Upon which
God there laid Great Strefs, and gave it as a Token of
His Covenant then Made with them. I will not trouble
you with the Niceties and Improvements which the Ca-
balifts, or Myjlieal Writers of the Jews, make upon Eve-
ry Word and Letter, and Manner of Expreffion in the
Sacred Text. Tho' it fliews their Meaning, and how
they Underftood things. But fince your Author has Sltpt
this Text, let us go on with him to that which you
have Nam'd.
(2.) To that Text Gen. 1. 26, Let us make Man in
our Image, he fays, p. 42. That the Vs there fpoke of
was God and Angels. That God fpoke this to the An-
gels. That Man was Made in the Image of God and
AngtU, But that God Spoke to the Angels, not as ^-'
]utants, but as Spectators of his work. He fays, ybf:ur % d
what they can the UoHjin of the Trinity, becaufe it
F Leads
34 The feconc/ D I A LO GV E.
Leads fo Dire&ly to the Divinity of Chrift. But they
have not been Able to do it fo, as not to leave full
Proof of it out of their Writings, as I have fhew'd you.
And much more might be Produced to the fame Purpofe.
However in Anfwer to the Socinians, and thefe fome
Rabbies (your Author do's not Name nor Quote J I fay,
That this Anfiver is wholly Precarious. And they Pro-
duce No Authority whatever for it. Befides, it is not
Certain that the Angels were then Created. St. Barnabas
thinks that this Text was fpoke before the Foundation
of the World. Which I will fhew you Prefently. Be-
fides that the Expreffion Let Vs make, is not Applicable
to bare Spectators, but to Fellow -workers. Come fee me
Work, wou'd be an Invitation to spectators. As Jehu
faid to Jehonadab, 2. KJn. 10. 16. Come with me, and SEE
my Zjal for the Lord.
SOC. My Author Quotes Job. 38. 4, 7. to Prove that the
Angels were then Created. The 4th verfe is, where waft
thou when I laid the Foundation of the Earth 1 Declare if
thou haft Under ft an ding. But I fee no Proof in this. There-
fore it muft be ver. 7. which is, 7 he Morning Stars fang
together, and all theSonsofGodjhoutedforJoy. By thefe Sons
of God, I fuppofe he means the Angels. And becaufe they
Shouted.
CHR That is a ftrange Proof, out of the fame Verfe
where Stars are faid to Sing ! This is fuch an Expreffion
as PfaL 98. 8. Let the Floods clap their hands, let the Hills be
Joyful, &C. And Pfal. 65, 1 j. The V allies are covered with Corn,
they Shout for Joy, they alfo Sing. And by the like Figure,
*e)< to >y a ^ c ^ e Hop of Heaven might be call'd thz Sons of God.
Zinv wri*- But to leave thefe ForSdznd ForaignFvoofs. I will now,
¥*&■•*& v according to my Proraife, give youfomeof the Anie-Nicene
>©- Koiim- fathers interpretation or this Text.
fir 9-p«w St Barnabas in his Catholick Epftle, c. 5. p. 21. fpeak-
J^rM'/ in S of the ' Lord P*tfa favs > To whom ^odjpoke in the
>&$ onQiww Day before the Foundation of the World, Let us make Man
in our Image, after our Likenefs* And
The fecond V I A L G V E. 35
And again, c. 6. pr jj. For the Scripture faith of us , as &ye*y£g$
He ( the Father ) faid to the Sox, Let us make Man af- %$%&&.
ter our Image, y l( 7 s up
Juftin NUrtyr in his DUL with Trypho. p. 265. calls it ™*™w ,
a Here/} to fay that this was fpoken to the Angels, or that 2J? "^/2$
the Body of Man was the workmanfhip of Angels. But "f* 6 "^'**'*
he fays the fW^r here fpeaks to His Son, who came "*/'**"'•
from the Father before all Creatures. He confutes thofe
il4^w who, depraving the Scripture, fays he, pretend
that God fpoke to Himfelf when He faid Let us make
Man, or to the Elements, or the E*rM, or any the like.
He fays that expreflion (hews ther was a number at leaft,
two that were together, and thofe he makes to be the
Father, and the Son 1 And that without all doubt, fays
he, the Father there fpeaks to one numerically Different
from Himfelf, and to an Intelligent Perfon.
lren&US faVS, God fpoke thefe Homo fecundum fimilitudinem Dei for-
1 10 1 t r 1 matus eft, et per manus ejus plafmatus ere,
words to the Son and the Holy boc eftj per FiUumy et ^^ ^bus et
Gho/l, and he Calls them Metaph- dixit, Faciamus hominem. Iren. adverf.
quo prtniu Ur. >
knowledge the to, but 'that he et cxieid *«* l ' Ul!C * ** trm '
F 2 fpoke
3 6 The jecond
vel ad Filium, nunc ad Filium, de Patre,
vcl ad Patretn, nunc ad Spiritum pronunci-
antur, unamquamque Perfonm in fua pro-
nrietace conftituunt. Si te adhuc wwwrw
fcandalizat Trmtms, qaafi non connexoe in
wu'mk fimplici, interrogo quomodo untcut
et fingut'Js pluraliter .loquitur? Fmmus
homing si Imaginem et fmihtudinem n -
K cum debuerit dixifle, F-•
flA i fum,et fme Quo failum mbih <£fl
D1AL0GVE.
fpoke to the Son, and the Hcly
Gbofl, and from hence he proves
the Trinity in Vnity, in exprefs
words , and as pofitive as A-
thanafms Himfelf. He fays,
Scriptura omnes et demonflrati-
one?n, et diflinctionem Trinitatis
oftendunt. That is, All the Scrip*
lures Jhetv both a Demonstration ar.d
DiHinttion of the Trinity.
After he quotes feveral Texts,
where the Father fpeaks of and
to the Son, and the Son of and
to the Father ; and the Holy Ghoft,
as a third Per/on, of the Father,
and of the Son. As, The Lord
faid to my Lord, &c. And thence
he proves the Diftin&ion of
Perfons in the Trinity.
Origen ( in Mat. p. 266. ) fays,
none coud Raife the dead, but
He who had heard from the Fa-
ther, Let us make Man, in our
Image, and none eou'd command
the Wind and Seas, but He by
whom they and all things elfe
were made.
SOC. My Author Notes that
the Socinian Tranflation agrees
with the ftile ufed all along in
this Chapter, ver. Let ther be Light
verf. 6. Let there be ■ a Firm a"
ment, &c.
CHR. He muft Note again,
for I cannot find in thofe words,
one Syllable of Invitation to the
An*
The fecond D I A L G V E. 37
Angels , Or to any elfe, either to fi iP fe Deus e ^ recimdutn Jdhannem Deus
A (Tift Him nr he Sfiertitnrr Rnr ent ferns, lubes duos, alium dicemem ut ii-
aiiiit mm, or De operators, cut ar> allUm tdCientem . Alium autem .
rather On the Contrary, It IS a do accipere debeas, Jam profelTus fum;
fole Command, from an Able- r a cr ^ n£ non M**™* nomine, ad-^/»-
1 * » • ttiovem, non ad divifionem. Cceterum, eta
lUte /iUtnonty. ubique reneo toiam fubjl.uiti.wi in 7Vtf« Co-
($.) «SOC The next Text he h^rentibus tamen alium dicain oportet ex
Quotes i« Gen 7 11 God faid nect ^tate fendis, eum qui £«*«, et eum
uotes is, lt^. 5. 22. uoq iaia> qui f ki Nam nec j w ,, rct) fi jp f e f acereh
the Mm IS become as OKe of US, to dum juberet fieri Per eum, tamen jubebar,
know Good and Evil. To which ] ?" d W J uffurus » fi fa«* ^ffet: aut fine
* j /• rrL Uuiu tacturus, qma non expe&afiet ut ftti
he gives two Anfwer s. 1. That juberet,
God fpoke this to the Angels.
2. That others Tranflate the Hebrew words thus, the Man
is become one of Him f elf, knowing Good and Evil. And
he fays, That it is thus Exprefs'd in the Chaldee Tranila-
tion by Qnkelos*
CHR. To his firft Anfwer about the Angels, we have
fpoke already. As to the Tranflation of Onkelos, it is
thus.
Behold Adam is only or alone in the Age from him f elf.
(Ecce Adam unicus eft in faculo exfe) The Senfe of which
I confefs is Difficult; But your Author prefers an obfeure
Paraphrafe, before the literal Reading ■ of the Hebrew,
Greek, Syriac, Arabrc, and Latin, which' are all Verbatim,
according to our Englifjj Tranflation, and indeed which on-
\y can make Senfe of the Words. For pray tell me, what
is that to be One of Him fe If ? W 'hat Fur chafe was this:
What Crime ? That God baniCh'd him Paradife for this ?
Doubtlefs it was the Clearnefs and fullnefs of this Inter-
pretation which perfwaded your Author from the Com-
mon and Familiar reading of this Text \
(4.) I will not trouble you with his Expofition upon
Gen. 11. 6. 7. The Lord (aid)' let us go down, and ther
Confoicnd their Language. It is the like as to theie be-
fore/ But I wou'd fee his Anfwer to Gen. 19. 24.
SOC. He repeats it 'thus, p. 44. the Lord' {Heb. Jehovah')
rained Fire from the Lord (Heb. Jehovah) out of Heaven,
And
38 The (econd DIALOGVE.
And fays that the meaning is, Jehovah rained Fire from
Himfelf. And refers to what he is to fay on Zjch. j, 2.
CHR. And I will Expect him at that Place. In the
mean time I will give you the Senfe of fomeofthe Ante-
Ntcene Fathers upon this Text.
Jufl. Mart. (Dial cum Tryphon Jud.p. 277. 279. 357.)
interprets this of the Son, as a different Per fan from the
Father. Iren&us (adverf. Heref. L 3. c. 6.) fays the fame
and proves Christ to be Definitive et abfilute Deum. And
that he is verus Deus et ex fua Perfona. True God abfo-
luetly, and in His own Perfon, and that the Lord rained
Fire from the Lord, was meant of Him. Tertullian ( dverf.
Prax. §. ij.J fays the fame, and proves the Trinity and
Vitity. Deos duos non praferimus, we do not profefs two
Gods, and then he Explains himfelf non quafi non et
Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spirit us functus deus, et deus
unufquifque. Not that the Father is not God 7 and the Son
God, and the Holy Ghofi God 9 and each of them God, &c.
Cyprian likewife (TeFiiwon. 1. j. c. 33. J underftands
this Text The Lord rained Fire from the Lord, to be meant
of Chnft.
But I go on, From p. 4$. to 51. and again from p. 5$.
your Hifto. names feveral Texts, which are fpoke of God
in the Old Teftament, and in the fame words are apply'd
to ChriH in the new Teftament.
(5.) Let us examin fome of them. It is faid Pfal. 45.
6. Thy Throne God is for ever and ever. This is ap-
ply'd to Chrif, (Heb. 1. 8.)
SOC In the Hebrew and in the Greek it is, God is
Hl t V ' ,]lu thy Throne (i. e. thy Seat, Refting place, or Eftablilhment)
' 4 ' for ever.
CHR. This I do deny ; and if the words cou'd be
both ways in the Original, that is, to bear the Con-
ftruclion of God is thy Throne, forever, or, Thy Throne,
God is for ever, (becaufe the Nominative and Vocative
are the fame in the word Theos) then the Queition will
be
The fecond DIALOG V E. 3 $
be which of the ways we ought to take it. And 1 fay
the latter, for thefe reafons. Firft, Heb. i, 8. is a Com-
parifoti 'twixt Chriji and the Angels. And this Text, in
your Senfe, gives him no Preference, becaufe God is the
EJlablijhment of the Angels, and fo this Text may belong
to an Angela as well as unto Chriji. Secondly,. JDie-'fub-
fequent Part of the Verfe will not bear your Interpreta-
tion, viz. The Scepter of thy Kjngdom. This is certainly
ChriJPs Scepter and Kingdom that is fpoke of. And it
is abfolutely Incongruous, that the Throne fhou'd not go
along with the Sapter and Kjngdom, for they always
belong to the fame Perfon. Therefor the Throne in this
Text is Chrijls, as wel»l as the Kjngdom. Laftly, Thefe
Fathers who wrote before the Council of Nice, Read
this Text as we do, and apply it to Chriji as a Proof
of HU Godhead. Cyprian adverf. Jud. 1. 2. c. 6. Tertull.
adverf Jud. c. 14. Jud. adverf. Prax. c. ij. Iren. adverf.
Hasref 1. 5. c. 6. Origen in John. p. 29. and upon this
Pfalm, in Catena C order ij, he lays that Chriji is manifejllj
God.
SOC. The Def. of the Hifi. c. 7. p. $$. fays this
Text may be apply'd to Solomon.
CHR. The Apojlle has apply'd it to Chriji, and the
Primitive Fathers,, even before Nice, underftood it, as we
have feen, in a Senfe which cannot be applicable to So-
lomon. In what other Senfe that Author wou'd apply
it to Solomon, let him fee to it.
SOC. He fays that he who is call'd God in this place
is faid to have a God by whom he is Anointed, which
cannot belong to the Supreme God.
CHR. This is fpoke of God's Exalting the Human
Nature of Chriji, in refpecl: of which (as well as of
His Eternal Generation) Chriji calls God his Father and
his God. Againft this your Author offers nothing. But
to proceed.
(6)
40 The feconc! D 1AL0GV E.
(6) In that moft Elegant a-nd wondrous Rapture in
the Exaltation of God, Pfal. 68. Chrijl our Lord was
meant. As is evident from VeiT. 18. Thou haft afeended
on High, Thou haft led Captivity Captive, Thou haft recei-
ved Gifts for men. Which St. Paul do's exprefly Inter-
pret, and apply to Chi ft. Ephe. 4. 8.
SOC. Our Author fays to this, Tiiat this was literally
meant of God ; and of Cbritt only by way of P/ophefy, or
V- 47- rather of Emblem, or Accomodation.
CHR. But (till here is the fame Stile, and Appellations
wliich are given to none but to God and Cbriff. And
God forefeeing that Chrijl wouM be taken for Real God
by thefe Appellations, it is unaccountable that the Scrip-
ture fhouM every where aflert this ftile, fpeakingj of God
and Chrif fo promifcuoufly, as that what is faid of the
one belongs to the other, and to none elfe. Whereby
if we are not forced to acknowledge them to be One,
yet it is fuch a Colour and Tentation as cannot pofli-
bly be fuppos'd God wou?d Hay before us, without a
defign in Him to lead us into fo Grofs and Capital
an Error. Which it wou'd be the Higheft Blafphemy
but to Imagin.
But fuppofe this Text be no otherwise true of God,
or not fo literally, but as God is Cbrift? And fo was a
a Prophefy of God inChri/L
SOC. That indeed wouM end the bufinefs, and come
the length of a Demon/lration.
^ 4 9- CHR. St. Paul fays, that He who Jfeef/ded, in this
Text, defended frfl into the hewer parts cf the Earth »
And is the fame alfo that Ajcendcd up far above all Hea-
vens. He inferrs this Text as a Confeqjence from the
Gift of Chrijl to us, To us is given Grace according to
the welfare 0} the Gift of CbriH. )Vherefore, he faith.,
wfjen He a fc ended up on High, He led Captivity Captive,
and gave Gifts unto men. -And He gave fome Apoflles,
Come Prophet s } and fome Evange lifts. &c. Thefe were
the
The feconet DIALOGV E. 41
the Gifts given, and this Gift of ChriB was the where-
for, why David wrote that Text. And no otherwife can
God be faid to have defended into the lower farts of the
Earth, and thence to Afcend up again on High, which St.
Paul tells us is the true meaning of that Text and inferrs
it from the Text.
SOC. That Pfalm was Sung upon the Removing of the^r&.
CHR. That Plafm indeed begins with that Form,
which you find Num. 10. 35. But it goes on from thence
to many other Exaltations and Triumphs of God, among
which, to that of Chrifts Ajcenfion in the 18th. verf. of
which the lifting up of the Ark was but a Type. And
tho' ther is an Allufion between them, and they may be
compos'd in many things, yet the full Import of this
Text cannot be fill'd but in ChriB, as I have already
fhewn from St. Paul. And I might have given more In-
flances, but that thefe were fufficient. For example, it is faid
in the Text that he Received Gifts for Men. From whom
.did God Receive Gifts to give to Men?
SOC. St. Paul renders it Gave Gifts to Men.
CHR. Therefore Both are true. ChriB Received from
the Father, and G^#— and again; I
will be to him a Father and- again, when he bringeth
' the fir (I begotten into the World, he faith and let all the Angels
of God worfhip him. All this was vifibly fpoken of the
fame Perfon, and altogether, yet your Author fays, thefe
laft words were not fpoken of Chrifi: To fay that one
of thefe Texts was not fpoken of Him, tho' the reft were,
and to give no Reafon, nor fo much as a prefumption
for this, but to think to put it upon his Jpje dixit, this
is beyond example : It fhews a refolved man ftrugling
even to death under the weight of Truth.
SOC. He fays this was only a Prophecy of Chri/t.
CHR-. Ergo it was true, and Ergo it was fpoken of
Chrift, which your Author denies, and yet cannot deny it.
SOC. He fays, thefe were the fitted words to Ex-
prefs it.
CHR. They were indeed. But what is the Rea-
fon ?
SOC. Becaufe the Writers of the New Tejlament affecl:
to fpeak in Scfipture Language.
But do they affeft to afcribe to Creatures, the Glori-
ous Attributes of God ? Is it lawful to apply to a Man
whatever I find faid of God, becaufe I affecl: to fpeak in
Scripture Language ? and becaufe I find all the Angels of
God, commanded to Worfhip God, muft I therefore bid
them
The feconcf DIALOGUE. 4^
them Worfhip one who is not God ? And notwithstan-
ding that in the fame place I find all them Cursed and
Confounded who Worfhip any other but God?
If our Side fhould produce fiich a Reafon as this, what
Mercy would you have on us ? It would require more
implicit Faith to fwallow fuch Reasoning, than even the
Notion of the Trinity.
But this I muft Confefs, that ther never was a Caufe
more obftinatly defended, he fights to the Iaft xMan, and
leaves nothing tinfaid, whether it be true, or falfe, what-
ever may amufe, or fat off.
But this, with conlidering Men, pluks up his Caufe
by the very Roots, and tho' they may admire the Variety of
his Shifts and Turnings, it is but to fee with how much
Pains and Skill he quits his hold.
SO& The Def. of the Hijlory, Chap, the 7. p. 3 5. fays,
that this Anfwer of the Hifiorian is a very found and j#-
dicions Anfwer,
CHR. This is the beft Argument he brings to prove
it, and yet he wonders People will not be fatisfied with
it.
SOC. He has found out a Text Dent. $2. 43. where
inftead of Rejoyce ye Nations, with his People-, which is
the Englifh Tranflation, he fays, the Seventy Renders it
thus, 'it) TT£jpa-x.vvi(j
But thefe words, go unto this People, in t\\Q 'bovefaid
Text of Ifiwh, are afcrib'd to the Holy Ghoffi A£l. *8. 25,
26. well [pake the Holy Ghoft by Ifaias, faying, Go unto this
People, &c.
SOC. Gur Author Anfwers,' That was becaufe the Vi*
(ion and aH the words there mentioned were a Scene wrought F ' 5 *'
in the Prophets mind, {^not exibited to his out word Senfs )
hy the' Spirit or Power of God.
CHR. Do you apprehend the meaning of this An-
fwer ?
SOC. It is fomewhat Difficult.
CHR. I Confefs, it exceeds my Understanding. I can-
not fee the Confequence of it. Becaufe the Vifion was a
Scene wrought in the Prophets mind. Therefore what ? There-
fore that which the Prophets afcribes to God, the ApoftU
does not afcribe to the Holy Ghoft ? Will this follow ?
Nay the Holy Ghoft fpeaks here as a Perfon, that Ifhould verf. 27.
he aI them.
SOC. Our Author fays nothing of that.
But in Mr. Bidle's Expofition of If. 6. 9, 10. Publifli'd
(with other of our Tracts; an. 16 91. call'd [TV Faith of
one God, &x.] p. 12. difputing againft this Topick of
yours, of drawing Arguments from Texts of the Old Te-
ftament fpoken otGod, which feem to be apply'd to Ckrift,
in the Nen> 9 gives one Inftance, for all, to Confound you
for Ever: for he proves that, by this Method, Ifatas, as
well as Chrift mutt, be God; becaufe that Text If 65. 1.
[1 am fought of them that asked not for me ; 1 am found, of
them that fought me not, I faid, Behold me, behold me unto
a Nation that was not called by my Name~] is, in the 10th
of the Rom. verf. 20. afcribed to Ifttiah. [But Ifaias is ve-
ry bold, And faith, I was found of them that fought me not,
&c.] therefore ffays Mr. Bidle) Ifaiah is the lord. And
thus he Ridicules the Arguments drawn from this head.
I 2 QHR*
60 The feconcf D IALO GV E.
CHR. I thank you very kindly for this, whereby to
Expofe that Pragmatical Heretick and Ignorant Pedant
School-Matter 'John Bidle, your Great and Admir'd Apo~
file. I cannot think he had a Boy of ten Years of age
in his School, who Reading that Text Rom. 10. 20.
cou'd Uhderftand it as if Ifaiah had fpoke thofe words
If. 65. r. of himfelf, or that the Apoftle cou'd fo poilibly
rnifunderftand him ; and not rather that he Quoted this
out of Ifaiah, as what Ifaiah repeated from the Mouth
of God, and fpoke in the name of God, and not of Ifaiah,
The whole Context fhews it. Whoever will believe
Bidh to have had Senfe or Reafon, after this, has a Pitch
of Reafon fit to be a Socmian. But let's go on.
Ztfft p .^5. (10.) Ifa. 7. 14. A Virgin (ball conceive and bear a Son,
and {ball call his Name Immanuel. 'Tis added, Matt a. 2J,
which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US.
SOC. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and therefore did not
Interpret the Hebrew Name.
CHR. But if he wrote in Hebrew, for fake of the Jews,
as fome think, 'tis generally believ'd that he wrote the
fame Go/pel in Greek too : or Tranflated his own He-
brew into Greek, or fome other of the Infpir'd Pen men
of the Scripture, and therefore the Greek of St. Matthews
Gofpel is acknowledg'd for Scripture by all the Chrifliatt
Church.
•SOC. But our Author fays, That we are not bound to
Submit to the Interpretation of the Greek Tranjlator, being
an unknown and Ob/cure Perfon,
CHR. Does he offer any proof for this?
SOC. No. He fays no more of it.
CHR. Then he makes good his Character, that he ne-
ver wants fomething to fay, be it true or falfe. But we
go on.
mn. p. 55. t 11 ) Ik- 8. 14. He Jball be a Stone of Stumbling,Scc.
This is fpoken of God in the Prophet, and apply'd to
Cbrift. Rom. 9. 33. 1 Pet. 2. &
SOC
P- $7j
The feconct DIALOGUE. 61
SOC. This is only as Chrift was alfo zl Stone of Stum-
bling, not that He was the fame Stumbling Stone which
the Prophet fpoke of.
CHRi But the Apoftle calls Him that fame Stumbling
Stone. They Stumbled at that Stumbling-Stone ; as is jfoM.9.32.
written ; Behold I lay in Sion a Stumbling-Stone, Sec.
The next is a great Text, lfa. 9. 6, 7. Vnto us a
Child is born, unto us a Son is given. He (hall be calPd
Wonderful Councehr, the Mighty God, the Everlafting Father,
the Prince of Peace. Of the increafe ef His Government
and Peace there {hall be no End ; upon the Throne of David
to order and eftablifh it with "Judgment and Jujtice from
henceforth, and forever. The Zjal of the Lord of Hafts.
(hall perform ibis.
SOC. This cannot be a Prophefy of Chrift, becaufe it fpeaks
of a Prince actually Born at that time, unto us a. Child
IS Born.
CHR. It is the Language of Prophefy tofpeakof things >
to come, as Prefent : Nay fometimes as of things done
and faft. The Lord SAID unto my Lord, which your pj a i, uol
Author acknowledges to be a Prophefy of Chrift. Thou r.
Art my Son, THIS DAT have I begotten Thee, .which our
Author fays is meant of ChrilVs Refurreclion. Thou ART *» 7>
a Prieft forever, after the Order of Melchifedec. Spoken
of Chrift fo long before. But this is too obvious to be
infifted on, our Author himfelf acknowledges it, tho' now
he has a bad Memory, he infifts upon it and proves it
p. 104. and gives feveral Inftances.
.SOC. Then there is no way to efcape the force of this
Text, but what our Author has taken, which is to deny
the Tranftation. He fays in the Hebrew it is thus; Vnto
us a Child is Born, unto us a Son is given — — . the Won-
derful Councilor ;. the Mighty God, the Ever lafting Father ftjaH
name Him the Peaceable Prince, His Government pall be
multiped (i. e. He {ball Reign long, even Twenty nine Tears')
and He (ball have very great Fe*ct>-~ fron* henceforth to
the
The faotict VIALOGVE.
the End cf His Life. The Zj J of the Lord of Hofls fiaS
perform tins. i. e. God\ Love to His chofea People fhall
make good this Prophefy. For, he fays, all this was
fpoken of He^.kiah, becaufe he Reign'd Twenty nine
years, and in that time there was only one Expedition
againtf him, and that aifo Unfucctfsful.
CHR, ft belonged more literally to Queen Elizabeth,
w; \i almoil: twice as long, and in great Peace,
except the one Expedition of the Spanijh Armado, and that
alfo V/fucefful.
It is" a great Degree of Obftinacy to interpret fuch
Wonderful, -Lofty, and Myfterious Words, each of which
commands Admiration, only to mean that a Kjng Reign'd^
Twenty nine years. Can that go down with any Man
of Common Senfe?
But this it felf muft not do, for his Reading of the
Text is wholly out of his own head.
SOC. He fays it is fo in the Hebrew.
CHR. He fays fo, but he does not offer to Prove it.
And becaufe this is fo mighty and unanfwerable an Au-
thority proving the Divinity of Christ, and that our Au-
thor is driven to his laft Shifts upon it. I will take Pains
to fet down out of the Polyglot Bible the Several Tranf
lations of this Text. And I will not alter the words tho'
it will make them bad Englijh> That you may fee what
Ground our Author had for his bold Alteration of this
Text.
The Hebrew then is thus. A Child is born to us, a Son
is given to us, And the Principality fhall be upon His Shoulder
arid His Name fhall be called Admirable Coumellor, God
Strong, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace, to Multiply
Principality, and to Peace no End.
The Chaldee Paraphrafe. A Man Child is born to us, a
Son is given to us, and He fhall take the Law upon Him,
: that he may keep it, and His Name (hall be calPd fro?:
Face of the Admirable Council, God, A Man enduring
The fecond DIALOGUE. £5
ternity, Chrisl, whofe Peace pall be multiplfd upon us in His
Days.
Syriac. A Man Child is born to us, a Son is given to us,
and His Empire is made upon His Shoulder ', and His Name
is called Admiration, and C ounce 11 or, The mo ft Mighty God
of. Ages, The Prince of Peace, of whofe Principality to Plen*
ty and Peace, there fb»R be no Bound.
Arabic. A Man Child is Bom to us, A Son is given
to us, whofe Dominion is upon His Shoulders, and His
Name jhall be called, the Angel of Great Council, The Ad-
mirable Councellor, The Strong God, The Emperor, The
Lord of Peace, The Father of the Age to come: For I am
to bring Peace to Princes, Peace and Safety to themfelves.
His Dominion jhall be moft Great, and of His Peace there
fhall be no End.
Greek. A Toung Child is Born to us, and a Son is gi-
ven to us, whofe Government is upon His Shoulder, and Ha
Name fhall be called The Angel of great Council, Wonder-
ful Councellor, Mighty Lord, Prince of Peace, Father of the
Age to come. For 1 will bring Peace to Princes and Health
to Him. Ms. A. / will bring Peace and Health. His Prin-
cipality: is Great T and of His Peace there is no Bound.
• Add tu"' this, that thefe -Epithets which your Author
would not in this 'Text have Apply 'd to Chri(l, but turns
the words, that they may belong only to God, as Won-
derful Councellor, or Angel of Council, The Mighty God,
&c: are even by the A nte-N ice ne Fathers apply'd to
Chrift; Juft. Mart. Dial. Cum Trypb. hid. p. 301. 355.
Ir'eth'iidverf.Hter. L 4. c. 66. Tertul De Came Chrifti
c ii. Ofigen. **"J.dh: p. $2. 42. Cyprian." adverf lud,
c 2 1." Clement. Alexandre Pasdagog. Li. c 5/
If a. 44, b. Thus faith the Lord, I am the fir ft and the
lafl. This is apply'd. to Chrift Rev. \x, 8,17. and 21.
Efts
'-
£ 4 The Jecond DIALOGV E.
SOC. My Author fays, That Chritt was the Firft (that
is, the moft Honourable) and Loft, (that is, the moft De-
P . 55 . j/?//^ of Men) the firft with Good Men, and the iaft
with Evil Men.
CHR. That is, fomething may be faid of every thing.
But the Firft and the Lafi are in this fame Chapter of
the Rev. Synonimous with Alpha, and Omega, the Begin-
ning and the Ending. And God is defcribed verf. 4. thus,
He, who is, and, was, and is to come. Tertull. (adverft
Prax c. 17. and 18, p. $10; proves the Attributes of
God to belong to Christ Omnia Inquit Patrts mei funt,
Cur non et Nomina? All that the Father hath are mine y
fays Christ, and why not His Names too? Sed et nomina
Patris- The Attributes of the Father, as, God Omni-
potent, Moft High, The God of Hofts, The Kjng of Ifrael,
and Who is, H&c dicimus et in F ilium competiffe Theft
belong like wife to the Son, who is, fuo Jure Deus Omni-
potens, qua fermo Dei Omnipotentis i. e. God Almighty
tn His own Right, as being The WORD of the ALMIGH-
TT GOD. And he proves this Text we are upon Rev.
1. 8. to belong to Chrift. I am the Lord, who is, and
was and is to come, The Almighty. Cum et Filius.
Omnipotentis tarn Omnipotens fit quam Deus Dei Filius.
i. e. Seeing the Son of the Almighty is Almighty, as the
Son of God is God.
Ongen (in Joh. p. f. of 2. Tom) obferves that none
of the Evangelifts, did fo manifeftly declare the Divinity
of Chrift, dvTH ty\v 0eoTMTa, as John did. And among
other Texts of St. John which he there reckons up,
as proving the Divinity of Chrift, he Quotes Rev.
I. 8. and 22. jj. J am Alpha, and Omega-, the Beginning,
and the Ending ; The Firft, and the Laft.
And St. Cyprian does the fame, adverf. Iud. c. 1. p. j2.
and c. 6. p. 35. I will not pretend but you may Inter-
pret this too; for there are feveral Beginnings, and fe-
veral Endings: And / am to Day, was Yefterday, and
will be to Morrow. And I may take to my felf God's
Name,
The fecond D I A L OGVE. <%
Name, I am, and many other things faid of God, I
may Accommodate to my felf. But this appellation is
Peculiar to God: You will not find in all the Scripture
any Creature calPd in this Stile, Which is the Argu-
ment infifted on, viz. That the moft Peculiar Appellati-
ons of God are given to Chrift, But we (hall have oc-
cafion to fpeak more of this upon another Text by and
by.
(14J Ifa. 48. 16. / have not fpoken in fecret from the m 6c
Beginning, from the time that it was, there am I. And '
now the Lord God hath fent me, and His Spirit hath fent
me*
SOC. The I, in this Text, is not Chrift, But the Pro-
phet ; for Chrift was not fent at that time.
CHR. This has been Anfwer'd already, viz. That
the Stile of the Prophets is to fpeak of Things to
come, as Pre fent, or even as PaH. Nay our Au- p . su
thor pleads Guilty, and fays, notwithstanding his Ob-
jection, that this was fpoke* of a Great Prince to
come*
Origen in Job. Tom. 2. p. 57, fays This Text was
meant of Chrift; and thence proves that He was fent
both by the father and the Holy Ghoft. And (in Mat t.
p $2 j.) that both were fent by the Father for the Sal-
vation of Man.
SOC. There am I, that is, I Declare it as clearly as if
I were prefent on the place.
CHR. Can you find in any Language one example
of this way of fpeaking? Suppofe I were to tell you
that fuch a Child was born, and that I was there ; and
I fhould fay to you, from the time that it was, there am
1 : Wou'd you underftand me ? Wou'd you not bid me
fpeak fome other fort of Language ?
Gbferve I pray you, This whole Chapter the 48
Ifiiah is fpoken in the Perfon of God, and not of the
Prophet. There God calls upon them, Hearken unto me,
K 9
f Thejecond V1AL0GVE.
Jacob, I am He, 1 am the Fir ft and the Laft, mine Hand
hath laid the Foundation of the Earth &c. — /, even I have
Spoken 1 have called him ; / have brought him, Come
ye near unto me, I have not fpoken in Secret from the Be-
ginning, &c. as in this Text. It was not Ifaiah who
fpoke from the Beginning. There is not an / in all this
Chapter, either before, or after this Ferfe, but what is
exprefly meant of God, and Incommunicable to any Crea-
ture. But this Jingle / muft be excepted, as before the
And's and the ThotSs, tho' it is fet down continu'dly, and
undiftinguifhed from any of the reft. Nor could this
one I in the \6 Verfe be a transition to another Perfin
from all the other Fs thro' the whole Chapter, with-
out a Defign to Deceive the Reader, there being not
the leaft Hint, or Intimation, or Poflibility of it, by
any Rule or Ufage of Language in the whole World.
Nor can Verf 16. be Explain'd of any other Per/on
But of Chrifi, whom The Lord God, and his Spirit
fent.
SOC. But this is a proof, fays my Author, That
Chrifi was not God, Becaufe He was fent by
God;
CHR. Do not we fay, that Chrift was fent by
God}
SOC. Yes.
CHR. Why then do you bring that as an Obje&ion
againft our Opinion, which is in the very Words where-
in we Exprefs our Opinion? Does not the Apojiles
Creed fay, That Chrift was Conceived of the Holy
Ghoft I Much more may He be fent by Him.
But obferve that in this Text it is faid of Chrift,
That the Lord fent Him. Here is a plain Diftin&ion
put 'twixt God and His Spirit: God fent, and His Spi-
rit fent. Which if they be both the fame Perfon, bears
this Senfe. / fent, and / fent ; that is, it expreffes the
Difference 'twixt I and my fi/f. Therefore you muft
allow
The feconct DIALOGV E. 6y
allow God and His Spirit to be two Perfons, And that
Chrifi, being made Fle(b; was fent into the World by
them both.
(15.) There is a moft plain Text which he quotes
next to this Jer. 2$. 5, 6. I will raife unto David a Rigbte- 6l
ous Branchy in His Days J a dab (ball be Saved, and Ifrael V '
/ball dwell fafely : And this is the Name wherby He (hall
be called, The Lord (HEB. JEHOVAH) our Righteouf-
nefs.
SOC. In the Hebrew it is, This is the Name which they
(ball call the Lord our Juftifier. That is, in the happy Days
of the Branch, the Nation fhall call God their Juftifier, or & 6l -
Deliverer.
CHR. The very Reading the Context fhews the Ab-
furdity of this Tranflation; for it is God who is Spea-
king, and Speaking only of the Righteous Branch,
defcribing Him, and telling how He fhall be called.
The Days come, faith the Lord, that I will raife unto
David a Righteous Branch, and a Kjng (hall Reign-
In His Days Judah (hall be Saved And this is His
Name, whereby He (hall bt called, The Lord, Jehovah, our
Righteoufnefs.
Hebrew. And this is his Name, which they fhall call
Him, The Lord our Righteoufnefs.
Paraph. Chald. This is His Name by which they /halt
call Him. Righteoufnefs (hall be to us from the * Face of
the Lord in His Days.
Syriac. And this is His Name by which they (hall call
Him, The Lord our Righteoufnefs.
Arabic. And this is his Name, by which they (ball call
Him, The Lord Jofedec, which fignifies the Juft Lord, or
THE JVSTICE OF THE LORD.
Greek. This is the Name which the LorH (ball call Him
Jofedec.
K 2 Here
6% The fecond V1AL0GVE.
Here you fee it is the Lord who calls the Branch by
this Name, inftead of the Lord's being call'd fo by
others.
(16.) CHR. Micha. $. 2. Thou Bethlehem, out of thee
/hall come unto me that is to be Ruler in Ifrael; whofe
titf. p. 6%. g - m g S j ort \y have been of old, from Everlafting, or as it
is in the Margin, From the Days of Eternity,
SOC. By Goings forth is meant only Pedigree ; that is,
whofe Pedigree was ancient.
CHR. This is pretty Arbitrary, and your Author gives
no Reafon for it ; but I fuppofe that this is the firft time
that Going forth has been taken for a Man's Pedegree,
and I believe he will not do it again. But how do
you get over the words from Everlafting ?
SOC. In the Hebrew it is from Ansient Days, viz. That
Chrift Defcended from the Ancient Stock of David.
CHR. The Hebrew Phrale is, from the Days of the Age,
which, in their Idiom, fignifies Eternity, as alfo in the
Greek en tbs di^vctc, to Ages, is Englilh'd for Ever
and Ever at the End of the hordes Prayer ; and you
find no fault with it .° For it is the Idiom of the Lan-
guage. And it is in the Latin, in Specula, Sseculorum*
The Chaldee Parapbrafe has both Expreflions together.
Whofe Name was f aid from Eternity, from the Days of the
Age. The Syriac, whofe Going forth is from the Beginnings
from the Eternal Days. The Arabic, whofe Out goings in
Ifrael, are from Ever/ajling Days.
And in the Englijh it is plainly told what is there
meant by Ancient Days, or of Old, as our Tranftation is ;
not Teferday, or fince David, But from Everlafting.
Whofe Goings forth have keen of Old, from Everlaft-
ing.
Here I might retort upon our Author, for his Inter-
pretation of Ifa. 9. 6. Vnto us a Child is Born. Thar,
lays our Author, is fpoke of in the prefent Tenfe ; There-
fore it could not be Chrift* who was not then Born.
The fecond DIALOGVE. 6?
By the fame Rule, Chrifl did exift, before the Prophet
Mich a wrote ; for he fpeaks of Chrifl here in the Pre-
terperfect Tenfe* Whofe Goings forth have been of
old
(17.) .Zfch. 2. 8, 9. Thus faith the Lord of Ho (Is Te
{hall know that the Lord of Hofls hath fent me.
SOC Thefe words, Thus faith the Lord of Hofls,
are not the words of the Lord of Hofts Himfelf, but of Hlft -*- 6 *
the fecond Angel, who at verf. 3. and 4. fpoke to the-
firfl: Jngel, and to Zjcharidh.
CHR. Indeed the Angel does declare the word of the
Lord, and what the Lord Spoke, but therefore, it was-
the Lord who Spoke it. And this is plain from verf. 5.
J, Jaith the Lord, mil be unto her a wall of Fire flee
from the North, faith the Lord, for I have Spread them
abroad as the Four winds Thus faith the Lord 1
will (hake my Hand upon them— — and ye {hall know that-
the Lord of Hop hath Jent me.
But verf. 10. and 11. makes this plain pari: Contra-
di£tion. Lo 9 I come and I will dwell in the midfl of thee,
faith the Lord : And many Nations (hall be tfoyned to the
Lord in that Day, and {hall be my People : And I will dwell
in the midfl of thee;, and thou /halt know that the Lord
of Hofls hath fent me unto tine.
This cannot be apply'd to the Angel, It was the
Angel indeed who told us this, who told us that
God faid all this, but you cannot apply it to the
Angel, any more then you can fay that all that is fpoken
in the Prophets , was meant of the Prophets.
SOC. Our Author has faid nothing of this laft
Text.
• (18.) CHR. It was not for his Purpofe. The next Text
he Quotes out of Zjchariah is chap. 3. 2. The Lord (Heb. P* 6 4>
Jehovah) faid unto Satan, the Lord (Hebi Jehovah) rebuke,
thee.
SOC,
?0 The jecond DIALOGV E.
SOC. Our Author fays, that The Lord in the firft
claufe is the Angel of the Lord, as appears by verf. 1,
for there Satan ftands before the Angel.
CHR. How do you prove the Confequence? That be-
caufe Satan flood before the Angels ; Therefore the Lord
in the firft Claufe is the Angel ?
SOC I confefs the Confequence is not very plain :
But he proves it was the Angel, becaufe he Prays to an-
other Perfon to Rebuke.
CHR. Do not we fay that Chrift is another Per/on
from the Father? And that He Prafd to the Father?
And we bring this Text as a proof; which you fay is
no Proof, becaufe there is one Per/on Praying to Ano-
ther. Whereas if it were not fo, it could be no Proof
for us. But your Author ConfefTes> That by The Lord,
in the frit Claufe, Jehovah is meant according to the
Hebrew, which, he fays, does fo read it as well as in the
fecond Claufe.
SOC. The Name Jehovah, is given to Angels, as Exod.
2. 2, 4," 6. The Angel of the Lord appeared And when
the LORD (Heb. JFHOVAH)faw that he turned afide
God called to him and /aid, I am the God of thy Fa-
ther—
CHR. We fay that ChriH oft appeared before His In-
carnation, as Angels do, who put on Bodies as Men do
Cloaths without Affuming them into their Nature. And
when He fo Appear'd, He took to Himfelf the Stile of
God, which we deny that ever any Angel did. We
fay that He was one of the Three which appear'd to
Abraham Gen. 18. who ftay'd behind, when the other
Two went on to Sodom, who is called there by the Name
of The Lord. Conftantine built a Church at Mamre, where
uufeb. De The Lord did thus appear to Abraham, in Commemora-
te™;?, b. tion of fyrtj appearing there, who is caU'd The Lord,
5 " ,<5I ' 53 'and manifefted His Divinity there, accompany'd with
Two Angels. And we fay it was He who appeared
like
The fecond DIALOGVE. 71
like an Angel in the Bu[h, and therefore is rightly there
callM by the Name Jehovah, and He faid / am the God.
Thus that Text is plain and eafie, in our Senfe; but
in yours it is Intricate and Crabbed, and you know not
which way to turn it.
(19.) But I come to the Laft Quotation out of Zjch. ma>$.6$,
12. 10. They fhall look upon me whom they have pierced,
The fame thing is of Chrift Rev. 1. 7. and Joh.
2 9- 37-
SOC. As the Jews in the times of the Prophets did
(as it were) pierce God with their Sins of feveral Kinds ;
So they pierced Him again when they put to Death the
Lord Chrift.
CHR. Both thefe Texts in St. John refer plainly to Christ ;
and fay, that it was He who was Pierced; you fay it was
not He, but God that was Pierced. This is point blank
Denying thefe Texts, inftead of Anfwering them. Again conli-
der the manner of their Mourning for Him, as one that mour-
neth for his only Sen, as the Text fpeaks ; They [hall look upon
me whom they have Pierced, and they (hall Mourn for Him,
as one Mourneth for his only Son, and /ball be in Bitter nefs
for Him, as one is in Bittemefs for his Firft-born.
This is a Sorrow for one that is Dead, and loft from
Us. This is laterally FulfillM in the Death of Chrift,
and His Side Pierced with the Spear. This Sorrow has
Pity and Companion in it, and Trouble and Grief for
Another, which cannot be faid of our Repenting towards
God, wherein we are not Griev'd for God, but for our
Selves. Can we be faid to Mourn for God, as for an
Only Son ?
SOC. But the Words in the Prophet, are not by St.
John Interpreted of Qhrifi, but Ac commodate a to Chrift and
His Sufferings.
CHR. This is the old DifHnction of Accommodated,
by which I fuppofe you mean, That the Text was not
fpoke of Chrift, but only that Chrips Cafe was like
that
72 Ue fecond DIALOGUE.
tliat Cafe which the Text fpeaks of; And fo one of theft
Cafes is only Compared or Accommodated to the other.
SOC. Yes ; That is the meaning of it.
CHR; But what if both thefe Texts mean the fame
Cafe?
SOC. If you can make that Appear, you have done
the Bufinefs.
. CHR. What is the meaning of any Saying being FuU
fll'd?
SOC. That is, when that is come to pafs, which was
meant or intended in fuch a Saying.
CHR. Is the Saying it felf, and the Meaning of that
Saying, two different things?
SOC: No fure. For what is a Saying but the Meaning
of it? But what do you mean by all thefe Queftions?
CHR. If this Text of Zjch. was Fulfill in Chrifi,
then it was meant of Chrift ; and they are not two Cafes
wjiereof one may be Accommodated to the other ; but all
is one and the felf fame Cafe. Fulfilling is a Compleating
of a thing, carrying it to its utmoft Meaning and Per-
fe&ion. That which is Foretold, is not Fulfill 1 d, if it be
not the fame thing which was Foretold : One thing is not
Ccmpleated by the Fulfilling of another Thing.
SOC. This is (elf Evident. What do you inferr ?
CHR. St. John fays the Scripture in Zjeh. was Ful-
filled in the Paffion of Chrift ; Therefore it is more than
Accommodated, Compared or made like to it. The Prophet
and Evangelifi both fpoke of the fame thing.
$oh. 19. 36. Thefe things were done fays St. John, That the Scrip-
ture might be Fulfilled • They jball look on Him whom
they Pierced. And you having faid in your firil Anfwer
to this Text, that the [me'] in Zjch. (They /hall look upon
ME) was meant of God, It follows from St. Johns In-
terpreting this as Fulfill d (and not only Accommodated)
in Chrift, that Chrift was that Me which is in Zjch. and
confequently is Gcd. Pray read w. 36. of the 19 chap, of
ut
Ue feconcf DIALOGUE. 73
St. John Thefe things were done. (viz. Piercing CHRIST
with the Spear, and not Breaking of His Legs, as was
done to the Others who were Crucify'd with Him)
that the Scripture fljould be fulfilled, a Bone of Him fljall
not be broken ; And again another Scripture fays, They
(ball look on Him whom they Pierced. Here are two Pro-
phefies Quoted by the Apoftie of this Piercing of Chrift.
One of them I believe this Author will not fay was only
Accommodated to Chrift, viz. The not Breaking of His
Legs ; unlefs he thinks they could Break GOD's Legs ;
and then you may Contrive an Accommodated Senfe even
in this too : For Grieving of God may be call'd Breaking
■of His Bones, as well as Piercing Him. And you muft
either Accommodate both, or none of thefe Texts ; The A-
poflle puts them together, and Accommodats them both a-
like. And therefore Zech. 12. 10. muft belong as much
to Chrift, as Exod. 12. 46. Numb. 9. 12. Or Pjal. 34.
20. And it was underftood all along in this Senfe, even
before the Council of Nice.
St. Barnabas, in his Cath. Epifl. c. 7. p. 45. fpeaking
of CbrifPs coming to Judgement, fays, that when the fj **f '£ fy
Jews fhall fee him, they will fay, Is not this he whom wfc ty}c %■
we heretofore did Crucify. ™v?c6
Now tho' St. Barnabas does not here Quote this Text
of Zjch. 12. 10. yet it is plain that he Refers to it; and
means, the Looking upon him whom they pierced, to be un-
derftood of Chrift.
IrenAiis Quotes this fame Text of Zech. 12. 10. as
fpoke of Chrift. (adverf. Heref. I. 4. c. 66.) and Cyprian
(adverf, Jud. I. 2 c. 20.) lertullian (adverf. Jud. c. 14.
De Refarreff. Carnis c. 22. and adverf, Marcion. 1. 5. c.
7.) And generally all the Fathers.
SOC. The more Learned and Judicious Trinitarians
confefs that the Trinity, and Divinity of Chrift, and of the l% 6?
Holy Spirit, are not indeed taught in the Scriptur.es of the
L Old
74 The feconcf VIALOGVE.
p- o> 0/^ TeBament ; But are a Revelation made to us in the
New, So faith Tertullian, adverf. prax, c. j.
CHR. Tertullian fays not a word like it in that place.
It is but feldom this Hiftorian Quotes Book or Chapter
of any Jptbqr, And you n:ay fee here a good Reafon
for it. But it was an unlucky or rather happy Erratam
of the Author or Printer, (if you make the right ufe of
it) to lead the Reader to this place of Tertullian, for he
Difcourfes there of the Trinity fo very Learnedly as
might have inftru&ed your Author and cur'd him of his
Miftakes about the Trinity, if he had minded it.
TertuUian is there Difputing againft thefe Hereticks
who think that the
Tem T „ y NUMBER *and DISPOSITION *£ISW£^
of Tamilian f t \ )e TRINITY is a DIVISION NEM pr2e fu mU nt vnita-
SisCo/S- Of its UNITY; when the UNITY J&5 quando Unitas ex ip-
mty i- ^oi.cu J . , TDTVTTTV ™* »f 3* famet derivans Trimtatem,
r^ out of ^deriving the TRINITY out of it non deftrliatur ab illa> fed
Vnity. j e if^ j $ mt dejlrofd by it, but is J up- adminiftretur. ItaqueDuos
ported. Therefore they brave that we etTresjam jaaitanta nobis
r» / t\t,A 'PUBnc L * praedicari, feveroUmusDei
Preach IWO or IHRhh, but cultorej pnefumunt. Quafi
that they Worfhip ONE God. As non ec VNITAS irrationabili-
,/,*, UNITY, being unrefMbly **%$**£$&
CotleUed, did not make Herejy; and expeni'a, veritatem Conftit-
the TRINITY being rationally
weigh* d did not ejlablifh the Truth.
nat.
Thefe are the Words of TertuUian, and I would de-
fire you to confider two things in them. Firft that he
fays the Vnity does deduce the Trinity out of it felf.
This (hews the Trinity to be even natural to the Vni-
ty ; and therefore that there could not be an Vnity, un-
lefs there were a Trinity. And to explain this, he fays
after, that the Vnity is to be Collecled. Vint is Cullecfa:
This is a Great Confirmation to what we have already
Difcours'd of the Natural Vnity of the Perjons oi God.
bat
The feconcf D I ALOGV E. 75
That in every Vnity there muft be feveral things to
be Vnited : Thus the Vnity of a Body, is an Vnion of
P*r/j- : The Vnion of a Soul, is the T;*w* of Fa-
culties ; and the Vnion of GW, is the Vnim of P^/o»j.
The very word Vnion, implies Diverfity ; for a thing
cannot be 1te/to/ to ^/^//. Even in Self-Rejhclion,
the fame «SW muft be confidered as Agent and Patient,
as when / love my Self. And what is but a Testament; but they re-
main'cl Ignorant in this, as in other things which were
as clearly reveal'd ; as in the true Office of the Me/fiah, His
Paffion, Refurrection &c. Luk. 18. 31. ad. 35. Nay the
very Apostles remain'd all Chrifl^s Life-time Ignorant of the
true meaning of His coming into the World, of His Death,
Refurrection, he. A&. 1. 6. notwithftanding all the clear
Revelations he made to them of it before His Death.
SOC. The Chief of your Proofs for the Trinity are in
the New Testament. Therefor in our next Difcourfe let
us Confider thefe, at leaft the Principal of them.
t 1\HE
THE
SOCINIAN
Controverfy Difcufs'd :
WHEREIN
The CHIEF of the
SOCINIAN TRACTS
(Publilh'd of Late Years here)
ARE FARTHER
CONSIDERED.
PART III
By Charles Leslie
Chancellor of the Cathedral of CONNOR.
LONDON,
Printed for G. Strahan^ at the Golden Bail over againft the
Royal-Exchange in CornhilL
CONTENTS
OF THE
Third PART.
TExts out of the New~Tcfta~ 24. 1 Cor. 6. 19. p. 37.
ment. p. 1. 25. 1 Cor. 10. 9. ibid.
1. Matth. 12:31. Ibid. 26. 2 Cor. 8. 9. p. 38.
2. Matth. 28. 19. p. 2. 27. 2 Cor. 12. 8, 9. p. 39.
3- Joh. 1. 1. p. 7- - 28. 2 Cor. 13. 14. ibid.
4. Joh. 2. 19, 21. ibid. 29. Gal. 1. 1, 12. ibid.
S-.Joh. 3. i3- P- 8. 30. Phil 2. 5, tf, 7, 8. p.. 40.
6. Joh. 8. 58. p. 9. 31- Col. 1. 15. p. + 3.
7. Joh. 10.30. p. 12. 32. Col. 1. 16. ibid.
8. Joh. 10. 33. p. 13. 33. Col. 2. 9. p # 55
9. Joh. 14. 1. p. 15. 34. 2. Thefi: 2. 1 6, 17. p. s7 "
10. Joh. 14. 9. i p. i<5. 35 r Tim. 6. 14, 1 5> kj. ibid'
11. Joh. 14. 14. p. ibid. -3-5. Tit. 2, 13. p. ~ 9 *
12. Joh. 1 6. 14. ibid. 37] Heb. 1. 2. p.* 6ol
Of the Holy Ghoft Appearing in 38" Heb. 7. 3. p. 6:.,
the Shape of & Dove. p. 17- 39- Heb. 13. 8. 'ibid]
13. Joh. 17. 5- P- 22. 4 3 - 1 ? et - 1. a- p. 62.
14. Joh. 20. 28 p. 24. 41. 1 Pet. 3. 19, 20. p. 53,
15. Ad. 5. 3, 4. p. 25. 42. Joh. 5. 7. p. 5 4 ,
itf. Aft. 7. 59. p. 28. 43. 1 Joh. 5. 20. 2x 66,
17. Ad. 9. 14, 21. p. 29. 44. Rev. 5. 5. p 69.
18. Aft. 15. 28. p. 30. C^//? Called God. The £ft/y S>/V/*
19. Ad. 20. 28. ibid. Called. God. p/ 7r .
20. Rom. 9. 5. p. 31. That the Trinity was the Doctr'm
21. Rom. 91. p. 33. of the C/?;/r^ before the firfi
22. Rom. 2. 16. ibid. Council of iV/Vf, Prov'd from
23. Rom. 10. 12, 3 tf. Lucian. p, 72.
Advertifements.
Lately Publilh'd,
CHarity and Unity, in a Sermon preach'd at Hertford School Feaft by
Henry Nelfon y Redor of Hunfden, and Vicar of Stanfted Abbot in Hert-
ford fhire.
A Farther Vindication of the Short View of the Prophanefs and Immorali-
ty of the Englilh Stage, in which the Objections of a late Book, entit-
led, a Defence of Plays. Are confider'd, by Jeremy Collier. M. A. Printed for
R. Sare at Grays Inn-Gate in Holbom, and George Str ah an at the Golden Ball
in Cornhill.
A Preliminary Defence of the Epiftolary Difcourfe concerning the Diftindtion
between Soul and Spirit. In two Parts. I. Againft the Charge of favour-
ing Impiety. II. Againft the Charge of favouring Herefy. In the former is in-
ferted a Digreffion, proving that the Collection of the Code of the Four GoP
pels in Trajan's Time is no way Derogatory to the fufficient Atteftation of them.
By Henry Dodwell, M. A.
SAcrifice the Divine Service, from the Covenant of Grace, to the Confumma-
tion of the Myftery of Man's Redemption. By J. Scandret, Prieft of the-
Churchof England, To which is prefix'd a Letter to the Author, from the
Reverend Mr. Charles Lejlie •, Chancellor of the .Cathedral of Connor •, in the
Kingdom of Ireland.
THE Deifts Manual : Or, a Rational Enquiry into the Chriftian Religion.
With fome Confiderations on Mr. Hobbs, Spinofa,the Oracles ofReafon,
Second Thoughts, &c. By C. Gildon^ Gent. Publilher of the Oracles of Reafon.
To which is Prefix'd a Letter from the Author of the Method with the De-
THE Cafe of the Regale and of the Pontincat ftated. In a fummary Relation of a Confe-
rence Concerning the Independency of the Church, upon any power on Earth, in
the Fxercife of her Purely Spiritual Power and Authority. The Second Edition.
THE
THIRD DIALOGUE.
TEXTS out of the NEW-TESTAMENT.
CHRISTIAN, "IT Am now come to my Proofs out
I of the New Teftament, And I defire
1 you to Confider.
-*- (i.) Matt. 12. 31. Blafphmy againft
the Holy Ghojl [hall not be forgiven, .
SOC. The Holy GhoSt is not, in this Text, a Perfon, Brief ffiftoy..
or a God, but meerly the Power oi God. P? 7S«
CHR. Not in this Text ? But in other Texts it muft
be fomething Diftincl from God, Which you alTert, p. 17,
and p. 125. upon 2 Cor. 1$. 14. and in leveral other pla-
ces. So that you alter the Notion of the Holy Ghoft ac-
cording to the Texts. Which is wifely done, for every
Text will not fit your way.
SOC. But now we muft take it only for the Power of f f A i, 1C $,
God, which is the fame with God, as 'tis faid of Mofes, 33*
they provoked his Spirit, the Undoubted meaning is, They
provoked Him. So alfo Grieve not the Holy Spirit of 5^.4.30,
God, is an Hebraifm for Grieve not God ; As our Au-
thor explains it p. 52. upon Pfd, 139. 7,3
CHR*
p. 77>
The third DIALOGV E.
CHR. Then this is the meaning F you have put upon
this Text, That Sins againft God are to be forgiven,
but Sins Againft His Sprit are not to be forgiven.
Now apply this to the Parallel you have brought.
And fay that a Sin againft Mofes is to be forgiven ; but
againft the Spirit of Mofes is not to be forgiven: Or,
which is the fame, That a Sin againft Mofes is to be for-
given ; but a Sin againft Mojes is not to be forgiven.
For you know Mofes and His Spirit are the fame.
SOC. You have proposed the Difficulty, pray Anfwer
it.
CHR. The Spirit of Mofes is not a Perfon, viz. it is
not Subfifting by it felf : Therefore we cannot Predicate,
or Affirm any thing of it otherwife than of Mofes, and it
would be the fame abfurdity to fay any thing of the Spirit
of God otherwife than of God, if the Spirit were not a Per-
Jon, that is, Subfifting by it felf.
SOC. I will Confider of this. Go to Another Text.
(2.) CHR. Mat. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the Name
of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofi.
SOC. Baptizing unto fuch a one, is fometimes meant
of Baptizing in His Name, as Rom. 6. J. as many of you
as have been Baptized into Jefus Chrift by which is
meant, being Baptized in His Name. And we find it
faid That our Fathers were Baptized unto Mofes, 1. Cor.
10.' 2. and unto John's Baptifm, Aft. 19. 3. and therefore
we may fuppofe they were Baptized in their Names. And
fo being Baptized in the Name of fuch a one, is not a
Proof that He is God.
CHR. This is Mx.BidWs Expofition of this Text Re-
printed, 1 69 1. in that Volume of Socinian Trafts intitu-
led The Faith of one God, &c. p. 8. And not to infill
.upon the Difference of being Baptized Vnto, and Into
fuch a one, which is Confiderable. I Anfwer, That be-
ing Baptiz'd in the Name of fuch a one, do's include, be-
ing Baptiz'd Vnto him: But not on the Contrary; for
being
The third DIALOGUE. 3
belog Baptiz'd Unto fuch a. one,, do's not include, being
Baptiz'd in his Name. Unto fuch a one, may mean,, no
more than being Baptiz'd by his Miniftery. But being
Baptiz'd, in ones Name, is owning him the Author of my
Religion ; and, as fuch, a Dedicating and Devoting my felf .
to him ; Which is not Lawful to do to any Creature^ be-
caufe it is the Highefi fort of Worfoip that can be. I"
thank God I Baptized none of you, fays St. Paul, But Crif*
pus and Gains, leaf: any (hould fay that 1 hid Baptized IN
MY OWN NAME. And again he Argues with them.
Is Chrill Divided ? Was Paul Cruciffd for you ? Or were
ye Baptized IN THE NAME OF PAUL ? Thefe are u Coy u
things which No Apojlle mull: Arrogate to himfelf, and 2*Wx»
there is not an Inftance in all the Scripture of any that
were Baptized in the Name of any Creature ; for that
would be to be BaptizM into the Faith and Worflnp of
Creatures, which is Idolatry : And aiTerted, in terminis
in Bidle's Confeffion of Faith, Printed in the above faid
Volume of Socinian Tracts; p« 4. where Artie. 2. and
p. 8. Artie. }. he afferts Chrift to have No other than an
Human Nature, and yet, in this very Nature to be not
only a. Perfon hat alfo our Lord, yea our God and
the Objeft of our Faith and JVorfh/p. Which is as Grofs
Idolatry as ever was own'd by the Heathen; and a
Greater Contradiction than any that is Charg'd upon the
Do&rine of the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus
in his Expofitio Fidei, p. 100. fays, that from the words
of this Text, non potejl Contradict—there can be no
Difpute, but the Father, Son and Holy Ghofi have Com-
munion and Unity, according to which, they are neither
Three Divinities, nor Three Dominations^ nor Three Ho-
Iy\ but their Three Perfons remaining, the Union of
all the Three is moil: firmly to be Confeft. As the Far-
ther fends the Son, and the Son fends the Holy Ghofiz
But one Perfon never fends it felf, for none will fay that
the Father is Incarnat, &-c. Our Author's Interpretation
B. of
The third VIALOGVE.
of this Text is the fame which Cyprian fo feverely re-
prehends in Lucian, who, when Our Lord Commanded
all Nations to be Baptized in the Name of the father,
Son, and Holy Ghofl, and Remiffion of Sins to be given
in Bapifm, he, being ignorant of the Command and
the Law, Commands Peace to be given, and Sins to be
remitted in the Name of Paul wherein he did not
Confider at all, that it is not the Martyrs who made
the Go/pel, but they are made Martyrs by the Go/pel.
'Cyprhn Epitt. 18. p. jj- and Epift. 7 J. lubaiano p. 200.
he fays this form of Baptifm in the Name of the Fa-
ther Son and Holy Ghofl lnfmuat Trinitatem, cujus Sa-
cramento Gentes Bdptizantur. It does infinuat the Trinity
into the Sacrament of which the Nations are Baptized.
And Afterward in the fame Epift. p. 206. he fays, that
Chrift Commands all Nations to be Baptized in plena,
& adumtx Trimtate, in the FULL and UNITED TRI-
NITY.
SOC. The Def. of the Hifi. c. 7. p. 38. fays, that the
Jews were Baptized in the Name of Mofes, and that it is
plain, the Apoftle tells the Corinthians, that as they were Bap-
tized in the Name of Jefus So the Fathers had been Bap-
tized in the Name of Mofes.
CHR. If we had faid any thing like this, I fhould
have expected fome of his ufual Complements, Impudent,
want of Common Senfe, &c. To bring no Argument but
to cry Magifterially, It is plain, when it is plainly other-
wife 1 However we will give him to the next Edition,
to find the place where St. Paul tells the Corinthians,-
that the Fathers were Baptized in the Name of Mofes.
SOC. But he finds fome places of Scripture, where Crea-
tures are join'd with God as Exod. 14. 51. The People
fear'd the Lord and. believed the Lord and his Servant
Mofes, 2 Tim. 5. 21. 1 charge Thee before God, and the
Lord Jepis Christ, and the Elect Angels, that thou obferve
the ft things &c.
CHR.
The third DIALOGUE..
CHR. What does he make of this?
SOC. If Mofes and Angels be join'd with God in acfo
of Faith and Okefiation, &c, Why not the son and £/>/-
rit in Baptifm, tho' neither of them is God Himielf ?
CHR. Sure He did not ask this Queftion to be in-
form'd; for who is it does not fee the Difference ? To be
Baptized in the Name of a Perfon, is, giving up my
Name to him. Dedicating my felf to him, making my felf
his, giving him the Title to me, to Difpofe -of me at his
pleafure : It is a Form of Initiating me into his Religion,
owning him as the Father and Author of the Religion I
profefs. And this it is not lawful to do to any Creature:
There's none whom we muft thus call our Father upon
Earth, whom we muft join with God, in this Solemn
aft of 'Dedicating our felves unto Go J : for we are wholly
God's, and he muft have no (barer in the PoiTeflion of
lis: In this we muft join none with him. But there
are many things wherein it is no harm to join Creatures^
with God, as in acts of ObteHaticn, as your Author calls
it, invoking God and Man to witnefs. To believe what
God fays, and what Man fays, &c. This is fo obvious
I will infift no more upon it.
SOC. My Author Quotes' i Cor. i. 14. 15. 1 thank
God fays St. Paul, I Baptized none of you but Crifpus and
Gains ; lea ft any jjjould fay that I had Baptized in my own
Name. He plainly insinuates, fays my Author, that a
meer Man may Baptize in his own Name.
This is fuch an lnfinuation, as, I believe, none but
your Author could fee. If any Man might do it, I
know none had better pretence than St. Paul, But how
his Renouncing it, fhould be a plain Infinuation that he
might do it, is left to the Author to Explain ; till when
I muft (till believe, and molt Men in the World with
me, that thefe words of St. Paul rather imply that he
had not power to Baptize in his own Name, and if not
he ? then I think, no body elfe had that Power.
B 2 SOC.
77*? third VIALOGV E.
SOC. My Author ftill infifts, that to be Baptized unto-
Mofes, is the fame with being Baptized in the Name of
Mofes, becaufe being Baptiz'd unto Chrtft, and in the
Name of Chrtft, are the lame.
CHR. That has been Anfwer'd already, viz,. The
Greater (which is, being Baptiz'd in the Name of a Perfon)
includes the LeJJer (which is, being Baptiz'd unto one,
which may mean no more than by his Miniftry) But
on the Contrary, the Lcjfer cannot include the Greater.
Therefore tho' being Baptiz'd unto Chrtft, and in the
Name of Chrtft, mean the fame thing, becaufe the Greater
includes the Leffer; yet being Baptiz'd unto Mofes and
in the Name of Mofes, are not the fame, becaufe the Lefts
does not include the Greater.
SOC. He ftill infifts that if to be Baptiz'd into Chrift's
Baptifm, is all one with being Baptiz'd in the Name of
Chrtft, then he fays, that to be Baptiz'd into John'*
Baptifm, muft alfo fignify to be Baptiz'd in the Name of
John. And that whoever profefs'd in his Baptifm to
follow the Doctrin which John taught, might be faid to
be Baptiz'd in the Name of John.
CHR. To be Baptiz'd into Chrift's Baptifm is all one
with being Baptiz'd in the Name of Chrtft. Becaufe the
Form of His Baptifm was in His own Name, together
with that of the Father, and the Holy Ghoft. But to be
Baptiz'd into John'j Baptifm, was not to be Baptiz'd
in the Name of John, unlefs John did Baptize in his own
Name. Which it is Evident he did not. For his Bap-
tifm had Relation and Refer'd to Chrtft who was to
come after him. As it is faid, Aft. 19. 4. John verily
Baptized with the Baptifm of Repentance, faying unto the
People, That they fhou'd Believe in Him who [hotfd come
after him; that is, in Chrtft Jefus.
But what does he fay to the Objection of being Bap-
tiz'd into the Name of an Inspiration, which is not a
Perfon ?
SOC.
The third DI.ALOGV E.
SOC. He fays {ending of pag. $9. and beginning of p.
40.) that he fees no Abfurdity in being Baptized into
the ProfelTion of a Doctrine, which came Originally from
God the Father^ is reveal'd by His Son, and is confirm'd
by the Power or Spirit of God.
CHR. That is to fay, he is refolv'd not to Anfiver,
ask him as often as you will. For the Queftion is not
of being Baptiz'd into the Profeffion of a Docfrin, for
all are oblig'd by their Baptifm to profefs the Docfrin of
that Per fan in whofe Name they are Baptiz'd. Thus
Chr ifi tans are oblig'd by their Baptifm to profefs the
Doctrin taught by Chrift • But they are not Baptiz'd in
the Name of that Doctrin, or of any Article of it, that
wou'd be Nonfenfe : For every Baptifm is in the Name
of fome Pet fin. As no Man is Inlifted in the Name of
a Caufe, but in the Name of fome Per fin for whofc
Caufe he Fights. And the Caufi is proclaim'd in Name-
of the Perfon. Thus we read Luk. 24. 47. That Re-
pentance and Rsmiffion of Sins fljould be Preached in
CHRIST'S Name. This was never faid of any Prophet,
Jpoftle, or other Minifier of the Gojpel. That is more
than belongs to the Office of a bare Servant, Minifter, or
Herauld : They muft not proclaim in their own Names.
The like reafon will Explain Luk. 17. 5. The Jpoflles
faid unto the Lord increafe our Faith-. Which your Author
would have to mean no more than to Pray for them. But
he will not find in Scripture an Example of requefting
any Mans Prayers in fuel) a Form, as to defire them to
Bejlow upon us any Spiritual Grace.
(3.) The next Text we fhou'd Confider is Joh. 1. i.
In the beginning was the Word, &c. Of which we have
before Difcours'd at large. I only here Mark it, in its
Order. And fo go to the next.
(4.) John. 2. 19. 21. Deftroy this Temple , andJn Three
Days I will raife it up. He fpake of the Temple of his
Body.
SOC.
g The third VIALOGVE.
iM p. s 9 - SOC. Chrijl raifed His Body by a Power Communica-
ted to Him by the 'Father. .
CHR. But bad He that Power when He was Dead?
How can a Dead man a£t ? Which way fhall he be fet
about the Raifing of Himfelf.
SOC. Indeed I think we mutt have him Alive before
he can raife Himfelf. Let us go on to V erf. 25.
CHR. We will let that alone till we come to Rom.
2. 16. for the fame Anfwer will ferve both. But now
to prove that Christ had a Being before he was born of
( -' the Virgin, Read Job. }. 13. No man hath afcended up to
Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven ; even the
Son of Man that is in Heaven.
SOC. He that came down from Heaven. That is, fays
my Author, He that is fent to you as the Meffenger of
Heaven, or of God. And even the Son of Man that is in
Heaven t that is, whofe Mediation, or Conver fatten is in
Heaven : But our Author quits this Anfwer ■, and fays that
the Socinians do (generally) underftand this Text Lite-
rally, and fay, that 'tis here intimated, that before our
Lord enterM upon His Office of Meffias, He was taken
up to Heaven, to be Infracted in the Mind and Will
of God (as Mofes was into the Mount. Exod. 24. 1. 2.
1 2.) and from thence Defended to execute this Office and
Declare the laid will of God. The fame thing, they fay,
is alfo hinted Joh. 6. 38. 46, yi; 62. John 8. 40.
CHR. Does any of thefe places fay that Chrifi was
taken up to Heaven?
SOC. No. But that He came down from Heaven, and
was in Heaven.
CHR. Will this prove that He was taken up to be
Inputted after His Incarnation ? We fay He was there
before, and came down. You, without any Authority in
the World, will have this to be a taking of H;m up
after His Birth, of which there is not the leaft hint in
all the Bible, no, nor any where elfe. Your Author does
aet
The third VI A LOG V E. • 9
not fo much as pretend to any fprt of Proof ; So that
we mud take it for a Revelation of His own. That
is, for an abfolute Sign of a baffTd Caufe, and the ut-
moft Obftinacy to refill: all Conviction. If he had found
us Build any thing upon fuch a Bottom as this, Pm
fure he would Perfecute us fufficiently. They may as
well take upon them to invent a New Bihle^ as invent
Stories on purpofe to ground upon them ftrange Inter-
pretations of the Texts of the Bible.
But let me ask you, upon his own Principles, what
need was there for Chrift's being L taken up to Heaven to
be lnjlracted in the Will of God? He confeffes that the
Word of God, which is His whole Wifdom and Power,
abode on Chrift, and Infpir'd Him, even without Meafure, wft- vnit, -
fo as that it was even Incarnate and made Fleflj in Him, p,8i?t
and fpoken of as one Perfon with him, and He with
Him. And was not this fufficient to fhew Him the
Will of God? What cou'd Heaven add to this? He
could have but the fame in Heaven. But if Chri/Ps A-
fcenfion into Heaven may be folv'd, by my fancying that
He might be taken up at this or that time, and let down
again, I may Deny what all Chriflians mean by His
Jfeenfwn ; and every other Article of the Creed by the
fame Liberty. But let us go on.
(6.) How do you Anfwer Joh. 8. 58. Before Abraham
was, 1 am? ffifl.vw
SOC. That is, before Abraham' wis it was Decreed that
Chrift fhould come.
CHR. Why was not that cxpreft in the Text? You
will Grant that the Words will not bear it. Never
Man expreft himfelf at this Rate : And the Scripture is
to be underftood, like other Writings, by the common
ufe of words ; Elfe it was not meant to be underftood.
SOC. He produces other Texts to Countenance his
Interpretation of this. 1 Pet. 1. 20. — — Who was fore-
ordained from the Foundation of the World.
CHR.
1©
The third DIALOGVE.
CHR. That is clearly expreft, that He was fore-
ordained.
SOC. Rev. 13 8. The Lamb ftain from the Foundation
of the World.
CHR. Thefe are words of the Revelation, which fpeaks
in the higheft ftrain of Profhej), and that as we have ob-
ferv'd, fpeaks of things to come, as Prefent, or Paft.
And this cou'd not be mifunderftood, for none ever
faid that Chri(l was Slain, before the time, that He was
Slain. And ' therefore this could not be meant but only
of the Decree; or in Relation to God, to whom all things
are Prefent-, in which refpeel the Lamb was Slain from
all Eternity.
And befides you cannot reconcile this Anfwer of ChrifPs
to common 'truth as you explain it.
The Queftion was, whether Jeftus or Abraham were
Firft. The Jews faid unto Him, Thou art not Fifty Tears
Old, and haft Thou feen Abraham ?
J efts Anfwered, that He was before Abraham * if He
meant in Decree only, it was no Anfwer to their Quefti-
on : For fo I am before Abraham, that is, before Abra-
ham was Born, it was Decreed that I fhou'd be; Arid
you wou'd not make our Saviour anfwer Sophiftically}
\ren. adverf. Her, 1. 4, c. 27. p. $46. underftands this
Text {before Abraham was, I am} of Cbrift y s really Exifting
before Abraham.
But the next place, why fhou'd the Jews go to Stone
Him for this Anfwer? There was no iort of Difficulty
in it, as you explain it.
SQC. The Jews mifunderftood it.
CHR. Then you muft fuppofe Chrft fpoke with a
M-.ntalReftrvatioN, on purpofe that they might miftake.
SOC. Yes, as Luk 8. 10. He (pake in Parables, that
feeing they might not fee, &C.
CHR>
The third DIALOGUE.
CHR. This is not to be underftood as if Cfoift fpoke
in Parables, on purpofe to Hinder them from - believing:
On the contrary, Parables do naturally prompt Men to
Inquire and Learn the meaning of them, and therefore
are the moll: effectual method of Infracting : That is, to
Men apt and forward to Learn. But othcrwife they'are
indeed infipid, and very ineffectual. But that is from
the fault of the Hearer, who will not be at pains to in-
quire. Therefore our Saviour fo often repeats, He that
hath Ears to hear let him hear and take heed how ye
hear: For he that hath, to him fj.ill be given, and he that
hath not, from him (ball be taken, even that which he hath.
That is, a Docible Temper will Learn {fill more. On
the contrary, Men who are Carelefs and Stupid, grow
backward, and loofe what Reafon they had.
And what our Saviour fays of feeing they might not
fee, &c. it was only as applying to them the Propbe/y* which
was of their Hardn'd and Indocible Temper, which is evi-
dent from the parallel Place. Mat. i?. 14. In them is ful-
fil* d the Prophejie of Ifaias, which faith, by hearing ye jhall
hear, and jhall not under fand, and feeing ye jhall fee and
(hall not Perceive ; for this Peoples heart is waxed grofs, and
their Ears are dull of Hearing, and their Eyes are do fed,
left at any time they (hould fee with their Eyes, and hear
with their Ears, and fhould underjland with their heart, and
'(hould be Converted, and 1 fhould Heal them.
You will not fay that it was the Prophefy which har-
dn'd thefe Men. But God fore-faw their hardnefs, and
foretold it by the Prophet, S. Matthew c. 1. 22. fpeaking of
the Birth of Chrift, fays, all this was done that it might be
fulfill 1 d which was fpoken by the Propbe;, faying, Behold a
Virgin /ball be with Child, &c. Do you .hink that the
End of Christ's coming into the Worl j, was only that
He might not make Ifaiah a Lyar, who wrote this Pro-
phefy i Or that this Prophefy was the Qaufe of Chrift's
Birth, fo that it had not otherwife come to pafs, if this Pro-
C phefy
II
32 The third DIALOGVE.
phefy had not been made? Ther is the fame reafon, for
the fame manner of Expreflion, in the fame Evangelist.
c 1 5. 1 4. and Quoting another Prophefy of the fame
Prophet I fat ah.
but how different a Cafe is this from our Saviours
anfwering a plain and direct Question of the Jews ? Arc
you older than fuch a Man, or not ? To make Him de-
ceive them on purpofe, is a hard Interpretation ; And
when He faw them in an Error, and brought into it, .
by His improper and unknown way of Speaking ; that
He fhou'd leave them in that Error, into which He had
viiibly led thern, and not vouchfafe one word to unde-
ceive them ; not only at that time, but never after in his
whole Life : On the Contrary, that all He faid fhou'd
be constantly in this Strain, fpeaking fuch ftrange things
of Himfelf, and in words applicable to no other Perfon
in the World. I fay this wou'd give Him more the
Character of an Impostor and a Deceiver, as they calPd
Him, then of a Teacher come from God to tell us the
Truth
(7.) Joh. 10 $0. ChriH fays, / and the Father are One.
si a . $0C. Not one God, But as Friends are faid to be One.
• ' CHR. Tertuhan{De Oratione c. 2. p. 130) Proves that
we pray to the Son, when we pray to the Father, be,
caufe Chrift fays, I and the Father are One. In Patr e
Filius invocatur ; Ego enim, inquit, & Pater Vnum Sumus ;
And {adverf. Prax. c. 8. p. 504.) Sermo in Patre femper
The Word, fays he, was always in the Father, as Chrift
fays, I am in the Father, and always with God, as it is
written, And the Word was with God. And never" fepara-
ted from the Father, or other from the Father, Betaufe
land the Father are One. {Ibid c. 2 5. p. 513) And by
this faying he fbews them to be Two, quos aquat &)tm-
git, whom He joins, and makes Equal. But all this is
to be underftood, Vt Duo tamen crederentur in una Virtute.
they be believed to be TWO in ONE Ai\D the fame
Po-
The third DIALOGUE.
Tower ; BecAufe otherwife the Son cannot he believed, -unless
Two he Believed. Thefe are the words of Tertullian.
S. Cyprian (de Vnit. EccU, p. 109) Quotes this Text
as proving the Natural Union of the Father and the Son.
For he joins it in the fame Proof with 1. Job. $. 7,
-which is the moft exprefs for proving the Vnity of the
Trinity. Dicit Dominus, Ego & Pater unum Junius, et
iterum, de Patre & Filio ejr Spirtu Sanclo Scriptum* eft ;
Et Hi Tres unum Junt. The Lord faid, I and the Father
are One ; and again, it is written of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghofi j And thefe Three are One.
(8.) The next Text I offer you is Joh. 10. 3$. Thou
being a Man makefl thy Self God. What fays your Author
to this?
SOC He fays, They Lfd.
CHR. That is not the Queftion. But what Notion
had the Jews of that Term, The Son of God? They
knew that God had many Sons, by Adoption, and that
Kjngs were calPd Gods in their Law, (which you in-
ftance p. 76. in Anfwer to Mat, 26. 63. Tell us whether
Thou be the Chrift the Son of God) But a Natural Son,
partakes of the True j Nature of his Father , In which
fenfe to call any the Son of God, is to call Him True
and Real God : As the Jews here you fee underllood it, *
and in this fenfe it is. That Chrifi is called the Fir ft
Begotten. The Production of God's Nature is Effentiat
to Him ; and therefore the Firfi Production of God, be-
fore any of His outward A&s of Creation, and in this
fenfe Chrift is God's only Begotten. Thefe are His Epi-
thets in Holy Scripture. Now the Queftion is, whether
the Jem underftood Him in this Senfe, or only in the
common fenfe of .CMft J s Joeing a God, or a Sou of God,
as Kjngs or Judges are ?
You Remember what we have f aid of God's by Na-
ture, and Gods by Office: And that there was a Necef-
fity that our Saviour mult ufe the Terms of the Logos y
C 2
i 4 . The third DIALO GV E.
or the Word, and likewife of the Son of God, and all o-
ther Terms, in the fame fenfe in which they underflood
them to whom He fpoke ; elfe He had not fpoke in
Sincerity and Truth.
SOC. I Remember this very well : And it is neceiTary
that He fhould ufe thefe Terms in the fame Senfe the
Jews did. Therefore I defire you to prove, that the Jews
had any Notion at all of a Natural Son of God, or a
Son of God, which is God: For our Author thinks that
they had not the lead fufpicion of any fuch thing, as I
Qnoted him to you before, p. 68.
CHR. And I have Quoted to you before the Jews No-
tion of the Trinity, and likewife of the Meffias, or Sche-
china, which they diftinguifhed from the Holy Spirit, If
they had no fuch Notion, why then did they charge
Chnft with Blajphemy for faying He was the Son of God?
And that this did make Him God?
SOC. I cannot lee a good Realon for it. The Ex-
preflion is very ftrange.
CHR. But they explain their own meaning paft Dif-
pute. Thou being a MAN, fay they, make [I thy [elf GOD.
They could not fay this, if they had meant by God,
- h g only a Man. And they fought to Kjll Him, becaufe He
,'faid that God was His Father, making Himfe If equal to
God. Being God's Natural Son, does indeed make Him
Equal to God y as every Son is Equal to his Father in
Nature; and therefore they muft mean it in this Senfe;
For otherwife to be God's Adopted Son, or only upon
the Account of Creation, is fo far from making us Equal
to God, that, on the contrary, it Demonftrats that we
arc not Equal to Him. And in this fenfe, it is not only
no fault, but it is our Duty to call Him our Father; for
fo He is. And therefore it is impoflible that the Jews
fhould feek to Kjll Him, or be Angry with Him for
this, which themfelves did every day ; much lefs to in-
fer* from hence, that He made Himfelf Equal to God.
SOC,
The third DIALOG V E. 15
SOC. But our Author fays, that had our Lord been more
than the Son of God, He would have omfd His Dignity
when they Charged Him with Blafphemy, for faying tho'fe #/g. p , 9 5.
things from which it might (by their (irain'd Conferences)
be inferred that He made Himfelf a God.
CHR. He did own His Dignity plainly ; becaufe He
knew what they meant by the Son of God. But on the
other hand, if He had not been fuch a Son of God as
they meant, which was to be Equal to God, or to be God:
Without doubt He would have Renounc'd the Blafph my
with the utmoft Abhorrence and Deteftation fas St. Paul
and Barnabas did, when the People took them for God's
Act. 14. 14.) and never fuffer'd the Jews to have gone
away in fo mortal an Error p and juft Prejudice to Him
and his Do&rin; Efpecially not to loofe His Life for
.it, that when the High-Prieft rent his Cloaths, and the
Sanedrim Condemn'd Him to Death for the Blafphemy of
calling Himfelf the Son of God,, He fhould ftand mute
(which was owning of the FacY) and refufe to fave His
Life (which was being acceffary to his own Death) or to
undeceive thefe fo fatally miftaken in fuch a Blafphemcus
and mortal Error, when He might have done it fo Ea-
fily as naming this Diftinction of His not being the Na-
tural (which only (in their Senfe) was Blafphemous) but
a treated Son of God, with which none could find any .
fault, mucb lefs charge it with Blafphemy. But I Go on.
(9 J Joh. 14. 1. Te Believe in God, Believe alfo in
me.
SOC* Our Lord has Himfelf interpreted this Joh. 12. 44.
He that Believeth on me, Believeth not on me, but on Him H ® % p * 97 '
that Sent me. ' \
CHR. That is, They are bother. And you will not
find any Prophet, or Apofle, no nor Angel, Compare Him-
felf thus with God : or that durft fay Honour me, as you
Honour Godi?tn6ye Believe in God, Believe alfo in me'.
SOC.
p. 97
\% The third VIALOGV E.
SOC. That is a Different ftile I mud Confefs, from what
n is us*d Of Angels, or of Men.
(10.) CHR. Joh. 14. 9. — He that hath feen me, hath
feen the Father.
SOC. It is alfo faid of the Difciples, Luk. 10. 16. He
that heareth you, heareth me and he that defpifeth you
De/pifeth me.
CHR. So he that Defpifeth, or will not Hearken to an
Herauld, Defpifeth the KJng that fent him. But you
will not fay, that he who Seeth the Herauld, Seeth the
King.
SOC. That indeed bears a Different meaning, efpecial-
ly in one who pretends to be the KJng Himfelf, and is Ac-
cus'd for fo doing -
fn.) CHR. Joh. 14. 14. If ye ask any thing in my
Name I mil do it.
SOC. That is, by Interceffion with the Father, as it is
c.S. faid Htb. 7. 25. He is able to fave them that come
to God by Him, feeing He ever liveth to make Inter ceflion
for them.
CHR. The Apofile is there defcribing His Priejlly-
Office fwhich was Interceffion for the People) and
comparing it with that of Aaron: And this is, as He
is Man. But J will do what you ask-, is of another Strain,
never fpoke by a bare Interceffor, it arrogates to my
felf to Grant your Petition, and therefore no Man or
Angel ever Spoke after this manner.
02.) Joh. 16. 14. He [the Holy Ghoftl fiall receive
of mine, and /ball flew it unto you. Here the Spirit is
plainly fpoken of as a Perfon. This we have Difcouril
already.
But what does he fay to thefe words, that the H,
Ghoft (hall receive of Chrifi*s }
SOC. That is, He (hall receive of God, the remainder
10I ." of Chrifl^s Doclrin, and teach it to the Apofile s.
CHR-
The third D I ALO GV E. l?
, CHR. This is beyond a ftraind Interpretation-, It is
Adding to the Text and your Author might have made *
it fignifie what he pleas'd. But our Saviour gives an-
other reafon, why the H. Ghost did receive of His : Be-
caufe, fays He in the next words, All things th;;t the
Father hath are mine'. Therefore fed. I, that He [ball
receive of mine. And verf. 7. He attributes to Him-
felf, the "Sending of the H. Ghost. I mil [end Him un-
to you.
Will you now give unto a 'Creature the Power of
Sending the H. Spirit, which you fay, is not any thing
Different from God, but is God ? A Creature to fend
God\ And to give Him fomething of a Creatures to
carry / A Creature to call God his Meffenger, and to fay 3
He [ball receive of MINE and give to you ] And for a
Creature to fay that all things that are Gods are his I
Thefe things are Unintelligible, Irreconcilable upon your
Scheme, But in the Doctrine of the Trinity of Perfons,
in the Unity of Nature, they are obvious and eafie.- For
there is a Natural Order and Superiority of the Per font,
in an Equality of Nature r Which we fee even among
Men, as has been explain'd.
SOC. My Author obje&s that the Holy Ghoft appear'd
in the Form of a Dove on Christ, and of Cloven- Tongues p. 102,
on the Apoliles. x^nd he asks what Senfe the Trinita-
rians can make of thefe things ? they fay the Spirit is
a Perfon, and God:. Did God receive and aflume the
[bape of a Dove, that is, of a Brute-? What hinders b^a-. of
but that they may believe all the Transformations in the the h. Gb m
Metamorphofis of Ovid ? 3£lfa?!rf
CHR. He refts mightily Ajfar'd in this Objection, [ mvT °
and Expreffes it very Mo deftly ! But let us fee what is
in it.
Firft for the Holy-Ghoft appearing in the Form of
Cloven-Tongues, he himfelf ConfefTes, that this was to Ex-
prefs the Gift then bellow 'd, which may be the Gift of
Tongues,-
iS The third D IALOGV E.
Tongues. And confequently, it was not to Exprefs the
Form or Shape of the Giver. So this Part of the Objecti-
on is over.
He fays, That for the like Reafon the Holy Ghofi
appear'd in the Shape of a Dove at our S AVIOV IVs
B apt i fin i to Signifie the Mild, and Peaceable Spirit of
Chrift.
If fo, then this Apparition too was as an Emblem
of the Gift) and not of the Giver. So that he has An*
jwer J d himfelf.
But in the Next place, it do's not appear that ther
was any Shape of a Dove at our SAVlOVIVs Baptifm.
Tho' it is (I think) a Vulgor Error; For which Rea-
fon I will fpeak a little of it here.
Ther was a Bodily Shape AppearM : Elfe the People
cou'd not have feen it. But what was this Shape, Or
Appearance ? It was a Fire of Glory that Descended from
Heaven, and Lighted upon the Head of our Saviour. But
how did it Light ? Was it like a Flafh of Lightning, Quick
and Tranfunt ? No. For then, in fo Great a Multitude, the
People Cou'd not have Difcern'd for what Particular
Perfon it was Meant. Did it Come down Swift, as a
Bird of Pray {loops to its Game, like an Arrow out
of a Bowl No. It Defcended Leafurly and Hovering,
as a Dove do's, when it Lights upon the Ground, that
the People might take the more Notice. And to Ex-
prefs the Over-Shadowing of the H- Spirit. And it
not only Lighted .upon the Head of our Saviour, but
it Abode and Remained upon Him. As it is faid, Jo£.
i. 52. $}.
Now that the Expreflion in the Text, Like a Dove,
do's Refer to this Manner of the Defcent of that Glory
upon our Bl. Saviour, and not to the Shape of it, Ap-
pears from the Grammatical Conftru&ion of the Words
in the Text, which is better Diftinguifhed in the Greek
and
The third D IALOGV E>
and Latin, than in the Englifb, where the Cafes of Nouns
are Exprefs'd by Particles, and not by their Termination.
Now if thefe words, Like a Dove, had Refer'd to the
Shape, then the word Dove muft have been in the Geni-
tive Cafe, the Shape of a. Dove. But it is not fo, either
in the Greek or Latin. It is faid in the Greek, That the
H. Ghofl Defcended tf^ua-mA) eii^e*, in a Bodily Appearance
<*>a3. for ofc as the Cambridge Copy of Beza Reads it;
intjtei&Lv, but if it had Refer'd to the Shape, it muft
have been , &o-& ^e^eg^, Of a Dove. Thus the
Latin, Defcendit corporali Specie, ficut Columba. That is.
Sic ut Columba defcendit. As a Dove Defcends. It can bear
no other Conftrutfion. But if it had Refer'd to the
Shape, it muft have been, Defcendit Corporali Specie, ficut
Columba, The Shape of a Dove. Which is not in our
Englifb. It is not faid in our English the Shape of a
Dove* But that the Holy Ghoft Defended fin a Bodily
Shape) like a Dove, that is, as a Dove Defcends. If it
had Refer*d to the Shape, it ihou'd have faid, In a Bodily
Shape, as of a Dove. Or like as of a Dove.
Befides, if that Glory which Appear'd had been no
Bigger than a Dove, (which is not to be Imagin'd,
when it is faid the Heaven was Opened. And the Peo-
ple had not taken fo much Notice, if the Appearance had
been no Bigger than a Dove, it might have Efcap'd the
Sigbt of Many ; but fuppofe it) How fhou'd they know
it to be a Dove, more than any other Bird, or Thing,
of the like Bignefs ? Efpecially confidering that it utter'd
no Voice, for it is Exprefly faid, That the Voice came
from Heaven, then not from that which Abode or Re-
mained upon our Saviour.
I have faid thus much of it, becaufe of the too com-
mon Practice of Painting the Holy Ghoff like a Dove.
Which gives Countenance to the ufage in the Cburcb of
Rome of Painting God the lather like an Old Man, from
His being Call'd the Ancient of Days, and Reprefented
D to
so The third DIALOGUE.
to Darnel in a Dream (fo it is Exprefly faid, Dan. 7. 1.)
as fitting upon a Throne, &c
JBut in that Glorious Appearance at Horeb (which was
more than a Dream} it is particularly Caution'd, Deut.
4. 12. The Lord /pake unto you out of the midfl of the
Fire, ye heard the voice of the words , but firv no Similitude,
That is, of God who fpoke, for they law many other
Similitudes, as Fire, Stnoke, &c. - But they were to make
no RefembUnce of God from any thing that they Saw.
And the Fowl of the Air are particularly nam'd, ver. 17.
But how do you Socinians get over this Text? You,
who by the Holy Ghoft mean only an Infpiration, or an
Attribute of God, as His Wifdom or Power. Now for an
Infpiration or a Quality, or Attribute to take a IW/'/y 6'^?,
has an Abfurdity in it beyond any you can charge upon
our Interpretation of this Text.
SOC. Our Author gives an Anfwer to the Text before
Quoted, Joh. 16. 15. all things that the Father hath are
r>. 103. ****• ne ^ avs tnat St. Paul hid as much of every G&r/-
//4/2, 1 CV. }. 21, 22. /*// f^/gj are yours — —things pre-
fent, things to come are yours.
CHR. All things, is often us'd to exprefs all the things
which we are then fpeaking of : And what thefe things
were, and what he meant by all things in this Text,
St. Panl, fufficiently Declares, while he repeats that ex-
predion in the fame Breath, whether Paul, or Apollo, or
Cephas, or the World, or Life, or Death, or things Pre-
fent, or things to come, ALL are yours, that is all thefe
things are intended for your Benefit: Not only the
prefent Minijlration of the Gofpel in the hands of Paul,
or Apollo, or other Men ; and the Grace which God be-
llows upon them in this Life; But even Heaven here-
after, will be the Portion of Saints: But all thefe things are
not, all things that the Father hath. This which St. Paul
fpeaks to Christians, has no proportion to what Chrift
lays of Him/elf
SOC,
The third DIA'LOGVE.
SOC. He gives a fecond Anfwer. He fays that faying
of Chrift is thus to be rendered. All things ; relating to
the Do&rin and Difcipline of the Chrift ian Church, which
the Father hath in His Mind and Deftgn, are mine.
CHR. Blefs me ! That men fhould pretend to Rerfon,
and to appeal to Scripture; and yet take upon them
not only to Interpret them to all the Perverfnefs that
words are capable of, but where that will not do, to
Add, what they pleafe to the Text, and turn it to what-
ever they have a mind to ! PI undertake give me this
Latitude, and you flhall not prove from Scripture, Thar
there is a God, or a World, or ever fuch a man as Chrift %
There is an Ingenious Book written, expofing their method
of Argument, by which the Author proves from Scripture,
after their manner of Interpretation that Women have no
Souls, and Anfwers all Texts againft it in the Socinian
way ; and as plaufibly as they oppofe thefe Texts which
prove the Trinity, or the Incarnation, and Satisfaction of
Chrifl. And another maintains the Eternity of the
World, and Anfwers the ift. of Gem fit as the Socinians
do. Col. i. 1 6. viz. That by Creating was only meant
Modelling, or New Ordering. Which you will fee more
of when we come to that Text. Others fet up Pr*.
Adamites, without any flop from the Story of Genu
ps. And indeed there is no ftop, to Invention, . at this
rate, nor any certainty in words. No Temporal Law
can guard it felf without this Maxim, that ubi lex non
Diftinguit, ibi non e/l Dijlinguendum, you mull not Di«
/finguijb, but where the Law do's Diflinguijh for that is
to fet your felf above all Laws, and alter them at your
pleafure.
But Adding is yet more Arbitrary. And your Author
adds more than two thirds to this Text. Therefore I re-
commend to our Author's ferious Meditation that Admo-
nition Prov. 30. 6. Add not then unto His words, "left he
reprove thee, and thou be found a Lyar. ' For every word
D 2 of
21
22 The third DIALOGUE.
of God is Pure. His word is Perfect And Intire ; and hs
that addeth to it, God will add to him the Plagues written in
But that you may not lean wholly upon what I fay
in defence of this Text we are upon Joh. 16. 15. you
may Confult Tertullian adverf. Prax. c. 17. p. 510. where
he proves, from this Text, that Chrifi is God.
(13.) Chrift fays to the Father Joh. 17. 5. Glorify me
with thine own Self, with the Glory I had with Thee, before
the World was. Does not this prove Chrifi to be before
the World?
jH^p.104. SOC> This he Anfwers, that is, The Glory I had with
Thee, in thy Decree and Defign, before the World was.
CHR. Does he give any Reafon why it is other wife
expreft in the Text?
SOC. No. But he brings other Texts where what
was only in Decree,, was faid actually to he.
CHR. Without fomething in thi Text to fhew that it
fpeaks of fuch a Decree ?
SOC. Yes fure, elfe they cannot be Parallel Cafes to
trris Text.
CHR. Let us hear them.
SOC. 1 Pet. 1. 11. Searching what, and what manner
of time the Spirit ■ did fignifie, when it tejlifed before
hand the Sufferings of Chrifi r and what was to follow.
CHR. Is there nothing in this Text which tells you
that it teftify'd before-hand, of what was to follow?
SOC. He might have fpar'd this Inftance. The next
is better 2. Cor. $. 1. We have a Building of God, an
Houfe not made with Hands. Here we have r is, we have
it in God's Decree or Intention.
CHR. And is there nothing of that expreft in the
Text ? If you had repeated two words more, it would
have told you, that this Houfe was referv'd for us, in
Heaven. And that it was not to be till after our Earth-
ly Houfe of THIS Tabernacle were Dijfoh'd. And there-
fore
The third DIALOG V E. 23-
fore that We groan earneflly after it, expefting it ; and
therefore that m have it but in Reverfwn, not in prefent
Poffeffion* So that what is meant by tve have in that
Text is very plainly told.
SOC. His next Text will do it. 2 Tim. 1. 9. Grace
was given us in Chrifl before the World was. Where again,
was given to us, is, was given in God's Decree and Inten-
tion.
CHR. And is there nothing in this Text to fhew us,
that this was only in God's Purpofe or Decree? If you
had Repeated but one word before, it had hindred you
from producing of this Text. For there it exprefly tells
us, That this Grace given us before the World, was in
God's Purpofe According to His own PVRPOSE, and
Grace which was given us, before the World was. And this
is the Apoftle's Stile in other places where He fpeaks
of the fame, Tit. 1. 2. in hope of Eternal Life, which God
PROMISED before the World began. Eph. 1. 4. He
hath CHOSEN VS in Him, before the Foundation of the
World, (c. J. n) According, to the Eternal PVRPOSE,
which He PVRPOSED in Chrifi Jefus our Lord.
Now if you can fhew fuch an Explanation in that
Text Joh. 17. 5. then thefe may be parallel Cafes.
But I have another thing to ask in this matter*
Do not Decrees always look forward, and refpeft things
to come?
SOC. Yes certainly. One is not faid to Decree what
is Paji.
CHR. But our Saviour in this Text fpeaks of what
is Paft the Glory which I had with Thee be-
fore the World was. Common Speech allows to fay,
I have a Reverfwn. But to fay, that I had, what I
have not yet, nor ever had-, is a new way of Speak*
ing.
But there is more than this yet. You fay that Chrijl
had no Being before the World,
SOC,
«4
The third DIALOGV E.
SOC. Yes. That is our Tenet.
CHR. How had He Glory then before the World.
when He had no Being ? Was this by way of Decree
too? hen&vs {adverfi. filer. \. 4.C 28. p. 547; quotes this
Text to prove Chrift's Exiftence before the World.
And Origen(iv Mat. p. 526.) fays, it was not meant of
this World.
SOC. Pra'y. Let us go to fome other Text,
(14.) CHR. Joh. 20. 28. Thomas An five fed, and fiaid
unto Him, my Lord and my God,
SOC. My Lord\ Are words of Congratulation to
p. 106. our Saviour, and My God! Words of Admiration and
Praife to God.
CHR. This is very Ingenious/ But if I fhould ask,
who told you this ? There is nothing of this Difcovery
in the Text. But I wonder he wou'd let either of thefe
belong to Chrift, becaufe they feem both to be fpoken
of the fame Per Jon as much as words can bear.
SOC. The reafon is, becaufe they were fpoke to Chrift ;
and as a Confequence of Thomas's Conviction after his
having fo long remain'd Doubtful of our Saviours Re-
surrection; of which being now fatisflcd, he makes this
Confeflion to ChriB, and therefore at leaft one of them
muft belong to Chrift
CHR. Then there wil-1 be hazard of the Others go-
ing along with it, for they are link'd very clofe to-
gether.
The truth of it is, our Author leans that way. And
fays Neftorius Patriarch of Conftantinop/e thought fo ;
But he will not truft to that. Becaufe it feems a ve-
ry harfh Interpretation, to make Thomas Anfwer a
- Queftion of our Saviour's to him, only by an Excla-
mation, which might ferve any Queftion in the World,
by faying, God I Which a Man will do when you
pinch his Finger. Whereas otherwise it was a Direcl
and full Anfwer to our Saviour. His Refurreftion was
a Great
The third D I A LO GV E. 25 ^
a Great Proof of His Divinity : Of this Thomas remained
a while Doubtful : But being Convinc'd by our Savi-
our, he then acknowleges Christ to be his Lord and his
God-, and this by way of Anfwer to our Saviour: Be
not Faithlefs but believing fays Chrift, Then Thomas
Anfwers and owns his Belief, by acknowledging Chrift
to be Lord and God. S. Cyprian quotes this Text as pro-
ving the Divinity of Chrift (adverf. Jud. I 2. c.6. p. 3$.)
But we go on.
(15.) A3 <>. 3,4. Why hath Satan filed thine He art, to
lye to the Holy Gin ft f Thou haft not lied unto Men,
but unto God*
SOC. Thou haft lied to the Holy Ghoft. i. c. to us
Apo files who have the Holy Sprit ,' or Inspiration of God H &'V*>°J>
in us.
CHR. To lie to an Inflation, is a ftrange Expreffion.
In the next place. Tho' you allow the Sprit of God,
fometimes, to be put for God Himfelf; yet it is a little
over bold, methinks, to put It Icr an Apoftle. There
fhould be very Good Authority for that, Something
flronger than one of our Authors Suppofes. When was
S. Peter call'd the Holy Ghofi beiore ? Or the Holy Ghoft
call'd by the Names of any of the Apoftles? Beeaufe
the Holy Ghoft Infpires me, am I therefore the Holy
Ghoft ? fo that if you tell me a lie, it is to be call'd tel-
inga Lie to God} But more efpecially, when the Text
fays, he did not Lie to Men.
SOC. That is, not to Men only, or Chiefly.
CHR. No. There is another Reafon. Men could
not know that he Lyed; but only God, who knew his
Heart. And therefore it is call'd a lying to God, and
not to Men-, for there was no Evidence produc'd againft
him, they knew not but he fpoke Truth, in telling
them the Price of his Land, which was the matter then
in Debate.
SOC,
2 6 The third DIALOGVE.
SOC. Our Author brings a Text to fupport him. j
Thef^. 8. He therefore that Defpfetb, Defpifeth not MAN, but
p. ?ct. GOD. Who &*£ dfo given to us His Holy Spirit. Here 'tis
manifeft, that thofe who Defpiled the 'Apoftles, are faid
to Defpife God, becaufe God was in them, by His
Spirit.
CHR. I utterly deny that to be the Reafon, for
that wou'd transferr the Honour of God to Every Good
Man, which is, to every ftranger I meet, for ought
I know to the Contrary ; - That if I Defpife Him, I
Defpife God. Which is Extravagant even to Blaf-
phemy.
But the meaning is, He that Defpifeth that Meffage
which God fent by the Apo flies, which was the Gofi
pel of Chrifl, he Defpifeth not Man, for it is not the
Gofpel of Man, but he Defpifeth God, the Author and
Sender of it. As if any fhould Return a Kjng an
Opprobrious Anfwer by his Ambaffador : The Aftront
could not be underftood to the Ambaffador but to the
Kjng .who fent him. But this has nothing in the
World to do with our prefent Cafe, wherein our
Author would have the Honor of God to belong to
every Man, to whom God gave the Afliftance of His
BUffed Spirit.
This is a fufficient anfwer to the HifloriarSs Inter-
pretation of this Text. But I cannot forbear to fhew
the Ridiculous madnefs of your Evangelift Biddle in his
Exposition of this Text, in the above quoted Volume
of Socinian Tratfs, Intitled The Faith of one God, &c. p. 9,
10. where, inftead of Ananias Lying to the Holy Ghoji, he
wou'd very fain (but without any Ground ) have it un-
derftood that Ananias did tell a Lye of the Holy Ghoft,
viz. That the Holy Ghofl had put it into his heart to
Sell his Farme, and lay down the Price at the Apojlles feet ;
and fo was Guilty of Blafphewy againfl the Holy Spirit,
in fathering upon the Holy Spirit that which was Ejected
into
The third DIALOGVE. 27
into his heart by the unclean S fir it, i. e, to fell his
Lands. Whereby you muft firft obferve, that it was
by the Infpiration of the Vnclean Spirit that Ananias,
and confequently other Chriflians of that time did fell
their PofTeffions, to Diftribut to the Neceilities of others,
which the Scripture, and, I believe all Mankind elfe
before Mr. Biddle, have always afcrib'd to the Great
Grace, with which we are told Act. 4. 33. God did
Blefs thofe Early Converts to the Chrifiian Faith.
Secondly, he fays, that thefe words in this Text, why
hath Satan filled thy Heart to deceive God ? Seem to be Blaf-
phemy [ that is, fuppofing the Holy Ghoft to be God ] for
it import eth [fays he] either that God may be Dtceived,
or elfe that Satan, or at leajl Ananias thought fo, ether-
wife he wou*d not have proposed in his heart to do it.
Thus Delicat Mr. Biddle] I wou'd recommend to his
Annotations 1. Joh. 5. 20. he that belitveth not the So»
hath made him (God) a Lyar, becaufe he believeth not
the Testimony which God gave of his Son, Will Mr. Bid-.
die hence infer that any Man had fuch a Notion of
the Supream Being, as that He is a Lyar ? Or not rather
that, as we are faid to Crucify Chrifl afrefh by our
Sins, to Grieve the Spirit of God, &c. So, by Confe-
quence, we make God a Lyar, when w« do not Believe
the Testimony He has given; tho\ at the fame time,
* none can be fuppos'd fo grofly Ignorant of the Nature
•of God, as to think Him capable of Deceiving, or being
Deceived -, No. Neither Satan nor Ananias were fuch Spe-
culative Atheifts 9 tho' Practically every Sinner is fuch, in
fome Degree. But, if you will have it, according to
Mr. Biddle's Expofition, that not to believe the Tejliwony
which God hath given of His Son, is to be a downright
Speculative Atheifi, or to think Him a Lyar, which is the
fame, or worfe ; then I defire you to look to it, for it
will frand you as much upon to clear your felves from
Atheifm, for not believing the many Tefimmties which
E God
2 g The third DIALOGV E.
God has given of the Divinity of His Son ; as from
Idolatry, in Worfhiping Him, whom you do not think
to be True God.
(16.) Aft. 7. 59« T#*y Stoned Stephen, calling upon
God, and Saying, Lord fyfus Receive my Spirit. Here
Praying to Jefus is call'd Praying to God.
SOC. The Greek is, Lord of Jtfus, Receive my Spi-
CHR. This is only becaufe the word Jefus is Inde-
clinable ; that makes it no more of Jefu, then in, by,
with, or from Jefu. And this Text, is as much Lord
«j e r u as it is poflible for either Greek or Latin to
exprefs it,
SOC. Well, we will give you another Anfwer. That
$. 108. is, Stephen called upon God, and he alfo faid, Lord Jefu
Receive my Spirit.
CHR. Dees your Author alledge any Authority for
this ?
SOC. No. Not a word. But only that he fuppofes
S, Stephen's Vifion of Chrift at the Right hand of God,
which he had before the Council, to Continue Still with
him.
CHR. What is all this to the Bufinefs ? I cannot
fee how it Concerns this Text, or favours his Addition,
and Interruption of the Senfe, which fpeaks of Stephen
calling upon God and Saying — — initead of which our
Author adds, of his own head ; and he alfo faid, lea-
ving out the word in the Text, for both words can-
not be in ; it cannot be both Saying, and he alfo faid.
And he does not fo much as pretend that the word
Saying was not right Tranflated, or any thing amifs
in it°; So that here, by his own Confeffion, is both
Subftraftion and Addition to the word of God; nay more,
a putting in his own Invention initead of the word
of God. I am weary of this.
07)
The third DIALO GV E. a9
(17.) M^ 9. 14. 21, To bind All that call upm thy
Name. (TP words are Spoken of the Lord Chrifi, i$
is made Undeniable by verf. 17.) Is not this he that De-
ftrofd them which called on this Name (Chrift's Name)
in Jerufalem ?
SOC. The Socinians generally not only grants but ear-
mfily Contend, that Chrifi is to be Wor [hipped, and Prayed
to ; That he is to be Worfhiped with Divine Worship.
CHR. This is their opinion ; and it is the Sore-place
of the Socinians ; herein they Divide : and herein they
Contradict themfelves. And inftead of Anfwering this
r Text 1 your Author brings feveral .Arguments from elfe-
where againft the Divinity of Chrift, and to avoid
Anfwering^ he turns an Objector. His Arguments are
all Anfwer'd in what is laid before, therefore I will
not trouble you with them. For we are now up-
on his Reply to the Texts are brought againft him.
SOC. When he is againft the Invocation of Chrifi
(which is not always) he Anfwers thefe Texts thus
To bind all that call upon his Name. And again, them v ' 111,
that called on this Name in ^jerufalem. He fays the Ori-
ginal Greek may be Tranflated feveral ways. First, To
bind all that are called by thy Name. Secondly, To bind
all that Name this Name.
CHR. We know his Gift in Interpretations ; And
for Anfwer, we infift ; that the Greek does not bear
his Senfe, but is Rightly Tranflated in our Bibles :
and for him to offer nothing againft it, but his own
Saying fo, and thus and thus; it may be, is no indifferent
meafure of Ajfurance, which oft paffes with him inftead
of Argument.
But in this fame Chap.* verf. 10. It's (aid, That THE
LORD appeared to Ananias, And the LORD [aid unto him
&c. what Lord was this ?
E 2 SOC.
£ The third DIALOGVE.
SOC. It was the True God certainly :^^Dr this is
the common Stile of God thro' all the SeWptures.
CHR. And it is Certain, that this was Jefus who
fpoke to Ananias, and to whom Ananias fpoke, and
who fent Ananias to Saul verf. 17. The LORD even
JESVS hath fent me, fays Ananius. Hear another Text.
A ft. 1 $. 28. It feemed Good to the H. Ghoft and
W'fi P 11? ^ USm
(18.) SOC That is,toGod y s Infpiration in us; and there-
fore to us alfo.
CHR. To feem good to an Inflation ! Or to U3
and to our Infpiration I This has been fpoke to be-
fore,
(19. ) h&L. 20. 28. Feed the Church of God which he
hath purchafed with his own Blood.
SOC. My Author here again Difputes the true Reading
of this Text ; and fays that fome Read it Feed the
Church of CHRIST.
CHR. And we ftill infift upon the truth of our
Tranflxtion, againft his bare Saying ; which we fay is an
Evident Sign of his loft Caufe, when he has nothing
to fay but to AJfert, without Proof.
SOC. His fecond Anfwer is, That fome Matters of
the Greek Tongue, do render the words thus, Feed the
Church of God, which He hath pur chafed with His OWN
Sotfs Blood.
CHR. However skilfull in the Greek they may be :
The word [Son's] is a plain Addition, which is beyond
the Power of Interpretation,
SOC. His third Anfwer is, That the Blood of God is
no more, than the Blood which God gave. As the Lamb
of God, is no more than the Lamb which God gave.
CHR. The common Law of Difcourfe allows me to
call any thing mine that belongs to me, as my Horfe,
my Cow, &c. But no Language ever call'd another Man's
Blood, my Blood, unlefs my Sow, or near Relations, whofe
Blood
The third DlALOGV E. 31
Blood is really mine. As we call our Children, our
Flefb and Blood, in which Senfe you will not allow
Chrift to be the Son of God.
CHR. I Come now to your Authors Fourth Letter
which contains the Texts out of the Epiftles and Re-
velation, and there firft take notice of his Motto-Text
Rom. 1. 2$. of thefe who change the Truth of God
into a Lie, and werjhip the Creature. And defire your
Author to reconclie it to their worfhip of Chrift {mq-
pofing Him a Creature, as they do; and their Arbi-
trary changing the Texts of Scripture as we have feen.
But now to the Texts. The firfb I name is
(20.) Rom. 9. 5, of whom, as Concerning the Flefb,
Chrijl came ; who is over all God, Blejfed for ever Amen. \
I'll undertake he will have fomething to fay againft
this Text ; for it is too Pofitive to be endur'd;
SOC. Yet he is more merciful then be us'd to be;
for here he fays only that it is Probable, by fome PaJ-
fages in the Fathers (which he does not tell us) that the Ht ' p ' " 7
word God was not originally in this Text,
But Becaufe this will not do, he An fivers, Secondly,
that thefe words ought to be Tranflated thus, of whom
as Concerning the Flejb Chrift came, God who is over alt
be Blejfed for ever. Amen,
CHR. This is Adding again to the Text: for the
Englifb is rendered even Literally from the Greek, and
there is no fuch word in the Greek as Be 9 Gcd BE Blejfed^
but it is, God Blejfed for ever.
And the very natural running of the words comes in-
to our fenfe, Chrift who is- is what ? God Blejfed
there is nothing elfe for Him to be in that Text : For thefe
words over all, are but an Epithet of the Perfon there
Defcrib'd, like Blefjedfor ever. The Perfon there fpoke
of is over all, and Blejfed forever, and is God. For this
Text is not telling what God is, but what Chrift is, of
whom only the Apoftle is fpeakicg from the Beginning
of
5 2
The third DIALOGVE.
of this Chapter, without the word God us'd at all before
that mention'd in this Text. And in this cafe the only
Remedy left to the Author, is, to cut One Sentence
into Two, and apply One of them to a Perfon who is
not Mention'd at all in the whole Difcourfe. But this
it felf will not do, for there will want a word, to turn
the Senfe to Another than the Perfon there fpoke of;
for read the Text, Chrift who is, this word is referrs
to all the particulars which follow in the fame Sentence.
Is, over all, is, God Blejfed for ever. Now to make a
new Sentence in the Middle of this, there will want
another *'/, for it muft be either that Something is God,
or, God is fomething. God Bleffed for ever, without any
more, is no Sentence at all there is nothing Affirmed or
Deny'd. But to end all thefe Difputes , our Author
Adds the word Be, after the word God, God be Bleffed ;
and then it felf it is but Poffible to become a DiftincT:
Sentence, for it breaks and tears the Senfe, and fhocks
any Reader, to flop in the Middle of the Defcription
of one Perfon, and, without any why or wherefore, to
apply Two or Three of the Epithets to another Perfon
not Mentioned before, and to Force in a new word on
purpofe to bring it in.
But a Good Caufe will ftruggle thro' many of thefe
Hardfhips.
But then to call this Plain and Eafy, and moft Rati-
onal, that indeed is a little impofing, and hard to be
born, but for fo neceffary a work as to take away
the Divinity of Chrift, or any Argument for the Tri-
nity,
Tertullian (adverf Prax, §. iy and 15. p. 507, 508,
50 q.J quotes this Text as proving Chrift to be God. S.
Cyprian, does the fame, Adverf lud. 1. 2. §. 6. p. 3 5. and
lrentus 1. J. c. 18.
That other Expreflion in this Text [as concerning the
FleJ/j"] that Chrift came of the Fathers only as to what
con-
The third DIALOGV E. 3 j
concern'd His Flefb, or Human Nature, fhews plainly
that He had another Nature which did not come from
the Fathers, or that was Deriv'd to Him from His
Birth of the Bleffed Virgin : The fame Caution of Ex-
preffion is us'd A ft. 2. ?o. where Cbirft is call'd the
Seed of David, only according to the F/efb.
(21.) I would defire among other his Congruous
and eafy Interpretations to look into the 1 ft. verfe of this
9th. Chap- to the Rom. I fay the truth in Christ, my
Conscience alfo bearing me witnefs in the Holy Ghoft. What «
is the meaning of fpeaking the Truth in Chrift ? Sup-
pofing Him only to be a Man, and abfent in Heaven.
And then my Conference bearing me witnefs in the Holy
Ghoft, Sure to make any thing a Judge and Difcerner
of Conference, is to make it God s for that is an Incom-
municable Attribute, by the Confeflion of all. But ta-
king the Holy Ghoft in your Authors Interpretation, only
for the Infeiration which God fends into our Hearts Then
you muft read the Text thus, My Confcience bearing me
witnefs, in my Infpiration, which no hody can fay but
is very Familiar and Intelligible I
But the Apoftle here appealing to Chrift, and the
Holy Ghoft as Judges of his Confcience, I think is a De-
monftration, that they are Perjons; and that they are
God.
SOC. Our Author fays nothing of this Text. And
now let us follow him.
(22) CHR. There is fomething of this in his next
Quotation Rom. 2. 16. God /ball Judge the Secrets of
Men by Jefus Chrift, 1. Cor. 4, 5. who both will bring to
Light the hidden things of Darknejs, and mil make mani-
feft the Councils of Hearts, .„
SOC. Chrifs Knowledge of the Secrets of Hearts is ™ Jt '*' 12& '
by the Divine Word communicated to Him, and by Re-
relation from God.
Christian
34 The third D IALOGV E.
CHR. If God Reveal to me that another Man does
now think fo or fo, floes that make me a Kjiower of
' Hearts?. I know that particular that is Revealed tome,
but no more. Neither do I know it by knowing the
Man's Hearty I know it only by Revelation.
But to have a Power within my felf to know the
Hearts of all Men, to look into a Man's Heart, and fee
his Thoughts, is not Communicable to a Creature. God only
knows the Hearts of Men. i King. 8. 39.
And that Chrijl has that Attribute of God of knowing
Hearts, not when it is Reveal" d to Him by Another-, but
that He knows them in His Spirit, as it is faid of Him
Mark 2. 8. and in Him felf, Mark. 5. 30. is plain from
many Scriptures befides thefe now Quoted,. fee Job. 2.
24. 25. Jefus Kjiew all Men ; and needed not that any
jhould Tejlify of Man ; for He Kjiew what was in Man.
SOC. The Defence of the Hifl. p. 53. proves that this
was no Inherent Perfonal Knowledge in Chrijl, in Oppoli-
tion to Revelation.
CHR. How does he prove it ?
SOC. He fays, what is known by Revelation is an In.
herent Perfonal knowledge.
CHR. That is, fuch Knowledge is Inherent, becaufe it
is in a Man. And it is Perfonal, becaufe it is the Man's
own Perfon that Knows. This indeed is a noble Difco-
very, and by this he would quite take away the Diftincli-
Gn 'twixt Perfonal Inherent Knowledge, and Revelation ;
becaufe, fays he, Revelation it felf is a Perfonal Inherent
Kjiowledge.
But after all this Socinian-Subtilty, is it poffible, or
would he have us Believe, that he cannot fee the diffe-
rence twixt what a Man knows of his own Natural In-
herent Knowledge, and what he Knows by Revelation -,
and that for no better Reafon, but becaufe he Knows
both^ and that it is he himfelf, his own Perfon which
knows both ? A Mans Natural Inherent Knowledge is ftin-
ted
The third DIALOGUE. 35
ted and cannot go beyond its Sphere. And therefore one
Mans Natural knowledge is Greater than anothers. But
there are none fo Great as to difcover fome things, par-
ticularly the prefent Inftance we are upon, The Thoughts
of the Heart-, which none but God can Know by His
Natural Inherent Knowledge. But fuppofe God reveals to
me a particular Thought of a Mans Heart, does it there-
fore follow that I know it by my own Natural Inherent
Knowledge ? If I did, I needed not that any fhould tell
it me. And that is the Reafon given in the Text to fhew
that this Knowledge of thrift's was his Natural Inherent
Knowledge, becaufe it is faid, He needed not that any fhould
teftifie of Man, for He knew what was in Man. If His
knowing what was in Man, was by Revelation, He
not only needed, but it was Abfolutly neceffary that fome
fhould teftifie to Him of Man, I hope there is fome
Difference 'twixt this and Elifba's knowing what the King
of Syria fpoke in his Bed-chamber (2. Kings 6. 12.)
which this Author makes a Parallel Place, to this
of Joh. 2. 24, 25. for firft Elifha might have had
Intelligence from fome about the Kjng ; which was
the thing that the Kjng apprehended, and thought
nothing Miraculous in ir. But fuppofe God told Elifha.
Therefore Elifha needed that fome fhould Teflify of
What the Kjng faid. And therefore it can be no Pa-
raliel to that of our Saviour , who did not need that
any fhould Tefiify to Him, even of the Thoughts of Mens
Hearts, for He not only Knew this or that Thought,
and that when it was Told him ; But He knew all
Mens thoughts,, what ever was in man. W/ ithout need of
any to declare this to Him. That is, without Revelati-
on, which cannot be faid of any Prophet, or any Crea-
ture. And therefore this Pergonal Inherent Knowledge
of Chrtffs, is put in oppofition to Revelation, Contrary
to this vain Defence of our HiHorian.
F $0C.
3< j The third DIALOGUE.
ma.v.ito SOC. But our Author quotes Rev. i. i. The Revela-
tion of ^fejus Chrijf which God gave to him, to fhetv unto
His Servants. And what need God Reveal any thing
to Chrift, if He knew all things}
CHR. This is fpoken of Chrifi as Man. Secondly it is
not faid that God did Reveal it to Chrifi, but gave it to
Chrifi to Reveal to others. That is, gave Commiffwn to
Christ to Reveal it to John, &c. which does not imply
that Chrifi did not know it before.
SOC. But the Defence of this Hifi. fays, who can
give to God ?
CHR. Chrijl as Man receives all from God: Which
this Author could not but know to be the Christian Do-
clrin, and therefore it was Frivolous in him to urge it,
without farther Reafcns, as an Argument againit the
Christian Doc~T.rin.
(23.) The third Text he quotes out of the Romans is, c.
10. 12, The fame Lord over alt, is Rich unto all that call
upon Him.
tejt. p. 120. SOC- This and what follows is fpoken of God and
not of Christ.
CHR. The Contrary, ismoft Evident; from the 4th.
verfe. The Apostle is treating wholly of our Lord Jefus
uv»-6'Cbri& 9 and making Him the objecl: of our Faith, as He
was under the Law, for He applies Deut. $o. 12. Ex-
predy to Chrift ; and fays, that is the word of Faith which
we Preach, That if thou Confejs with thj Mouth, the Lord
Jefus, and believe that God raided HIM — i — whojoevcr Believe th
>• j HIM the fame Lord over all, is Rich unto all that
call upon HIM for whofoever jhall call upon the I
of the Lordjball be faved. How then jhall they call on HIM — ~
HowfhaU they believe in HIM of whom they have not heard ?
And how jhall they hear without a Preacher ? Here you fee the
fame HIM is carry'd through all thefe verfefc. And the
. prefly applies to this HIM Joel. 2. 32, Who fever
(hall call upon the Name of the Lord 8cc. which is applicable
to
JRom.
2; I h *4'
The third DIALOGUE. 37
to none but God. And therefore it is certain that Chrift is
the Lord here fpoke of. The Jews had heard of God
before : and therefore the Jpoftle cou'd not fay Of
whom they have not heard, but in Relation to Chrift.
Who was not rightly underftood by the Jews, who did
not apprehend what Mofes and the Prophets had wrote
of HIM, and therefore they needed a Preacher to explain
Him to them.
Your Author cannot deny all the Hims in this Chapter
before your Text, to belong to Chrift \ But in his old
fhort way, he excepts the Him in the 12th verfe, and
fo forward, and the Bufinefs is done ! tho' the Dif-
courfe goes as continu'dly on as before, and fpeaks of
the fame Him, without any Incrimination, or leaft
Mark that he is bringing in any other Him. Which
would not only be wrong Senfe, but it would be an
exprefs Deceit to ufe fuch an unfeen fhifting of Per-
fons in an Argument, as has been faid before. But
we go on-
^24.) 1. Cor. 6. 9. Tour Body is the Temple of the
Holy Ghoft. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Te are the Temples of the
Living God.
SOC. The Holy Ghoft or Spirit being the lnfpiratu m r2T
on and Power of God, the fame Bodies that are Tem-
ples of tht one, muft needs be Temples alfo of the
Other.
CHR. Firft it is Abfurd and Illogical to fay, the
Temple of an Inspiration. Temples belong to Perfons.
But in the next place, you make a Difference *twixt
the Spirit and God, They are the one and the Other.
And in other Places you make them the felf-fame thing,
and no Difference 'twixt them at all, as I have often
obferv'd before.
(25.) 1 Cor. 10. 9. Neither let us tempt Chrift, as
fome of them alfo tempted.
F 2 SOC,
3 8 The third D1AL0GVE.
SOC. It fhould be neither let us temp GOD. But fines
the former is the receivM reading of the Church ; Ouf
Author has not Authority fufficient ta Counterbal-
lance that, therefore he gives you another Anfwer.
He fays that Admitting the Reding in the Englifjj Bi~
P * "*' bits, yet the fenfe will be, let us not tempt CHRIST,
as the Ifraelites tempted GOD in the Wildemefs.
CHR. But he muft confefs that this is plain ad-
ding to the Word of God ; for we muft not add words
to the Text j upon pretence or keeping to the Senfe,
But does he not bring fome very extraordinary Reafon
to Support this Opinion of his ?
SOC. Not one word, but that Murmuring againft God f
or Chrijly is tempting them.
CHR. Then he gives us leave to proceed.
(26.) 2 Cor. 8. 9. It is faid, That Chrift, tkP He
was Rith, yet for your fakes He became Foor. When
was it that Chrift was Rich, and became Poor ? If
He had no Being before He was born of the Vir-
gin ?
mfl. p. 123. SOC. The fenfe is, Tho 1 He might have liv'd
Rich.
CHR. But the Text fays, that He was Rich. And
we muft take your Authors word, as formerly,
that the meaning is, not that He was Rich y but
only He might have be$n fo, if He wo r ?d.
SOC. The Defence of the Hifi. c. 9. p. 51. gives
another A/ffver, viz. that irrl^ivGiv does not fignifle
to become Poor, but to be Poor.
CHR. He only fays fo. Which he wou'd .have to
over-ballance the Learning of all the Trar.flators of our
Bible. But in the next place, the ftrefs does not lie
upon the word Poor y but upon the word Rich, We
all know Chnft was Poor, but the Queftion is when it
was that the He was Rich.
SOC,
The third DIALOGV E. &,
SOC. He fays, the Senfe of the place is this; Tho*
Chrifi was Rich and Glorious, by reafon of the Autlmiy
and Power Conferred on Him : let He was willing to lead
a, Poor Life, &c.
CHR. In this Senfe, Chrifi was never Poor, for He
was always Rich in Authority. And a man that has
Authority, can never be Poor, in this Senfe. Poverty
and Riches may be taken in many Senfes. There is
Rich and Poor in Eloquence, in Beauty, in Courage, in
Senfe, in Authority, and in Money. And if when you
fpeak of any of thefe, you make not your difcourfe
proceed of the fame, you argue Sophiftically, and no
man can Underftand you. This is the Defence of
your Hiftory, and has help'd him much. This Play
is not worth the Candle. Let us Difpatch.
(27.) His Anfwer to 2. Cor, 12. 8. 9. is this, that p . l7 .
the Power of Chrifi refting on the Apojlle was only,
that Chrift Interceded for that Power to reft on - him.
That is to fay, if I begg an. Eft ate from the Kjng,
for you, it is therefore my Eftate which you Poffefs!
And this fhall be the way or fpeaking in this Text,
and in the next too. 2 Cor. 1 3. 14 where The Grace, ^ '
of our Lord Jefus Chrifi, is not His Grace, but another s p I2 ,.
Grace, which He only beggs for us.- A
But there is another extraordinary thing in this Text.
For it plainly Diftinguifhes, fays our Author, Chrift and
the H. Ghoft from God. Now they are plainly Difiin-
guijhed; but in Aufwer to Join 1. 1. they muft not
be Dittwgmjhed at all. Gal; 1. i, 12. Paul an ApoBle,
not of men, neither by men^. bat- by Jefus Chrifi, and (29.)
God the Father -I neither* receiv'd. it of Man, nei-
ther was I taught it,., but by Revelation of Jefus
ChriH. '
SOC. Paul rightly denies he is made an Apoflle by
Man , bccaufe he was made on? by Jefus Chr Hi, who
p. 12(5,
m
4» The third VIALOGVE.
in alt things acted by the Spirit and Directions of
God.
CHR. Did not the Apostles aft by the Spirit and
^?*V 4 ' Directions of God, when they chofe Matthias into the
Room of 'Judas; and Separated Barnabas and Saul for
the work whereunto God had called them ?
SOC. Yes certainly; for it is exprefly faid, that the
H. Ghost bad them do it.
CHR. Did they therefore in that, receive Commiflion
from Men ?
SOC. Yes, for it is faid, that they laid their hands on
Vcr " thenty and fent them,
CHR. Then mens acting by the Spirit and Directions
of God does not hinder that fuch actions are faid to
be done by fuch Men. For Example, Matthias was E-
le&ed by the Eleven Apostles and Barnabas and Saul were
Separated by the Church.
And therefore it woifd follow, in this Senfe, that
St. Paul did not argue Rightly, as our Author fays
he did, when he deny'd himfelf to be made an Apostle
by Man^ bccaufe he was made one by a Man who Acted
by the Spirit and Directions of God y
But his meaning is plainly this, That he did not re-
ceive his Commiflion from, that is, by the mediation of
Me fi 9 but Immediatly from God.
And if Chrift were not more than Man, and Confi-
der'd as fuch in this Text, the Apoftles words cannot be
made Confonant, efpecially as Interpreted by our Author.
Tertullian (adverf* Prax. §. 27, and 28. p. 517 ) proves
Chrift to be both God and Man. Ex Carne homOy ex
foiritu Deusy and then proves the Diftinttion 'twixt Him
and the Father, and Quotes this Text, among others, to
fhew that tho' He was God, yet He was Diflinguiftfd
from the father,
(30.) But let us fee what art he will find to efcape
Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. where it is faid, That Cbnjt being
in
The third D1AL0GVE.
in the Form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal
with God, &c.
SOC. In the Form of God , that is, being made tike God, p. 128
and namely by a Communication to Him of Divine and
Miraculous Power over Difeafes, Devils, the Grave, the
Wind, the Seas, &c.
CHR. A Communication of this Divine and Miraculous
Power was given likewife to Prophets, Apoftles &c. were
they therefore in the Form of God ?
Every Body that underftands Terms, knows what is
meant by Matter and Form, The Form of a thing is
its Ejfence, not its Shadow or Likenefs : And therefore
whatever is in the Form of God,- is of His Ejfence, and
confequently mud be God.
And this is the Inference the Apofile makes, That
becaufe Chrift was in the Form of God, therefore
He was Equal to God-. And that this was not any Ar-
rogance or Prefumption in Chrijl, for being in the Form
of God, He was Natural God.
But if Chrijl were Originally a Creature, as the Soci-
nians wou'd have Him, and advanc'd to the Divine Hc~
nour, or a made God, as they word it, then indeed, it
cou'd not be Excufed from a Great Robbery, Preemp-
tion and Blafphtmy for Him to pretend to be Equal to
God*
And the Apofile in this Text, kerns to have forefeen
and obviated the Socinian Herefy ; For he does not only
call Chrtfi, God; but tells how He is God. Not by Gift
or Donation , or that He was made God. That is a Con-
tradiction in the very Terms ; But that He was in the
Form and Ejfence of God, and fo Equal to God, which
cou'd not he pretended to, without Robbery, any other
way.
Irenes (adverf H#r. 1. z. c, 2. p. 51.) Quotes the
joth ver. of this Chap, which immediatiy follows the
vvords you have Quoted, and is an Inference from thern 9
viz.
4*
4 i Tlie third DIALOGV E.
viz. that at the Name of Jefus every Kjiee fhould bow, '
and Defcribing what fort of Adoration it was which
was to be paid to Chrift, he fays, M _. .. _ . _ .
, K.- n ,, / ' . rr ; . Ut Chnfto Tefu Domino
that every Kjiee jbould bov to Him noftro et Deo, & Sahra-
as to our Lord, and God, and Saviour tori, & Regi, fecundum
A iTiufT placitum Patrisinviiibt-
an& in its own Altitude or Cbriji in
His Humanity : being ex fitted to the Dignity of the WORD,
which He had before with God, The WORD being now
hoih God and Man Qeos Xoys w
on Him, or that he was made Flefh. We do not fay,
fo of any man. If you ask a Man when did you take —
Flefh upon you ? When were you made Flefh ? He will
Anfwer, I never took Flefh, tor 1 was always Flefh.
Therefore that Expreffion of Chrifts taking upon him
the Form of a Servant, is not filPd.by faying, He was
like a Servant. No. Being God, He was made Man.
But in your Senfe, it mull have been worded, being
man, He took upon Him to become a Servant. That had
been proper ; for by that He muft be fuppos'd to be a
Man, before he was a Servant. And till He was a
Man, He could not take upon him to be a Servant, So
He could not take upon Him our Fleflj, unlefs he had
been fomething before.
The Def. of this Hift. c. 9. p. 51, repeats this ob-
jection, Viz. How did He take this Form upon Him (which
fignifies his own free and Voluntary choice)when He
did not take it, but was made So ?
Now what Anfwer can you Imagine he gives to
this ? What ? fays he, when the Apoftle fays, that Chrifl
took upon Him the Form of a Servant ; mufl we fy that
He did not ? Is it not a plain Contradiction to the Apoftle ?
This is every word of the Anfwer he gives. Had any
of us given the like, he would have found fomething to
have callM us beyond his Familiar and Common 6'tile
of want of Common Senfe, Impudent, Brutal, &c. Which
he bellows upon us almoft in every page, For pray tell
me, did that objection deny that thrift took upon Him
the Form of a Servant? So far from it, that it fuppofes
ir, and argues from it, that Chrift mufl: have an Exi-
stence before. But it feems all the Stickler could find
out in that Objection, was, that it deny'd the Text, that
G 2 Qhrifi
4 £ Tfoe third DIALO GV E.
Chrift took upon Him the form 'of a Servant. Such a quick
fight as this was neceffary to- expound the Scriptures
Contrary to the whole Chriftian Church, and the Com*
mon ufage of words among Man kind, to bring down My-
fteries, and make Profeljtes for Socinus. I congratulate
with you in your Champion. I fhould have thought it
to have proceeded from his Pafflon, or been the Fault
of the Printer, but that p. $2. he in other words re-
peats it again, and gives the like Anfwer. He putts
the Objection, that the Apoflle urging Chrift 9 s taking upon
Him the Form of a Servant, as an Argument of
His Love and Humility, this mud fuppofe a Choice
in Chrift (for who calls it Humility in any Man to
be Born Poor? Does a man cbufi to be Born?) there-
fore that the Apoftle muft fpeak of what Chrift did be-
fore he came into the world, for then it mult be that
He . made His Choice of Coming into the world. To
this our Author replies. That the Apoftle did not fpeak
of what Chrift did before He came into the world. And
he neither Anfwer s one word to the Argument, nor offers
any Reafon for his own AfTertion. This is, Bellarmin
then Heft ; And ipfe Dixit, in an extraordinary mannar,
But Like a wary Difputant, who could fee the weak-
ness of his Caufe, inftead of Anfvering he falls to object-
ing. He fays, "That if to be in the For??} of God
" fignifies to be the true God, then the Senfe will be
u this, Chrift being the true God, thought it not Robbery
" to be Equal with the true God, Which is juft as if
ci one fhould fay, Leopold who is Empercr, does not
" think it Robbery to be Equal with the Emperor. Is
" it Poflible rren fhould put fuch a trifling Senfe on
" the words of an Apoftle ? Thus he. And in return
to his Complement, I would ask whether it be Pofli-
ble, that he fhould be fo trifling as to think his Inftance
of Leopold is Parallel to what the Chriftiars teach of
Chrift ? He makes Leopold and the Emperor to be the
fame
The third DIALOG V E. 47
fame Perfon, and cannot but know that the Chri&iins
make Chrifi to be a Diftintl Perfon from His Father.
And then from a Ridiculous Comparifon 'twixt the
fame Perfon and Himfelf he thinks he has concluded
againft thofe who make a Comparifon 'twixt two Per-
fons. But now to bring his Inflance nearer to the Truth:
Suppofe Leopold (hould take his Son into the Part-
nerfljip of the Empire (as was done feveral times among
the Roman Emperors, and as David crown'd Solomon
in his own life timej and fuppofe this Son, out of
Love to a Company of Condemned wretches fhould take
their Guilt, and Condition upon Him, and make Him-
felf one of them ; might not this Love and Condtfcen-
tion of his he exprefs'din words like thofe in this Text?
That he who was of the Same Nature with Leopold,
being his Natural Son, and therefore Equal to him in
Nature, and likewife joint with him in the Govern-
ment, in both which refpe&s of Nature, and Authority,
he thought it no Robbery to be Equal to the Emperor,
that a Perfon of his Dignity fhould tata *//w? him
the Far/w of a Servant &c. I Know this Simile will not
Anfwer in all Points. And I would not have chofen it, '
but that by following my Author, I have fhewn the
Dijparity of his Parallel. Laftly, he. cannot apprehend
how God can be of no Reputation. Anf. When feveral
Natures are joyn'd in one Ptrfon, what is proper to any
of the Natures may be afcrib'd to the Per/w* ; as has
been faid before ; thus Man is faid to Dye,- tho' the
Soul cannot ; to be cut or maimed, which only the Bo-
dy can furFer : And thus it is, that God may be faid to
be of no Reputation, to fhed his blood, to Die, &c>
Tho' that can befall Chrifts Huma:i Nature only 3
The Godhead \% Jmpaffiblc, but the Ptrfon, who is God,
may fuffer,
0')
4 g The third DIALOGUE.
■(ji.) I will here fubjoin other expreffions like to
that of Chrifts being in the Form of God. Col. i. 15.
The Image of the Invifible God. Heb. I. }• The exprejs
ImAge of his Eerfi*. Or of bis Subfiftence. HFPOSTJSEOS.
P-»°- S0c! fe# is call'd the Image of God.
CHR. True. But do you not perceive a Remarka-
ble Difference 'twixt thefe Appellations given to Chrift,
and what is faid of Man ?
A Picture or a Shadow, is a Mans Image, but not
in the fame Refpect as his Son, who is the Exprejs
Image of his Per/on, becaufe he partakes of his A^*-
ture.
SOC. This is notorious. But our Author Anfwers
again, that this proves Chrift not to be God, becaufe
the Image cannot be that thing whofe Image it is.
CHR. This is objecting inftead of Anfwering to the
Text. And to this has been reply'd already, in the
words of the above quoted Text. Heb. 1. $. That the
Son is the Image of the Father's Perfon, or Subfiftence,
Hypoftafeos ; not of His Subflance or Nature, of which
the Son partakes Equally with the Father. And by the
word God, in this Text, The Father is meant, as in
many other places of Scripture, which has been obferv'd
before.
Juft. Martyr. (Dial, cum Tryphon. Jud. p. 285.) ex-
plains how Ckrifl was the Image of God. Viz. Not
on Account of His Corporal Generation, but of His Eter-
nal Generation from the Father, by which he was
with the Father before all Creatures.
TroivTiQov .i$i>
Dead. That is, Christ was the Fir ft Creature Rofe from
the Dead.
CHR. That is very well! But pray tell me, what do
you think of this Argument, By Chrifi all things were
Created: therefore Chrifi was the Fir ft who Rofe from
the Dead ?
SOC. It is flat non-fenfe. But what do you bring
it in for.
CHR. That is the Senfe your Inter fret at ion of this
Text puts upon the Apoftle. For that is the Proof rre
brings why Chrifi is the Firfr-born of every Creature y be=
caufe by him all things were Created.
SOC. By Him, there, fhould not be underftood of
Chrifi, but of G&d.
CHR. How will that mend the Confequence ? By
God w-sre all things Created, therefore Chrifi was the
Fir ft, who Rofe from the Dead?
SOC. That is full as Great Nonfenfe as the other.
But why may net Fir f -Born mean Firft-Born from
the Dead here as well as Ver. 1 8. Where it is faid
that He is the Firft-Born font the Dead.-
CHR. Becaufe in ver. 18. It is plainly faid fo,
And ver. 25. it is faid quite otherwife. For Firft-
Born from the Dead, and Firft-Born of every Crea-
ture are two quite Different things. And the Afoftle
in thefe two places fpeaks of things very Different.
For Verfe. 18. He is fpeaking of Chrifi as Head of the
Church, and (as the fulfilling of that Character) of His
Refurrdvion-, in which Senfe he calls Him the Firfi-
Born from the Dead.- He is the Head of the Body,
the Churchy who is, the Firft-Born from the Dead,-
But
5®
The third DIALOGUE.
But Verfe i<$.He is (peaking of Chrift in a quite Dif-
ferent Capacity, Viz. As the Creator of all things, or
that Great Inftrument by which God created ail
things, the Word, by whom all things were made :
In which Senfe He was Prior to all Creatures, as the '
Caufe is before its Effect. And He was Bern of
God — Was His true Image, in His Natural and
therefore Eternal Generation, before any Creature was
Born in the Courfe of Creation, who are Images o^ God
too, in their feveral Degrees; And in this Senfe it is,
that He is faid to be The Image of God, per Eminent iam.
The Firft born of every Creature. And this is the Proof
the Apoftle brings why He is the Image cf the Inviftble
God, the Firft Bern of Every Creature, For by him all
things were Created- —
SOC. But our Author \ivs, that by him is meant, of
God and not of Chrift.
CHR. He Says it, but he offers nothing to Prove it,
nor to reconcile the Text even to - Common Senfe in
his way of Interpretation. He would hive the^ Apoftle
prove, that Chrift was the Fir ft rofe from the , JDead, be-
caufe God made all things !
The word in the Original is lv. In him all things
were Created. Which yet is rightly Rendered in the
Englifh, For, that is By Him. God Created all things
In Chrift, or By Chrift, thefe terms are Synonimous,
and fo ufed in the Scripture. But your Author would
rather have it render d For, Viz, that all things were
Created For Chrift ; becaufe he would have more La-
titude by that word to avoid Chrift? s Freexiftence to
all Creatures, which is unavoidable by the word, By or
In; for if all things were created By Him or In Hint;
of Neceflity He muft be before them. But our Author
thinks they might be Created For Him, that is, for His
Sake, or with refpeel to Him, and that this might be
before He was born.
But
. The third DlALOGVE. S i
But in this Text all thefe.ways are apply 'd t6 Chrift,
viz; That all things were Created In Him, and \By
Kim, and For Him. Will you add to this (tho' I think
it is no.c neceflkry; the Text does fo plainly fhew its
own meaning) that J aft. Mart, (pUL cumlryph. Jud.
p. 284,) exprefly appiys all this to Chrift, as being the
Wifdom, Power, Word, Son of the Father, by which He
made all Creatures, Tertullian (adverft Marc ion, 1. c, c,
19. p. 484, and 485.) fays, Si non Chrift us Primo-geni*
tus If, Chrift be not the Firfl-born of every Creature,
as the WORD of the Creator by whom all things were made*
and vnthcnt which, nothing was made , if all things were
not Created hy Him that are in Heaven, and that are in
the Earth, vifible And invifibk } whether they be Thrones, or
Dominions, or Principalities or Powers ; if all things were
not Created by Him, and in Him, The Jpoflle wou'd
not hive faid fo pLinly, THAT HE IS BEFORE
ALL THINGS And How is He before all, if he be
not the Fir ft -Born of Creatures ? If not the WORD of
the Creator ? How can He be proved to be before all, who
appeared after all? Who could Kjiow Him to be before,
who did not Kjiow Him to be at all I And Origen (in
Jerem. Horn. 1. p. 58. of 1 Tom.) quoting this Text
Col. 1. 15. he proves from thence the Antiquity of Chrift
and from his being the Firft-Born of every Creature, He
Infers that He is for that Reafon 7rpe^ure^i the An-
cient which wou'd have been no Argument, if it had
been meant of his Refurreffion. And S. Cyprian {adverf.
Jud. c. 1. p. 32.) quotes this Text Coll. 1. 15. among
many others, proving Chrift^ to be the Firf -Begotten, and
the Wifdom of God by Which He made all things
SOC. Will you hear more of my Author's Anfwers to
ibis Text ? The Firft-Born, that is, mojl beloved- By
Him were all things Created, thatjis, modeled, not Created. P . i B2j
He is before all things, that is, m worth and Excellency.
H By
, 2 The third DIALOGVE.
By Him all things Confift, that is, by his wife Covert
V- m- ment, they fall into no Dif order or Confufton.
And tie fays fame of the Fathers faid thefe things upon
this Text. # r < .
C#K. They might fo. And thefe things are inferrd
from this Text. For He that is before all things in
Exigence, islikewife fo in Worth and Excellency, And He by
whom all things do confifl, that is, are preferv'd in their
Beings, muft needs Govern fo wifely as to keep them
from° falling into Diforder and Coniufion. And the
Fir ft -Born of God, mull: be mo ft beloved. And therefore
His Beloved Son is the Epithet of Christ in the Gof-
pel as well as His Fir ft Begotten or only Begotten. I
fay all thefe things might be rightly inferr'd from this
Text, from the Literal meaning of the Text. And
the Fathers might improve thus upon this Text.
Del mft. c- The Defender of our His~t. has a great deal upon this
w^^'Text. But foconfus'd, and fuch ' wild Arguments, as if
he play'd booty, and meant to betray his Caufe p. 16.
He proves that Chrift was the First-Born only becaufe he
had the Ptehemineme, which, fays he, is ofcen expreff'd by
the Firft-Born, and therefore concludes, that Qhriit being
calPd the Firft-Born, only Prehemimnce was thereby meant,
and not that He was Fir ft Born. From p. 1}. to 16.
He Proves, that by thefe words, the Firft-bom, by whom
all things were Created,, the Creation of the world cannot
be meant, becaufe, fays he, this Firjh Born was Jefus, who
was a man. When it is anfwered (p. 14.) that He
was God too. He Denies ir, and. that is all his Proof,
and asks where is He call'd God in Scripture? As if
he had never heard pjE it, before. His fecond Proof is,
that there is no warrant frcm Scripture for it. I mean
fa}S he, that the Scripture does not fay in exprefs words
t!hat Chrift Created Heaven and Earth, He will have
the words Heaven or Earth in, as you have heard
upon Joh. 1. ?. Yet that it felf does not do againft this
Text
The third DIALOGVE. 53
Text Col. 1. 16. for there they are exprefly nam'd. By,
Him were all things Created, that are in Mnivett', and
that are in Earth. Ay, but not Heaven and Exrth it
(elf , Replies our Defender, And the all thing: of which
he fpeaketh, he himiteth to all Thrones and Dominions,
Principalities and Powers, Vifible and Inviftble ; Thefe
are the Heavenly Powers {poke of; and I wi(h our Jut hor
would tell us which of thefe are Vifible. But thefe
are fo far from being a Limitation, as this Author would
have them, that it is plain they are but an Enumeration
of a Part. For Vifible is not put after thefe Hea-
venly Powers, as this Gentleman flily fets it, the
better to ferve his turn, but after the Earth, He
Created all things in Heaven and Earth, vifible and invisible.
And thefe Heavenly Porters are reckon'd as fome of the
Invisible things, and immediatly after them it is added
again, that all things were Created by Him and for Him.
His third Reafon is, that Chris? s Creating all things is
not faid in Eph. 1. 20. 2?, 22. and therefore it cannot
be meant in Col. 1. 16. nay he fays, it would be Non-
fenfe in the ApoHle to fpeak of it in the Col. having
faid in the Epb. that God fet Him (Chrift) above the
Principalities, &C. as if Chrift: in Mis Human Nature
might not be Exalted above them, v and yet, as God be
their Creator. Or as if this Author had never heard that
the Chriftians faid thus. But having call'd this Abfurd,
Ridiculous, and Nonfenfe ; he ends with no other Reafon ;
His Dullnefs or Perverfenefs is infuperable, for it bdng
objected to him, p. 1 5. That if by the Creation here, only
the new Creation by the Gofpel be meant, how Chrift fhould be
the Firfl-born of every new Creature, that is, of every Good
Man, feeing there were Good men before Chrift, and fo He
was not the Firjl-born in that Senfe. All that our Author fays
to this, is, that He was the Firft-born of every new Evan-
gelical Creature, which was not at all apprehending the
Difficulty, for it Excludes all before Chrift. But to return
H 2 from
54 The third DIALOGVE.
from the Defender to the Hislorian, none denies but ail
things were modeWd by ChriJt : And that it might be
inferr'd even from this Text: But that therefore, they
were not Created by Him, remains yet for our Author
to prove ; Or to fhew us where Athanaftus or any of the
fathers he Quotes, fays any fuch thing. He Quotes not
the Places of thefe Fathers. He loves to fight in the
Dark But to (hew him that tho' this Text may be
apply 'd to the Reformation made by Chrifi in the Go/pel,
which our Author means by Modelling-. Yet that it is
not only truly, but chiefly and literally meant of ChrisTs
Creating all things. Firft, the literal meaning of the
X7i£ft* which is here ufed, is, Creare, to Create. Se-
condly, The Creatures which are here chiefly faid to be
Created by Chrifi t are the Powers of Heaven, which did
not fall, and fo came not under the Redemption of the
Gofpel-Modell, of which our Author would have all this
to be meant. By Him were all things Created that are
in Heaven Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers,
&c. Our Author fays, that by all this is meant no more
than that ChriB became the Head of the Angels. And
this was a new Modelling of the Angels, and Modelling is
Creating, or Creating is Modelling, &c. But this Author
might have obferv'd, that the Apofile in this Place fpeaks
firft of Creating, and then of Modelling. Of Creati;% verf.
1 6, and 17. And then o{ Modelling verf. 18. viz. of Chriits
becoming the Head of the Church, He, (Chrift) is the
Head of the Body, the Church. There the Angels are not
mentioned, He became not their Head by His Incarnation.
He was fo before. For Hq took not on Him the Na-
ture of Angels, but He took the Seed of Abraham, and fo
by His Incarnation became the Head of Mankind in a
more fpecial manner. And after this verf. 18. where the
Apofile begins to fpeak of Chrift's Modelling the Church,
^ there, is not a word more of Creating ; He had done
speaking of the one, of ChrifVs Creating, wherein he
mentions
The third DIALOGVE. $r
mentions the Angels ; and then he goes on to fpeak upon
another Point, viz. How Chrifi became the Head of the
Church, wherein he does not mention the Angels, nor
fpeaks any more of Creating: And yet this Author would
Confound all thefe together, and make Modelling, and
Creating the fame thing. I told you before upon Jok
1 6. 15. That by this method thofe who hold that the
World was from Eternity might Anfwer ail the firft of Gen,
to be only a new Modelling and to mean no more than
Ovids Met amor phofis. Indeed it Confounds all Language
in the World. And not only the Divinity of the Father,
His Creating the World, or indeed His Being, that there
is any God at all cannot be fhewn from Scripture, if you
will allow this Latitude of Turning and Modelling words
from their common and cuftomary Meaning. But we go
on.
(5 J.) Coll. 2. 9. In Hint dweSeth the Fulnefs of the
Godhead bodily. And ye are aomvleat in Him, or ye are
fill'd by Him.
Thus he repeats that Text, wherein he leaves out a mft. p. 1^
very material word, na;> All the Fullnefs, or the whole
Fullnefs of the Godhead.
k, SOC. He fays that the Fullnefs of the Gedhead, is the
Fullnefs of the Knowledge of the Godhead, And that ihis
was it which dwelt in Chrifi.
CHR. Both Addition and Subpratlion in one 'Text is
very hard / to leave out the word All, and put in the
word Knowledge. No Text will be able to .Stand before
this. And after all if it fhould not do his bufinefs— —
for the Full Kj/owledge of the Godhead can be in none
but God', becaufe, as faid before, nothing can hold to-
finit, but lnfinit. And therefore if &ll. the Fullnefs 1 of the
Knowledge of God dwells in Chrifi, it is as full a. -Proof
of His Godhead, as any can be defird. It mulibe fome
Confeientioufaefs of this made the Author' leave., the
word all out of thi* Text ; He thought it would break
The third D1AL0GVE.
the force of it a little. For tho 1 the Fullnefs of the God-
head be an Extraordinary ExprelTion, and does in Con.
fequence imply the whole Fullnefs, yet the word All makes
it obvious, and prevents all objections.
SOC. But our Author quotes Eph. ?. 19. Where it is
faid, that the (Ephefians) might be filled with all the
Fullnefs of God.
CHR. The Apoftle there makes it very plain, that
he is not fpeaking Literally, or according to the full
extent of the Words, the whole Verfe is this, That ye
might K,NOW the love of Chrili, which paffeth Know-
ledge, that ye might he filled with all the Fullnefs of
God. Where it is even felf- evident that the ApoBle
means no more, than a very great Degree of Fullnefs, and
Knowledge. And it would be Perverjnefs for any one
to Difpute how a man can Kjiow paft his Knowledge,
which is a Contradiction. And in this manner of Ex-
preffion it is plain that the ApoBle faw the Contradiction,
and therefore intended it Hyperbolic ally. And the whole
Sentence muft be taken in the fame Senfe. But it is
not fo where one Expreffion of that Sentence is joyn'd
with plain words, and in an Argument, as it is in Col.
2. 9.
Befides in Eph. 3. 19. the Greek word is In, which
Signifies in; that ye may be filled In all the Fullnefs
of God. Which is the fame Expreflion with that in
our prefent Text Col. 2. 10. And ye are compleat,
or Filled in Him. That is, In the Fullnefs of God,
we are filed. But it is not faid, that the whole Full-
nefs of God dwells in Vs : Or that it dwells in us Bodily,
or Subjlantially fas our Author fays others do Tranflate
it) to Diftinguifh it from Figuratively as it is in Eph.
3- *9-
SOC, Our Author fays, that Bodily or Subftantially means
no more than what is oppos'd to the Philofophers Know-
ledge
The third DIALOGV E. 57
ledge of God, which was not fo Perfect as the Know-
ledge of Ghrijf:
CHR, Did you ever hear of a Bodily 1 .Knowledge before?
Or that that was ever us'd to fignify a more Perfect
Knowledge ? In our way of fpeaking it would fignify a
more Grofs and Imperfect Knowledge ; Knowledge is al-
ways moft Perfect when it is moft Pure, and Spiritual;
and confequently it is moft Imperfect, the more it grows
Bodily.
SOC. Go on to the next.
(34.) 2. ThefT. 2. 16. 17. Our Lord fefusChriH com- Hi{U^ 13&
fort your hearts and eftablijb them in cv r ery 1 Good word
and work.
SOC. Our Author , Anfwers this, in An fiver to 2.
Theft, j. ir, 12 and fays, That it is to beunderftood of
Chdft's lntercefjion for us.
CHR. That is altering all tt^Rife of words that
is known among men. The Chyrch of Rome allows
an Or a pro nobis to the Saints ; which is a plain Di-
ftinfrion 'twixt lntercefjion and Bellowing. Es~tablifljing
the Heart nothing can do but God. And therefore
I ought not to Pray to any but God to EffabliJJj my
Heart. If lntercefjion were Ground enough, then I
might pray to a man to Eflablijh my Heart, to Give
me Grace &c. becaufe he can Intercede for me.
SOC. But not fo efTeaually as- Christ.
. CHR. That is true. But it is lntercefjion frill. And
therefore if lntercefjion will not excufe fuch a Prayer of
mine from Blafphemy and Idolatry, if I make it to a
man, it will not alter the Cafe, if I make it to Christ,
who is no more than a man,as the Socinians do Dif-
pute.
(25.) But fee what Stiles St. Paul gives Him 1.
Tim. 6. 14. 15. 16. Vntdl the Appearing of our Lord
'Jefts Chrijl, which in his times he [ball [hew, who is the.
Hefted and only Potentate , the Kjrtg , of Kjngs md Lord
4
S 8 The third DIALOGUE.
of Lords, which only hath Immortality, Dwelling in the Light
which no man can abroach unto, whom no man hath feen
nor can fee. ■
Hift.p. 139. SOC. The faft words fhew, that not the Lord
Christ, but God is defign'd in this whole Defini-
tion.
CHR. They fhew indeed that Chrift is here defcrib'd
according to His Divinity ; In which Senfe he is and
ever was lnvifible. And even in His Body He was
in fome Senfe, lnvifible, that is, they faw His Body,
but if they did not underftand Him to be the Chrift
this was call'd not Seeing of Him . Seeing is there taken
job. 3. £4.51. for Knowing and Vnderjlanding. In which Senfe Cbrift
tells the "Jews that they neither Knew Him nor His Fa-
ther. Tho' they faid of Him that He was their God.
And they that Kjiew God are faid to See Him. If ye
had Kjnowri me, faid Ch?\ft unto His Difciples, Ye fljould
Toh it 7 l }ave Kjiown my Father aijb: And from henceforth ye Kjiow
Him and have SEEN HIM he that hath SEEN ME,
hath SEEN THE FATHER.
So that thefe laft Words in the Text whom no
Man hath feen, nor can fie, are not in one Senfe, appli-
cable to the Father, and in another Senfe applica-
ble to Chrift, and therefore they do not fhew fas your
Author fays) that not the Lord, Chrift, but God is De-
fign'd in this whole Defiription.
God is not nanfd in this whole Deficription ; and why
He fhou'd not be nam'd, if He had been intended to
have been Defcribed. I believe our Author will find it
hard to tell. Why fhou'd Chrift be nam'd, and only
Chrift in this Defiription if it was intended for Another ?
Why would the Apofile lead us, and even force us to
apply all thefe Divine Attributes to Chrift, if he defign'd
to perfuade us, that Chrift was not God, and that it would
be Grofs Idolatry in any one who thought Him fo, or
Worfhip^d Him as fuch?
And
The "third DIALOGUE. ^
And why would any of the Divine Attributes in this
Defcription be in Exprefs Terms apply 'd to Chrift, as
we find it Rev. 17. 14. wher-e He is call'd Kjng of
Xjngs, and Lord of Lords ?
SOC. Go to the next.
(56.) CHR. Tit. 2. 13. Looking for the Gloriotts Ap-
fearing of the Gnat God and our Saviour Jefus Chrift,
SOC, Nothing Hinders but that rve may believe that not /#/j. ? , 140*
only the Lord Chrift, but God Himfelf will appear at the
loft Judgement,
CHR. Nothing Hinders ! Yes, I'll tell you what hin-
ders our Believing it, God has not Reveal'd it : and you
mud not add to His Words, God has not told us that
He will appear any other way in the laft Judgment
than by Chrift Jefus, God is a Spirit, and muft take a
Body to appear to the -Eyes. And that God will aflume
a Body diftinft from the Lord Jefus, and appear in an-
other Body at the laft Judgment, is a bold Preemption,
and Adding to God's Word to fuppofe, and never was
fuppofed ; but by thofe who will invent Extravagant
and Groundlefs Supfofes to elude the plain Texts of
Scripture, It is the Opinion and Interpretation of the
Mahomatans, whofe greateft Error is being Sotimans.
Clem, Alexandra (admonit, ad Gent. p. 5. and 6.) applies
this Text only to Chrift, who" was the Word of God,
and fo true God, and likewife true Man, and that it was
His Apparition at the laft Judgment that was here fpoke of.
" But now this very word Himfelf hath so, 3 \^ in j v $^ oli
* appeared unto Men, who only is both ««"**« 70* Khyot, oMeVo*
rt God and Man, and the Caufe of all Good 2533 *6* *• g^t*?**
t4 to us for as faid that Divine Apoftle 0«v. ^ £5 ^ % ioa ^ m
H of our Lord, The Grace of God that bring- *.*«***/ **-***** 'At'os-okw
« eth Salvation unto Men hath appeared, &c. %&%£*,', & %%
a looking for that Bleffed hope, and the appear- 2. n. ta^si^x^^ £
* ing of the Glory of the great God, and our v^fyf**^ ™*±
I Saviour
to The third DIALOG V E.
^>s», ^ Sarn&s v^av c inip ™ a- who was m the Beginning, and before Ex-
f?xv W*< & T&'ovfrt & he has Power to limit the Ages, he
may, if he pleafes, fay, that it meant only the Ages of
fome other Reformation than that by the Gofpel of
Chrift, fome yet to come, perhaps the Millenary, or
what elfe he pleafes.
Heb*
The third DIALOG VE. 61
(l$.) Heb. 7. ?. Melchifedeck is compar'd to the&wof
God in thefe particulars, as being without father, with,
out Mother ) without Defcent, having neither Beginning of
Days, nor End of Life, but made like unto the Son of
God, abtdeth a Priefi Continually,
Thefe are not Literally under flood of Melchifedeck,
only that none of thefe things are Recorded of him.
and fo he was left in Hiftory without Father, &c,
But in thefe particulars, he was like the Son of God,
who really was what Melchifedeck was there faid to be,
without Beginning of Days or End of Life, he.
SOC. Buc our Author fays, that of all thefe things
he is only like the Son of God in that particular,, of „.* 4
being a Priefi for ever. ' P '
CHR. By what Rule does he exclude all the red,
which are in the fame Sentence?
SOC. I cannot tell indeed.
CHR. Licentia Sociniana is beyond Licentia Poetic a.
But how came Melchifedeck to be like the Son of God,
if there was no Son of God, when Melchifedeck was
made ? The Pattern after which any thing is made
rauft be before the Copy that is made after it.
SOC. Verfe 15. it is laid that another Priefi (Chrift)
arifeth after the Similitude of Melchifedick.
CHR. And how will you reconcile thefe two upon
the Socinian Principle? For Melchifedeck cannot be both
after the Similitude of Christ, and ChriH after the Simi-
litude of Melchifedeck. But in the Chrifiian Scheme it
is moft eafy, viz. the Eternal Son of God was before
Melchifedeck, but Incarnate in time after Melchifedeck.
And yet it was the fame Jefus, yefierday, to day, and
9-) fo r wer. As it is expreft Heb. 13. S.
SOC. Out Author fays, that was fpoke of the Goffel
of Christ not Changing. if//?, p. 247c
CHR. But the Text fpeaks it exprefly of Jefus Him-
felf, and we know that the Phafe was us'd to exprefs
I 2 all
62 The third DIALOGV E.
all time Pafi, Prefent, and to Come ; and is the fame
with the Alpha and Omega , the Beginning and the Ending,
which was, and which is, and which is to come. Rev. I. £.
and other places of Scripture.
(40.) He has two Texts out of St. Peter. 1. Peter
I. ii; Searching what, and what manner of time the Spirit
of Chrifi, which was in them did figmfie, when it Tefiiffd
before hand the Sufferings of Cbrijt.
j^v^.p. 148. SOC. Our Author fays, That by the 'Spirit of Chrifi
there, is meant only, the fame Spirit of Prophefj which
Was in Chrifi.
CHR. This was fpoke of the Prophets long before
Chrifi was Born. viz.. that the Spirit of Christ was in
them, and did Teftifle beforehand the Sufferings of Chrifi,
now if Chrifi had no Being, before He was Born of
the Virgin, as you fay, how had He a Spirit fo long
before ? And how cou'd His Spirit Teftify before it had
a Being ?
SOC. Therefore our Author fays, not that it was the
Spirit of Chrifi which was in them, but only the Pro~
phetick Spirit that fpoke of Chrifi.
CHR. But the Text fays exprefly that it was the
Spirit of Chrifi which was in them. This is not Inter-
preting, but Running quite from the Text.
SOC. He fays that Poets are call'd the Poets of fuch
Men as they wrote of, as Virgil is called the Poet of
Mneas, and Homer of Vlyffes, becaufe they wrote of
J&neas and Vlyffes.
CHR. But is there not tome Difference 'twixt calling
a* Man fuch a Man's Poet, becaufe he wrote of hirn
(tho 1 that is an Expreffion I never heard us'd) and
'twixt faying that fuch a Man's Spirit was in him, and
did Signify to' him what he fhould fay? Efpeciafly if
the Mw whofe Spirit taught the other, had no Spirit
at that time, nor was a Man then : A Man to teach
another before he is Born. St. Barnabas, in his Catholick
Epi(t
The third DIALOG V E. 4$
EpijL C <;. p. 21, 22. fays that the Prop/jets having the
Gift (of Prophefy) from Chrift, did Prophefy of Him* h
*mep$Tai AT eiwrv lyjjv\i-
»w/>/* who
n?gat Deumcbrifium ; ft Denys Goi- — C/;r//? ; if of the Holy-Ghoft, when
/pm«5 am0s, cum r>-« ^/^ ^ rf£ , ^ ^ f> h ow catl the Holy Ghoft be
Z&H3&& Pl«s'd with 'him who is an Enemy to the
eipoteft,qHi aut fttfrw, Father, or the &>#?
aut fill) inimicas eft ?
Here you fee he reckons the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghoft, each of them to be God. For when he is fuppo-
ling the feveral ways by which any become the Tem-
ple of God, he computes that it can be but one of thefe
three ways, that is, by becomming the Temple either of
the Father fwhom he calls Creator) or of the Son, of
of the Holy Ghoft, which (hews each of them to be
God: and he calls Cbrift exprefly God? and fays that
thefe three are one, and {de Vnit. Ecclefu,^ p. 109.) Chrift
fays, I and the Father are one. and again it is written
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and thefe Three are
one. This I quoted before, and I refer you to the Anno-
tations upon this place in Cyprian to fhew you many M&-
nufcripts, where this Text is had, and vindicated from
the malice of Socinus. And if you will look into Dr.
Hamond, and Pole's Synopf. Critic, upon this Text you
will be further Satisfy'd. For I wou'd not take up time
now, to go thro' all this at large.
(4?-) *• ^ohn, 5. 20. We know that the Son of God
if come and hath given us an under (landing, that we may
know him that is True ; and we are in Him that is
True, even in His Son Jefus Chrift S This is the True
God.
SQC
The third D IALOGZI E. 67
SOC. My Author (ays, That, this was a very negligent
Tranflation, for whether you Interpret, Him that is True,
to be God, or to be Chrift, no fenfe can be made of
the words.
CHR. Does he tell where the Nonftnfe is ?
SOC. No he fays no more of it.
CHR. It feems to me to be fo far from Non-
fenfe, that I cannot fee the leaft Difficulty in it. To
know him that is True. I cannot imagin what fhould
trouble him at that faying, but that he is refolv'd to
Quarrel.
SOC. The Latter part of the Text ought to be thus
rendered. We are in him that is True (i. e. in God) by
His Son Jefus Chrift. In God, By Chrift.
CHR. But the Text is quite otherwife, it is h, ,In His
Son. He does not pretend that the Original is otherwife,
yet he finds fault with the Tranflation, and calls the
Scrip ure Nonfenfe.
The Apoftle immediately fubjoins to this Text, Lit-
tle Children keep your /elves from Idols. Which feems
to bear this Senfe ; That if Chrift were not the
True God, He muft be an Idol, becaufe Divine Wor-
fhip was paid to Him\ And this is an Explanation of
his calling Chrift the True God : viz. That whoever
elfe pretends to it, is an Idol, and therefore we muft
Worfhip none elfe.
Ther is another part of this Text which our Anther
takes no notice of, which does plainly Evidence the
Divinity of Chrift, and that is, That the Son of God
bath given us an Vnderftanding that we may know Him
that is True.
To give man Vnderftanding is an Incommunicable j4t~
tribute of God. And that is, pad all fubterfuge, attri-
buted here to the Son.
■K SOC
4$ The third VI ALOGV E.
As knowing the hearts of Men is, Rev, 2. 1 J. I am
He (faith the the Son of God. Verf 18.) which fearcheth
the Reins and Heart.
SOC. Chritt knoweth our Thoughts, only when God
Reveals them to Him, and thus the Prophets may know
p. 15$. Thoughts,
CHR. And thus I know your Thoughts, and you
mine, i. e when we tdl them to one another. But
does that make me a Searches ol Kjtober of your Heart*
We have fpoke of this betore upon Rom. 2. 16. and
1 Cor. 4. 5. and 3)0 wn thnt a Fjwwer of Hearts, is he
who knows them of Himfilf without being told by an-
other. And that this is an Incommunicable Attribute of
God.
To what I then faid, I will only add this, That in the
Scripture God ufes this as a peculiar Attribute, as you
may read. 1 Sam. 16. 7. 1 Cor. 28 9. Pfal. 7. 9. and
139. 1. Jer. ii. 2©. and 20. 12 and many other Scrip-
tures. But that which is moft remarkable, and belongs
particularly to this Text we are upon is, Jer. 17. ior
For what God fpeaks Gracioufly of Htmfelf in that verfe^
Chrift fpeaks of Himfelf i» this.
Fiaji, The Prophet in the 9th Verfe fhews, that none
can know the Heart: Who can know it? And then in
the next words, God (peaks, fetting forth His Almighty
Power in that he knew it. / the Lord Search the Hearty
I Try the Reins • even to give every Man according to his
Ways
And Rev. 2. 25. Chrift Attributes the fame to Him-
fi If. Thefe things faith the Son of God. ( Verf. 18.) /
am He which Searcheth the Reins and Hearts : And 1
will give to every one of you according to your Works.
he/t£us (adverf. Her. 1. 4. e. 36. p. 369.) reckons
this among the Attributes of God : And this fame Text
Rev. 2. 2$. is repeated in his Text, and quoted in the
Margent.
m
The third D I A L & V E. ' 4f
Til trouble you but with one Text more. Rev. i* 5.
Chrift is call'd, The Root of David.
(44.) SOC. That is, a Root fpringing from David :
As a Root of the Earth is a Root whkh ffringeth from #$•?- «*^
the Earth ; not on the contrary a Root from which the Earth
ffringeth.
CHR. This is very fine, the Sophifm is Subtile,
and worthy a Socinian ; Fray, let me know what
you do mean by the Root of any thing ? Is it that out
of which the thing Grows, or that which Grows out of
the thing ?
SOC. That is as Commonly known as any thing in
the World. For the Branches grow out of the Root,
and not the Root out of the Branches.
CHR. And when you, by a Figure, apply this t©
Families, and fay fuch a one is a Branch of fuch a Fa-
mily : Such a one is the Root of the Family : Are not
thefe Terms as Commonly known as the Root and
Branches of Trees ? And is not the Root fpringing from
a Branch the fame abfurdity as a Father fpringing from
his Son?
SOC: All this is felf evident go on.
CHR. Therefore if Qhrifl be the Root of David; He
muft be before David ; and this deftroys the Socinian
principle, which allows Chrifl no Being before He was
Born of the Virgin.
And therefore your Author muft get over this, tho*
he is forc't to make the Root the Branch, and the Branch
the Root.
This wouM have put any lefs wit or Refolution
into Defpair. For the attempt looks as eafy to prove
Day to be Night. It is ftrange he wouM fcruple the
Trinity, Incarnation, or any other Difficulty who cou'd
Iiope to Mafter this. And he has done it to a mira-
cle/ For he has found a faying, a Root of the Earthy
by which is not meant that the Earth fprings out
K 2 of
7 o The third DIALOGUE.
of that Root -, And therefore the Hoot may be a
Branch. A father may fpring. from his, Son, and what
you pleafe.
Let us Entertain our felves a little with this Great
Invention, and Examine it particularly.
Pray what do you mean when you fay a Root of
the Earth? fl
SOC. I mean a Root that Grows in the Earth ,
and fo is calPd a Root of the Earth.
CHR. So you may fay a Root of fuch a Man's, who
owns the Garden, ot fuch a Gardner who planted it, of
fuch a one who Bejtow'd it upon you, and a hundred o-
ther ways. But is there no Difference twixt a Root
that belongs to a «**;», and the Ro»t of that »m# him-
feif? Twixt that which Grows in the Earth and the Root
of the EWj it felf ? Therefore tho' you may call a TW//>
A Root of the £*rf/;, yet you wou'd not call it,
THE Root of the Earth, now Chrijl is call'd THE Root
of D**-^, not A Root of David.. But pray what did
our ^«f/w mean when he call'd Chrift The Root of
David ?
SOC. He meant that Chrijl was a Branch of David's
Family.
CHtf . And when did you ever hear a Branch of a ftw*
call'd the Root of its Km/.
It is inextricable Nonfenfe. There is not a man in
the World, cou'd fpeak at this rate, or wou'd be un-
derftood if he did. That defigning to call 'John a Def
cendent or Branch of Robert, fhouid call John the Root
of Robert.
And it is impofTible for me to think that our Au-
thor did believe himfelf, when he made this Distincti-
on : And it is a full Demonrtration to me, That thefe
men feek not Truth, but are refolv'd to opprfe all Argu-
ments againil their own Opinion, tho' they were as char as
the. Light*.
But
Tfathird DIALOGV E. 71
But (Rev, 22. 16.) %efus } fays,. / am the Root and the
Offspring of David. Here is both Root and Branch.
This grows too hard for a Distinction, and cannot be
reconciPd any other way than as Christ is the Root of
David, according to his Divine Nature which Created
David, and f© David fprang from ChriH, as a Branch or
Offspring from its Root . And then according to Chnffs
Human Nature, He was the Son and Offspring of Da-
vid. As He is prophefied of. Ifa. 2 6. T^r /&*// coi
forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jejfe, and a Branch
(ball grow out of his Roots, But our Author will have
it, that the Branch was the Root, growing out of the
Root ; and the Rod was the Stem r which came out of
the Stem.
See now, upon the whole, what Caufe your Author
had to Conclude fo Triumphantly as he do's at the End
of his fourth Letter, p. \66. That our Lord CHRIST,
nor the HOLY SPIRIT, neither are, nor ever are called
GODs or GOD in Holy Scripture ; as alfo, that neither
CREATION (whether New or Old) nor any of the AT-
TRIBUTES of GOD are Afribed to our BLESSED
SAVIOUR. ;
Whereas the Main of his Arguments have been ( as
you have feen) to Ward of! thole Texts in Holy Scrip-
ture, which Allen be the Name and Attributes of God to
Both the other Pcrf )ns in the Bleffed Trinity ; and to put
other Senfes and Conjhu:tions upon them.
But then to Conclude from all this, That they are
not fo much as Called fo, after all • the Pains he has
taken to (hew in what S&nfe they are CalVd fo, is fuch an
Affurance as Contradicts it ietf 1 Has he not own'd that cbrijh caii'd
Chrifi is calPd che Word of God? And is it not faid in GoL
Exprefs words, fob. i. i. That the Word was God ? And
ver. 14. was made Fie (hi Is it not faid, 2. Cor. 3 17. . The ,^^*
The Lord is that Spirit? And is not the Spirit then'" ci11
Called God? In what Senfe is not now the Question.
That
72 The third D IALOGVE.
That we have feen already. But he fays, they 1 are
not fo much as CalVd fo.
SOC. I have now Heard you to the Anfvers my Au-
thor gives to thofe Texts alleag'd by the Trinitarians in
Proof of the Trinity and In-Carnation. It is fit you
fhou'd likewife Anfwer to thofe Texts he brings in Dif-
Proof of them. For this Ccmpleats the Work.
CHR. In what I have done Already, I hope I have
not only Clear'd thofe Texts againft: which he Difputes,
as to their own Genuine meaning ; but have Iikewiie
fhew'd, That our Interpretation of thofe Texts is fuppor-
ted by the Current Senfe of the moil Orthodox Fathers
before the fir ft Council of Nice ; and Confequently Vin-
dicated the Ante-Nicene Faith againft the Allegations of
your Author.
That the m- But before I come to thofe Texts which he Alleges
"vhiHn oT on k ,s fide, Let me Add to the Teftimonies of the Fa-
t\\tckurchhc-thers I have Quoted one Evidence of a Bitter Enemy to
fore the frjl Chn ft i an i ty, the Vifo but Ingenious LVClAN, who Liv'd
A^'prol'd a °out 170 years after Chrtft. A Man of his Sagacity y
from' iMcun. and who took upon him to Ridicule the Cbriftian Faith,
couM not but know what it was, as Then generally
OmPd and Profejs'd by Chriftians. Efpecially if (as St.
J trow in Catal. tells us) that he was once a Chriftian,
and turn'd Apoftat. Among other his Reproaches upon
Chrifiianity lie has thefe words in his Philopatris y
God Reigning on High y 'T-^we'^rfx Oily, /uctyzv, a^-
Great y Eternal, Heavenly, the C^plov, 8£cti'/wra, ijfo Fa'^?,
Son of the Father , the Spirit tsv^ij^ Ix. FaTePs on. Tropdji-
proceeding from the Father , pfyov, tv dot tcauv, *J i^ &£$
one out of Three, and Three T&ct&hi olfa. y> 77 Xiyea, tv
out of one I know not t^/cc, T£/..
4. That God is fpoke of in the
Singular Number.
The Objection of the Socinians,
That the Son cr the Holy Ghofi
are not called God in the
Creed.
XVIII. The Pretence of the Soci-
nians to Antiquity. Wherein
their Origin is {hewed to be
from 5/wo^ Magus , Continued
by after Heretich, Condemn'd by
the Church.
The Socinians no Church ! Differ-
ence 'twixt them and the Avi-
ans. Comparifon 'twixt them
and the Mahometans.
XIX. The Credit the Socinians Ex-
pect- by ATIedging fome Modem
Chriftian Writers as Favourer
of their Opinion.
1. Erafmus.
2. Grotius.
3. Petavius.
4. Epifcopius.
5. Sandius.
XX.
CONTENTS, Sec.
XX. A General View and Am-
plication of what has been faid.
i. The Word Cod in Holy Scrip-
ture is taken moft Commonly
in a Complex Senfe, as including
all the Three Perfons : And fome-
times it is taken Per finally for
the Father.
2^ The Sccinians hold a Trinity
more Vn account able than what
is held by the Chriflians.
■>. The Scsinlans own their Inter-
pretations of the H. Scriptures
to be Contrary to the Church.
4. Pretended Obfcurity in Scnpt/ire,
not the Caufe.
5. The Rule of Interpretation in
the Cafe of the Anthropromorphits^
will not ferve in Cafe of the
Trinity.
6. Nor in the Cafe of Trans-Sub^
ftantiation.
7. Concerning Myfteries*
Books Printed for George Strahw, at the Golden-BaR in Com-hill*
THE Scripture Account of the Eternal Rewards or Punifliments of all that
hear of the Gofpel, without an Immortality necefTarily refulting from the
nature of the Souls themfelves that are concerned in thofe Rewards or Punilh-
ments. Shewing Particularly, 1. How much of this account was difcovered by
the bed Philofophets. II. How far the Accounts of thofe Philofophers were cor-
rected, and Improved, by the Helleniitical Jews afiifted by the Revelations of the
old Teftament. III. How far the Difcoveries fore mentioned were improved by the
Revelations of the Gofpel. Wherein the Testimonies aJfo of S. IreneuszndTertid-
lion are occafionally confider'd. By Henry Dodwell M„ A. Author of the Epiitolary
Difccurfe.
THE prefent State of the Court of Rome, or the Lives of the prefent Pope
Clement the XI. and the prefent College of Cardinals, Translated from the
/talian Manufcript, never as yet made publick, with a Preface by the Publifher coiv
taining Ibme Remarks on the Rife and Nature of the College ©f Cardinals, on
the Maxims of their Government, and an account of the prefent Popes Elevation
to the papacy, and the moil: remaikable Occurrences in his Pontificate.
A Preliminary Defence of jthe Epillolary Difcourie concerning the Diitindion
between SquI and Spirit. In two Parts. I. Againft the Charge of favour-
ing Impiety. II. Againft the Charge of favouring Herefy. In the former is in-
ferted a Digrdllon, proving that the Collection of the Code of the Four Gpk
pcis in Trajins Time is no way Derogatory to the fufficient Atteitation of them;
By Henry Dod:vcll, M. A.
THE
FOURTH DIALOGUE.
A General Anfwer as to the Texts Urgd
by the Socinians, againft the Divinity of
Cbrift.
I
(i.) SOC. f~- g~^Hefe begin in the Hiftory, p. 4. where xvii
feveral Texts are Quoted to Prove n 3^%^ht
that the Father is Greater than socmim a-
C&?7/?. .'gainftthei?/;
CHR. That is anfwcrM in the Jthanafun Creed. That™*' ofch#
C&nf? is -'E^/i/ to the father, as touching His God-Head,
and Inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood:
To which I will add, from our Difcourfe, That He is
Equal to the Father in Nature, but Inferior in the CWer
of Nature, or in Relation. And this anfwers all the
Reafons and Scriptures he produces to §. 7. p. ii. wherein
he fpeaks of Chrifts Human Infirmities and Death ; for
thefe things befell C/r//? in His Human Nature, wherein
He was a Creature, Paffible, Improvable, Rervardab/e, &c.
SOC. But §. 7. he proves Cbrift to be a diftincl Per- P« "*
/?» from God. For which I fuppofe you thank him;
but I fee not how it ferves his Caufe.
B (2.) But
a Ue fourth D1AL0GV E.
(2.) But at the End of this §. p. 12. he intermixes art
?• i2- Argument from Reafon and argues thus. '77/ (fry the
SosinianX) as impofjible that the Son or Image of the one
true God, (hou*d Him/elf be that one true God, as that the
Sot} fljou'd be the Father, and the Image that very thing
whofe Image it is; which they take to be [imply Impoffible,
and Contradictory to common Senfe, which Religion came not
to Deflroy, but to improve.
CHR. What 1 have faid to you appears the clearer
for this Objection: .And (hews his miftakes. Firft, he
calls the Son the Image of God. If by the word God
here, The Father be meant (as it is often) then what he
fays is true, but then ther is no confequence in it, and the
Fallacy will appear by putting the word Father inftead
of the word God. For Example : 'TV/ as impoffible that
the Son or Image of the Father fbou*d himfelf be that Fa*
ther, as that the Son jhoifd be the Father, and the Image
that very thing rvhofe Image it is. All which is very
true, but makes nothing to his purpofe.
But now, if by the word God, you mean the one
God-head, or the Divine Nature, then his Aflertion is a
miftafce, viz. That the Son is the Image of God. In this
Senfe, He is not the Image of God, for He Himfelf is
God. But he is the Image of the Father, from whom
He took His Nature, and therefore tho' He has the
fame Nature with the Father, yet he is not the Father*
And we fee the lame in the Parallel of Mankind. I put
«*M.3. a Cafe. Mam begat a Son in his own Likenefs, after
his Image, and calPd his name Seth. And the wcrd Mam
fignifies Man, and fometimes is taken to mean Man, that
is Mihkind in General or the Human Nature, and fome-
times it means only the Firfi-Father, who had that for
his particular Name. In which Senfe only it is that Seth
can be call'd the Son or Image of Man, that is, of his
Father Adam. But otherwife he cannot be faid to be
the Son or Image of Mm, for he himfelf is Man, and he
canno£
The fourth DIALOGVE. 5
cannot be his own SON, or IMAGE. But the terms
of Father and Son refpecl: only the Perfons, not the Na-
ture of Man; and thus it is in God. And our Author* s
miftake arifes from not Confidering aright of this Unity
of Nature, and Diverfity of Perfons, which appear vifibly
both in the Divine Nature, and in the Human, which
was made after its Image and Likenefs.
SOC. At the End of §. 7. p. ij. he promifes many P . i*
Confiderations and Paffages of Scripture, which no lefs
than Demon ftr at it to be falfe, that ChriH is G^. And
the Demonftration is this, §. 8. Becaufe fo many Texts
exprefly declare, that, only the Father is God.
(j.) The firfthe brings is, John 17. 1, 2, $. Father, this
is Life Eternal, that they know Thee, The only True God,
and Jefus Chrifi whom Thou haft fent. Here, the Father
is call'd, The only True God.
CHR. But ther is a vaft Difference 'twixt faying, that
He is the only true God, and that He only is the true
God. There is but one only true God, or one Divine Na-
ture ; and each of the Perfons do partake of this Nature^
that is, is this one only true God. But then you muft
not fay of any of the Perfons, that He only is this God,
becaufe the other Perfons do partake of the fame Nature,
and fo are the fame God. So that the word only
makes nothing in this Argument. And faying the only
true God means no other than if he had faid, the True
God, or God flngle, without either the word True, or
only.- For we all agree, that ther is but one; True, God*
Thefe are the attributes which belong to the Divine Na-
ture, and Confequently to every Perfon who partakes of
it: And therefore they do not Diftinguifh one Perfon
from another, nor are they meant in any fuch Senfe in
this Text.
(4.) SOC. The next Text is u Cor. 8, 6. But to us
there is hut one God, The Father, of whom are all things.
B 2 CHR.'
4 The fourth DIALOGUE.
CHR; We fay there is but One God: and that the Fa-
ther is that God. And this Text fays no more. The Fa.
ther of whom are ail things means God in this Nature,
which includes the whole Trinity ; and fometimes it is
taken perfonally to mean only the Father, as has been al-
ready difcours'd. And this will anfwer the other Texts
he there brings.
(5.) SOC. §. 9- and 10. p. 14. and 1$. He objects,
why Chrifi ftiou'd have the afliftance of the Holy Gbott,
P. H. 1$. He Himfelf being God the Son.
CHR. Chrifi did fubmit himfelf to all the Infirmities
of our Nature that cou'd be diftinguifht from Sin. For
He came to be an Example to us. Which he had not
been, if his Divinity had Exerted it felf to the Vtmoft.
Therefore he was perfected, as we are, by the Vnclion
of the Holy Ghoft. ReceivM Baptifm from John the Bap-
tift 9 and fulfilled all Righteoufnefsy or Constitutions and
means of Righteoufnefs to which other men were Obliged.
He Increaft in Wifdom ; and afcrib'd to the Father and
to the Holy Ghoft the works which He did. Nay, more,
He fubmitted to receive Comfort and Affiftame from
Angels, and to be fappty'd in his Temporal Neceffities from
the miniflry of ww and women. In fhort, to be defpiSd
fujfer, dye, and be W/W. Leading us thro' every ftep of
our way to Heaven. Thus thereby approving Himfelf
to be the Captain of our Salvation, as the Scripture
Hc , x fpeaks, For it became Him for whom are all things, and
' by whom are all things , in bringing many Sons into Glory
to make the Captain of their falvation perfect, thro* fuffe-
I7 . r i n g Wherefore in aE things it behovid Him to be made
like unto His Brethren.
(6.) SOC. § ii. p. 1 f)y He fays, if Chrifi had been more
? . j 5. than a man, the Prophefies of the oldT eft anient, wou'd not
have defcrib'd Him barely, as the feed of the womau r the
feed of Abraham , and a Prophet like unto ikfo/w.
cm
The fourth DIALOG V E. 5
CHR. This mud be a willfull Miftake in our Author :
Becaufe he pretends to Anfwer many Texts in the Old
Te fitment which do plainly fpeak Chrift to be more than
Man : For Example, when Chrift was Prophefy'd of in
theie words. Vnto us a Child is born, unto us ' a Son is , r
given He jbdtl be calVd Wonderful!, Councellor, The 9 ' ' 7 '
mighty God, The Everlafting Father, The Prince of Peace, 1% I4 *
A Virgin fhall Conceive, and Bare a Son, and fhall call His
Name lmmanuel. That is God with us.
The Lord faid unto my Lord. By which Chrift prov'd, vfxi. no. x.
That He muft be more than the Son of a Man. If Wr. 22*45.
David call Him Lord how is He his Son ? And this Ar-
gument was fo plain as to fileace the very obftinat Jews.
SOC. But he anfwers thefe Texts afterward, and think*
ing them of no force, he does not quote them now.
CHR. That is begging the Queftion. However with-
out naming thefe, he fhou'd not have faid, That ther
was nothing in the Old Teftament, which fpoke of Chrift
otherwife then as a Man : Or that it defcrib'd Him barely
as a Man. The contrary to which himfelf muft know.
Thefe are all his Arguments againft the Divinity of The Ar
Chrift. Let us fee his Proofs as to the Holy Gho/l. They mentsVfhc
begin p. 16. And there he immediatly falls into his old s*mim _a-
contradiaions of proving the Holy- Ghoft to be God, and,^^;
not to be God ; to be a P erf on, and, not to be a P erf on. Holy Gbofi.
And which is extraordinary, he proves both by the very p- l6t
fame Argument.
(1.) He fays, that the Holy-Ghott, or Holy Spirit, is P . 18.
to be taken in the fame Senfe that we Commonly fay the That the
Uoly.Wifdom, or Holy.mil of God, or as he faid before. ^ ly G t * h f ^
p. 16. the Power of God ; and that they are fpoke n of f -as wer or wif.
one and the fame thing. dom of God*
And here (without his intention no doubt) he has p * '
falne upon the very divifion of the Faculties of the Soud,
and of the Perjons of God 9 Power f Wifdom, WtU.
But
6 The fourth DIALOGVB.
But now to his proofs. Where he fpeaks confident-
ly to himfelf, he goes nearer to prove The Trinity, than
what he himfelf woird be at p. 8j. which we have
Quoted before, he proves that God's Word, or Wijdom
and Power, is not fomething Different from God ; but,
being His Wifdom and Power, is God,
p. 17. And yet here p. 17. he fays, that a Manifeft di/linfiion
is made, as between GOD and CHRIST, [0 alfo between
GOD and the HOLY SPIRIT.
By the Holy-Spirit, as he tells us, is meant Gods
Power, and Wifdom, and Will.
Thefe he makes to be God. And to be manifeftly
diftinft: from God. And then thefe Three, Power, Wif-
dom, Will, Are the very three Perfons in God which
we have defcrib'd.
This in him was being led near the Trinity, even
while he was difputing againft it.
And it appears yet more in this, that when he endea-
vours to get off from this, he falls into manifeft contra-
dictions. For example, he fays, p. 16. That the Holy-GhoB,
or Spirit, is only the Power of God, at U jt not himfelf
God. And p. 17. that ^tis impoffibk the Spirit Jbou*d be
God himfelf.
And yet as before is faid, p. 8$. he gives the fame
teafoB, why the Word is not any thing Different from
God, becaufe it is the Power of God, which is God. Here
the Spirit or Power of God, is God. p. 17. it is impof-
fible the SPIRIT fbotSd be God.
The matter was this, p. 83. The Word muft be the
fame with the Power, and the Power, the fame with
God, to get over that unanfwerabk Text. The word was
God.
But p. 17. The Holy-Ghofc muft be Different from
God, to Hinder Him from being God.
And thefe contradi&ions are no way reconcilable but
in the True notion of One God, and Different Perfons.
SOC.
The fourth DIALOGUE. 7
$0C. The Spirit is obtain'd for us of God, by our f*0
Prayers; therefore it is not God. Luk. n. i$. How S piril%ot
much more fhaR your Heavenly Bather give the Holy tyz-tain'd of God
tit to them that ask html If we fay, thefe Texts are to^. ourPrayt
be underftood, not of the Perfon of the Holy Ghoft, but ////?. p. 19,
of His Gifts and Graces ; The Socinians readily confefs
it, -but they fay alfo, that if the Holy Spirit were at all
a Perfon, much more a God, His Gifts and Graces wou'd
be beftow'd by Himfelf.
CHR. If they be His Gifts, they muft be Beftow'd
by Himfelf, elfe they were not His Gifts ; for my Gifts
is what I my fclf Beftow, not what another man Be-
llows : So that your very Argument confutes its felf.
idly. They are Exprefly call'd His Gifts, and that they
are Beflow^d by Him. 1. Cor. 12. 8. For to one is Given,
by the Spirit , the Word of Wijdomyto another the Word
of Knowledge, by the fame Spirit-, to another Faith, by the
fame Spirit y to another the Gifts of Healing, by the fame
Spirit ; to another the working of Miracles ; to another
Prophejie ; to another Difcerning of Spirits ; to another
Divers kinds of Tongues ; to another the Interpretation of
Tongues : But all thefe worketh that one and the felf fame
Spirit, Dividing to Every Man fever ally as He Will.
Now as to the feeming Difficulty How thefe Graces
Ihou'd be the Gifts both of the Father and the Spi-
rit, they being two Perfons, it is eafily anfwer'd by
their being One God-, whereby, as before told, all the
Three Perfons are Joint as in their Natures, fo in all
their Operations ; tho' yet fome Operations are more Pe-
culiarly, but not Exclufevely, attributed to one than to an-
other.
And this is Remarkable in this very Chapter, verf. 4,
5, 6. where a Trinity of Perfons, and forts of Gifts are
plainly Diftinguifh'd. Now there are Diver f ties of GIFT ^ 9
hit the fame SPIRIT; And there are Differences of Ad-
miniitrations, but the fame Lord j and there are Dtverfi*
tses
8 The fourth DIAL'OGV E. *
ties of Operations but it is the fame God, who worketh
all in all. Here Gifts are attributed more Peculiarly to
the Spirit, who In fp ires Us ; Adminiflrations to the Lord,
who Governs Us; and Operations to God, who Gives
Us Power to Work, who works all in all in Us.
But now, to turn your Argument upon you, I defire
to know, how you will Reconcile the father's and the
Holy Ghofs beftowing Gifts, without making them fe-
veral Perfons? That is, how the Holy Ghili cou'd be-
ftow Gifts if He were not a Per/on? For our Difcourfe
now is only of Him. And if He were only the Gift,
and not the Giver, He cou'd not be faid to Bejlow. A
Gift does not Bejlow it felf.
Laftly, Reconcile or Condemn your own Seels, who own
the Holy Ghoft to be a Perfon ; and Bidle in his Con-
feffion cf Faith, Artie. 6. of the Hvly-Ghoft, calls Him Ex-
prefly, The Third Perfon in the Holy Trinity.
That no (3.) SOC. In the fame place he fays, Tha tin the Scrip -
Fryers are ture no Prayers are made to the Spirit.
made to the CHR> wj, erever God is Invok'd, the Spirit is Invok'd.
Nay more, He is often included in the term of Father,
when ever we fay our Father, by which the whole Tri-
nity is meant, who are jointly the Father of all Creatures,
but this has been obferv'd before.
SOC. §. 4. p. 19. he fays, The Scripture f peaks of God
as but one Perfon.
CHR. That is, where the Scripture fpeaks of one God,
he wou'd have it imply 'd, That ther is but one Perfon
in God; which the Scripture no where fays.
That Gal (4-) SOC. p. 20. he lays ftrefs upon God being fpoke of
is fpoke \n\athz fw^ular Number, which he thinks cou'd not be, if
. ^/berf" ;jr He had three ?*rfoms.
p. 10 CHR. This is no more than faying God is one,
which the Trinitarians affert as much as he. But God
is likewife fpoke of in the plural Number. As, let Vs
make Man, Gen, 1. 26, &c.
SOC,
The fourth D I ALO GV E. 9
SOC. He fays, that is according to the flile of a
Prince, who fays, We do this or that, when it means
only himfelf.
CHR. I deny that it means only himfelf. A Prince
takes that Stile to fhew he does nothing by himfelf \ that
is, without Council or Advice, and therefore his Ads are
the A6ts of a great many ; Or as he is a Body Politick,
which implies a great many, all of whom He Repre-
fents. And I fuppofe, none will fay, that any of thefe
Reafons has place in God, And therefore it is very Ri-
diculous, as well as Falfe-Reafoning, to pafs over the
moft weighty and ferious ftile of Scripture, upon the
Complements or Infirmities of Primes.
SOC. But he gives an Inftance of St Paul, who was p. 2U
no Prince, nor Temporal Great Man , who wrote 2
Cor. 10. 2. Some think of us as if we walked according to
the Flefh, which, he fays, St. Paul means of himfelf only.
CHR. I muft ask his Pardon. It feems plain to me
by thofe words, that St. Paul fpoke of a fcandal rais'd
againft more than himfelf, againft the Chriftians, or the
Apoflles. Which is undeniable from the two next Verfes.
For, fays he, tho* rve walk after the Fle/h, we do not war
after the Flefb : for the Weapons of our Warfare are not
Carnal. Does the Apoftle think we mean his own w>tr*
fare only, or not rather the Christ an Warfare ?
SOC. But tho' Princes fometimes ftile themfelves in
the Plural Number, Yet he fays, No Inflame can be p. a o
given in any Language, where more Perfons are meant by
the Singular Number, as, 1, THOV, ME, HIM, &c He
fays, Juch fpeaking is contrary to Cuflom, Grammar, and
Senfe, which are the Laws of Speech : Therefore the Holy
Scripture always fpeaking thus of God, either he is only one
Perfon ; or the Scripture are one continued Ungrammatical
Solid fm and Impropriety, and that in the chief Article of
Faith ; which no reafonable or good man can or ever will
Allow,
C CHR.
p. a 1.
I0 The fourth VIALOGVE.
CHR. Which no Reafonable, Good or Modesl man wou'd
aflfert in terms fo Irreverent of the Holy Scriptures, and
God their Author', and in fuch fulfome afTurance of his
own Wit.
And after all, this is not true. For in common Dil-
courfe the fibular number is as oft put for the plural,
as the plural for the fwgular.
It is as common to fay. Such a Kjng March'd, or
Fought, or Retreated, by which his whole Army is meant ;
as to ftile himfelf Vs and We.
When we fay, Man fell, Chrift came to redeem Man:
Do you mean only fome one particular Man I Or by
this Singular Number are not many men meant ?
But now give me leave to Retort this argument upon
him, What Grammar will he find for God's calling Him*
€en. 3 . itself, Vs, and faying, one of Vs, The man is become as
one of Vs. Abraham fpeaking to three Perfons, to fay,
1S.3. ^ Lord, if I have found favour in Thy fight — Pafs
not from Thy Servant, But wafh your feet, and reft your
felves and comfort your hearts And. They faid,
4. 9 . 10. 16. where is thy Wife? And He faid, / will certainly re-
17.. * return unto thee- — And the Men rofe up, and the Lord
faia\ Shall 1 hide from Abraham what / do ?
Here are three men fpoke of, and fpoke to both in
the fwgular and plural numbers promifcuoufly. This is
odd fort of Grammar.
By what Rule of Grammar will he conftrue this Sen-
tence?
John, 8. 5». Before Abraham was, I am. He wou'd do as the Jews
59. did, if he durft, caft ftonesat Chnjl for fuch Nonfenfe
or Blafphemy. And now muft the Scripture be one con-
tinued ungrammatical Solicijm, and Impropriety, and that
in the chief Article of "Faith, becaufe thefe and the like
Expreflions are out of the Road of common fpeaking,
and will not fit our poor Circumftances ?
Or
The fourth DIALOGUE. 1 1
Or if it mud be fo, unlefs thefe fayings are reconcile,
and if they cannot be reconcil'd to common Senfe, but
by the Doctrin of the Trinity ; Then here is an Invin-
cible Argument for the Trinity, made out of this Objection;
and that by conforming not only to Grammar, but to the
Cufiom of all Nations which under ft and to /peak Intelligibly
and Senfibly. With which excellent Rule our Author
«nds this Paragraph, beginning of p, 22, And all that
he has to fay out of Scripture, againft the Deity of the
Holy Ghojl.
SOC. He comes next to the Creed. And fays, the Son obje&i®»
and Holy Ghoft are not call'd God in the Apoftles Creed, from the
SOC. God is nam'd at firft as a Nature or Species to^'P** 2 "
Individuals, I believe in God. Then the feveral Perfons
follow in their order. The Father. His Son. The Holy
Ghoft. That the word God was not apply 'd to each of
them is no Objection ; our way of fpeaking at this Day
being the fame. As when we fay : God the Fat her ,
Son, and Holy Ghoft ! , wherein the Nature of God is inten-
ded to defcend to the Second and Third Perfon ; And if
this be fufficient with us, to exprefs our meaning, it was
much more fo, before the Arians had difturb'd the doclrin
of the Trinity ; which occafionM a farther Explication of
it in the Nicen and Athanaftan Creeds.
Let me once more retort upon this Author, and ask
him what tolerable Senfe, he will make of this Creed
upon his Scheme? That is, fuppofing the Holy Ghoft to
be nothing different from God, more than a man'spower
or wifdom differs from himfelf. Then he muft give
us fome good Reafon, how believing in the Holy Ghoft
Car s to be a diftinct Article by it felf, from that of
be ig in the Father? And put at that diftance from
Him too, as to have more than two thirds of the whole
treed interpofe. As to fay, I believe in a Man; And I
believe like wife in his Spirit. Which is the fame, as to
believe likewife in Himfelf.
C & I
I2 The fourth DIALO GV E.
I doubt this wou'd not pafs according to the Cufiom
of all Nations which underftand to fpeak Intelligibly and
Senftbly.
To divide a, man betwixt Himfelf and his Spirit,
and to make two Articles of thefe, that may do fome-
thing ; becaufe a man has a Body and a Spirit, and they
may be divided. But to divide God, who is all Spirit,
betwixt Himfelf and His Spirit ! And to put in the Son
betwixt them! And to make three Articles of thefe, can-
not be put into Senfible or Intelligible Language, by the
Cuftom of any Nations yet extant.
Nor cou'd they think this an accountable and reafona-
p.24. 25".. H e faith, as our Author inferrs the Socinians to be, from
this their Excellent and plain expofition of the Creed.
And now as a Conclufion §. 6. p. 24. he in a meek
and modeft way tells the Trinitarians that their Faith is
abfurd, and contrary both to Reafon and to it Self, and
therefore not only Falfe, but Impoffible; that it is, of all
others the moft Brutal ; and that not to Difcern it, is
not to be a man, &c. But of this fort of Treatment
we have Plentifull Store in your Author.
xvm SOC. You have Quoted Several of the Fathers before
TiepretenccAfce on your Side : We have as Ancient on our Side;
of the socini- Ariel it is fit our Evidence fhou'd be heard as well as
ans^ to Ami- y 0urs# Our Hijlory fays, p. 26. They whom we now call
**.*' SOCINIANS, were by the Fathers and firft Ages of Chri-
flianity caWd NAK.ARENS. They were alfo in thofe frli
times call'd Ebionites, Mineans, Samofatenians, and feveral
other Names he there reckons up.
CHR. They were fo call'd, and Condemn'd as Here-
£i(t. p. 26. ticks. Behold the Fathers of your Church !
But He joins the Aritns with the Orthodox again ft all
thefe, and fays, that, The writings of thefe Ancients are
all loft, being dejlrofd by MARIANS and CATHO-
LICKS.
So
77*? fourth VIALOGVE. 13
So that the Arians were Enemies to thefe Ancients ,
which will break their SucceiFion mightily, or make it
run under ground for many Centuries, till it broke
out again in Socinus Fifteen Hundred Years after
Chrift.
SOC. But what do you fay to the feveral names by
which they were call'd in the Primitive times ?
CHR. They were the names of feveral Hereticks, as
you will find in lrenaus, Eufebius, Theodoret, Epipbanius,
and others : And they ftand to this day Condemn'd as
fuch by the whole Chrift fan Church, I cannot Imagine
what advantage your Author propofes by this.
Neither does he tell us the opinion of thefe Ancient
Hereticks, as to the Queftion in hand, how they agree
with the Socinians, and yet deferv'd to be perfecuted, and
have their Books burnt by the Asians.
But that is no matter. The names are old names,
and found like Antiquity ; and every body will not ex-
amine whether they were Fathers or Hereticks : but
think this Opinion of the Socinians has been very An-.
cient.
But if Antiquity alone wou'd do his Bufinefs, I can
help him to an Elder precedent than any of thefe : Si-
mon Magus was the flrft broacher of this Do&rin, and
Father of all the Hereticks he has nam'd.
St. John fays, that many of thefe falfe Prophets were [ j hn 4.
gone out into the World in his time: And tells you, 2, 3.
what their Opinion was, viz. That Jefus Chrift was not
come in the Flefb. And he calls this the Spirit of Ami-
Chrift, which was to come into the World ; and it is the fame
with the Socman Opinion. That Chrift had no Being
before he was born of the Virgin : and therefore cou'd
not come in the Flefh. This Opinion was againft the
Arian as well as the Orthodox, and not Reviv'd till
Socinus.
SOC,
, 4 The fourth DIALOGUE.
p. 157. " SOC. Our Author tells you, that that is not the mea-
ning of that Text of St. John, but that this faying,
Came in the Fkfb (or, in Flefh, for fo 'tis in the Greek)
is oppos'd to thefe falfe Prophets and Teachers, that af-
firmed Chrift had not a Real Body of Flefh and Blood,
but a Spiritual, and confequently was not a true Man,
nor the Off-fpring of David. On the contrary, St. John
here teaches that Chrift is come in Flefh, or in the Flefh,
that is, was cloathed with a Real Body of Real Flefh.
CHR. I grant that Sr. Johns Words are full againft
thefe Hereticks. But will that excufe you ? This Text
is fo worded, as to Detect you both. For St. John does
not only fay, that Chrift was Flefh, but that He came
in that Body of Flefh.
SOC. I told you, That means no more than that he
was cloathed with a Body of Flefh.
CHR. But the Text fays that He Came.
SOC. Yes. He came fo cloathed.
CHR. Muft He not exift then before He came, and
was fo clothed? Was it nothing that came, or was cloathed}
Your Socinians confefs that Chrift was Flefh', but you
deny that He came to take Flefh upon Him, for you fay,
that He had no Being before He was made Flefh. But
cai. 4. 4. the Scripture fays, that God fent forth His Son, made of
nil. *. 7. a Woman, and that Chrift took upon Him the form of
a Servant, and was made in the likenefs of Men. Cou'd
He take this form and likenefs upon Him before he had
a Being? St. John fays not only that Chrift was Flefh,
but that He was in the Beginning with God, was fent by
God to take upon Him our Flefh, that He came from God
to do it, and that to deny that He came, is to be an
Antichrift, and how He cou'd come and be fent, and
take upon Him the form or likenefs of Men, and yet be
nothing, as you fay, before He was Born, this lies upon
you to Explain.
SOC.
The fourth D IALOGV EJ i S
SOC. I have told you all my Author fays. But
give me leave to purfue it a little farther; Is it not a
Common faying, That fuch a man is Come of fuch a
Family ? Yet this does not fuppofe that he had any Be-
ring, or that he really came before he was born.
CHR. I think it does. You cou'd not fay a Child
is Born, if it were not a Child before it was Born.
But you cou'd not fay, that Child took upon him the
form of a man : A man does not take upon him his own
Being.
SOC. But Levi is faid to be in the Loyns of his Fa- H .
ther, before he was born, and that the Jews came outio, 5.' 7 °
of the Loins of Abraham.
CHR. And is not that literally true?
SOC. It is true only as to the matter of their Bodies .*
For that really Came from their Fathers. The Soul is
fuppos'd by a Figure which takes the Part for the
Whole.
CHR. But Chrift," you confefs, came not by Corpo-
ral Generation, therefore He mud come fome other
way. And muft as really exift before He was Born,
as the matter of my Body did exift before I was
Born.
SOC. The fubftance of his Body He took from His
Mother, by which He was the Seed of David.
CHR. But fomethiog He took like wife from His'
Father, by which you confefs He is truely call'd the
Son of God. So that what He took from His Father
muft exift before He was Born, as. much as what He
took from His Mother did exift before.
SOC. You fay, That what He took from His Father,
was from Eternity.
CHR. Yes. But that fubftance which He took from
His Father, being Join'd to the fubftance which He
took from His Mother, is what we call His Incarna-
tion. As Generation is not the Begettiog of a Soul, but
the
i6 The fourth D I A L GV E.
the Joyning it to a Body. And without this you can-
not verify the Form which you your felves allow,
That He was Begotten of God. For there is Differ-
ence 'twixt Creation and Generation, We are all Created
by God, and are His Sons in that Senfe. But Chrift .
only is His Begotten Son, by which He partakes of His
Subjlance, and His whole and perfect Nature as ail Be*
gotten Sons do among us.
SOC. At this rate Chirft was twice Generated, once
from Eternity , and once at His Incarnation.
CHR. I grant it. For His Eternal fubftance which
He took from His Father being, by the Operation of
the Holy-Ghoft, Join'd in one Perfon with the Human
fubftance which He took from His Mother, is call'd
His Incarnation. And is likewife call'd Generation, as
he is call'd my Father who is the Inftrument of Join-
ing my Soul and Body together, not that he begets my
Soul, or it comes from him otherwife than as Joining
it into one Perfon with my Body. Thus Chrift is not
the Son of His own Spirit, otherwife than as it found
His Fleflj in the Womb of the Virgin, and join'd it to
His Perfon.
SOC. But why was His Human Generation performed
by the Holy GboB, whereas His Eternal Generation was
from the Father only, as you fay ?
CHR. Do not think I will take upon me to Explain
all the Hidden Myfteries of God, and this does no ways
concern the fubjecl: we are upon.; only that it proves
demonftrably, That the Holy Ghoft is God, becaufe if he
were not, Chrift cou'd not be call'd the Son of God from
His being a Perfon. For Begetting is the moft Perfonal
attion can be Imagined : Naked Vitalities cannot Beget a
man. Whatever Begets muft have Subftance ; Therefore
the Holy Ghoft mult be a Sabflance, and muft be God,
becaufe what He Begot is for that reafon y call'd the Son
Luk. .x« 2$. of Gi^i and Chrift muft likewife be God, becaufe he
partakes
The fourth DIALOGUE. 17
partakes of the Subftance of God. For, as before is faid,
this is the Difference twixt Creation and Generation-; in
Creation we partake of fuch fubftance as" God pleafes
to give us ; But Generation is partaking of his own Suh-
fiance who Generats us.
SOC. Then Chrift partakes of two Subftances of
God. Of the Fathers Subftance in His Eternal Ge-
neration, and of the Holy Gboft's in His Human Ge-
neration
CHR. The Subftance of God is not Divided among
the Divine Perfons. There is but One Subftance or Na.
ture which exifts in three Diftind Subfiftences or Perfons,
as has been faid before. And this Subftance being, by the
Operation of the third Perfon, United to a Human Sub-
ftance, is truely Generation.
SOC. Then Chrift partakes of this Subftance twice ;
once from the Father in His Eteranl Generation, and
once from the Holy Gholi in His Human . Genera-
tion;
CHR. A Man cannot partake anew of what he has
already. And the very word Human Generation, might
fet you right in this matter. For it was thrift's
Human Subftance which did partake, or was made
one Perfon with His Divine Subftance, by the Ope-
ration of the Holy Ghoft, as on Corporal Subftance
partakes, or is made one Perfon with one Soul or Spiri-
tual Subftance, by Corporal Generation.
SOC. Can one Subftance partake of another Sub-
ftance.
CHR. Nothing elfe but Subftance can partake of
Subftance, their being United fo as to make up one
Perfon, is call'd their partaking of one another. Chrift
did not take His Divine Subftance from the Holy Ghoft.
But, by the Operation of the Holy Ghojl, His Divine
Subftance was United into one Perfon with His Human
D Subftance
18 The fourth DIALOGUE.
Subftance, and His Human Sublhnce did partake of His
Divine Subftance, by the operation of the Holy Ghoft.
Thus, in refpect of Ms" Divine Subftance, the Holy
Ghoft did Unite it to His Human Subftance.
In refpecl: of His Human Subftance, the- Holy Ghoft
did- Exalt it into a Per final Vnhn with His Divine Sub-
ftance:
In both refpccls, He was Begotten, by' the Holy Ghoft.
But in different manners, according to Hir dirTsjrent Na-
tures. As is to be feen even in Human Generation, Thus
far towards framing in our felves fome notion of the
Myfterious Generation of Chrift in the Womb of
Virgin.
But there is an eafier anfwer to the Objection, for
you have heard in what has been faid before, that in
the Union of Two Natures in One Perfbn 9 . what ever
belongs to either of the Natures is verify *a of the whole
Per fin ; as we fay, that Man is Mortal becaufe his F
is fuch, and as truely we fay that he is Jnmortal be-
caufe hfc Soul is fuch. And by this Rule, we may tru-
ly fay, That Chrift was Begotten by the Holy Ghoft,
and was His Son, for fo-.fle was as to His Human
Nature, and like wife that He was not Son to the Holy
Ghoft'. But only -to the Father, from whom only he took
His Divine Subftance, for that is true as to His Divine
Nature, and both thefe are truly verify'd of His Perfon y
which is both.
SOC. Let us now, if you pleafe, return to our
Hiftory: For my Author lays ^rrefs upon -that. And it
is not the leaft pteufible 'oari of his, Book.
CHR. And there is nothing In his Book fhews the
weakncfs of his Caufe mare tfran this, for he there
confcfles, that/ which, if he had deny'd, wou'd have
been my greater!: task to have 'provM againft him, And
that is, That the SWtman Or iacT been all along
condemn'd in the Church, as Hereticaf; for all thefe were
Condi
The fourth DIALOGVE. i 9
Condemn* d Hereticks whom he dames, for that Opinion,
in the firft ilges of Chriftianity.
And to render them the more CondenVd, they Dif-
fer'd among themfelves, even in that Herefi?, as the So*
unions do at this day. Befides other Grofs and abo-
minable Errors which the Socinian-Vnitarians do abhor
as much as we do. Of thofe who call'd themfelves
Chrijtians, Simon Magus was the firft who appeared in
Difgrace of the Trinity. i • -
He was Converted and Baptiz'd by Philip. But had ao . Eptph."
Jo contemptable an Opinion of the Holy Ghofi, as to H3er - 2, - Iren «
think He might be purchafed with Mony. After tH^^t'S""
falling from one Error into another, he at laft ftt up his
Whore Helena for the Holy Gboft, and Inftituted beaftly
Carnalities for the Worfhip of God, wherin the Im-
pure Gnopcks follow'd him: Who boafted themfelves
the greater! Men of Reafon, whence they affum'd to
themfelves, the name of Gnofiisks, from their Exceeding
other Chriftians in Kjtowkge.
The Denyal of the Trinity is ever attended with o-
ther Errors, which appeared in Simon Magus, who deny-
ing the Trinity did like wife hold that the World was
made by Angels, held Magic and Idolatry Lawful, flighted
the Law of Mojes as not being from God, and allow'd
of promiscuous- Manages and all fenfuaiity.
The firft our Author names in his Lift of the Soci-
nian Fathers, are the Nazarens. A fort of Chriftians who
affected that name Rather than to be nam'd after Chrifi' Id H
or Jefus. Epiphanius tells us they were perfect Jews, 2?. Theod. :
they retain'd Circumcifion, and the Iudaical Rites, and K ^ r ^- lab -
diflfer'd from the Jews only that they believ'd in Clrrifi. 2 ' c ' 2 '
They us'd a Gofpei which is call'd the Go/pel of
Peter.
The Ebionites, whom our Author reckons next, fo
called from Ebion, held that Chrifi was born of Jofeph
as well as of Mary (which our Modern Socinians do abhorr)
D 2 they
7Q The fourth DIALOGV E.
una. they hVd according to the Moafical Law, and receiv'd
only the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, but they call'd
the Apoftle an Jpoftat. Symmachus, whom our Author men-
tions, was one of thefe that Tranflated the Old Tefta-
ment out of Hebrew into Greek. Ther are others like-
wife who are call'd Ebiomtes, who in all other things
agree with the former; but they fay that Chrift was
born of a Virgin, they ufe only the Gofpel according
to Matthew, and obferve both the Jemjh and the Chri-
stian Sabbath, Irenaeus (adverf. Haeref. 1. $. c. 4. p. 257.)
reckons Cerinthus, and before him the Nicolaitans, who
had been put in with the reft, but that they are nam'd
Rev. 2. 15.
ib. s. He tells you that Paulas of Sawofata was Condemn'd
ib.cn. £>y an Epfcopal Council AfTembled in his own City of
Antioch-. And Theodoret fays farther, that he publickly
Renouncd this Error.
And that by the Providence of God, thefe Herefies
were fo extinguifhed, that their very Names were not
known to many.
But now it is thought a fit Seafon to Revive them
again.
And fince it muft be. Behold the Original of the.
Socinians, and the Fathers of their no Church I Such Lewd
and Scandalous Hereticks, as I am fure any Modeft
Socinian will ftart and be amazed when he fhall reflecl:
from what fort of Men he has deriv'd his Faith, and
adventur'd to differ from the whole Catholick Church of
Chrift, not only in this, but in all former Ages.
&£. p. 27, SOC. Eufebius (Hifto. 1. 5, c. 28.) and Theodoret (Hxv.
Fab. 1. 2. c de Artem.) fay, that thefe Ntzaret/s con-
ftantly affirmed, that they derived their DocVin from the
A potties of our Lord, and that it was the general Do
clrin of the Chutch, till the Popes Victor and Zjphyrin,
fet themfelves to root it up.
CHR.
The fourth D I A L G V E. if
CHR. They fay that the Nazarens affirm'd this, and
do not all Hereticks the fame ? Did ever any Man Con-
demn himfelf? Do not even Quakers, Muggletonians, and
all pretend to the Scripture f Did not the Devil himfelf
quote Scripture againft our Saviour >
But why does not your Author tell how Eufebius,
in the fame Chapter, proves this their Allegation to be
wholly falfe, and without any Ground? Firft from the
Scripture it felf, and next from thofe who wrote before
Viftor or Zjphyria, as Juflin y Miltiades, Tatianus, and
Clemens, Irentus, Melito and many more in all whofe
Books the Divinity of Chrift is Eftablifh'd, that He is
both true God and Man. And he ftands in Admiration
at the Impudence of thefe Nazarens, who cou'd pretend
that this was the general Do&rin of the Church before
Victor and Zjphyrin.
He tells us likewife of another Practife of theirs,
which is of great ufe to have difcover'd, that is, That
they did boldly adulterat the Holy Scriptures, and re-
jected the Rule of the Primitive Faith. And he proves
this by a very ftrong Argument, viz. That their Copies
did not agree among themfelves, fome of which he there
reckons, as that of a Jfclepiades, Tbeodotus, Hermophilus^
and ApolloniuS) which laft does not agree with it felf,
for thefe Copies which were written before, differ from
thofe which he wrote afterward. And Eufebius fays, That
they cou'd not deny this to be done by them, becaufe
the Copies were written with their own hands, neither
did they receive them from thofe who taught them the
Chriftian Faith, nor cou'd they fhow the Copies out
of which they tranfcrib'd theirs.
Therefor they plainly own'd that they had mended jhoiHar,.
the Scriptures, adding fome things, and taking away o- F db - L 2 - c - 5
thers, to make them more Intelligible. Nay, fome of
them did not only thus adulterat the Scriptures, but
abfolutely
„ The fourth DIALOGV E.
absolutely reje&ed the Law and the Prophets. Thus Eu-
febiusi and Theodoret.
ffifl.vnitt. SOC. Victor (fay the Socinians) began to perfecute the
P- 2 ?' Apoftolick Do&rin of one God, or, what is the fame,
2i? that God is one, in the Year 194. but with little Suc-
P 2 ' cefs till that which was afterwards the Do&rin of the
Ariam grew into general Credit and Acceptance.
CHR. Victor Excommunicated thefe Hereticks, which
your Author calls a Perfection. Victor himfelf was under
Perfecution of the Roman Government: And he had then
no Civil Sword to Perfecute any other.
SOC. My Hiftorian fays, That Victor's, or other In-
deavours had little Succefs againft thefe Nazare,,s, &c.
CHR. Witnefs what you have heard juft now out of
Theodoret, That they were fo bury'd in Oblivion as that
their very names were not known to many. For which
he rejoyces and blefleth God.
SOC. My Author names Juft. Martyr, and Origen, as
raifing the Honour of the Son higher than the plain and
ftmple Dcctrin of the Naz,arens-, but yet not fo high as
the Council of Nice, by Attributing to the Son Eternity,
&c.
CHR. Your Author Quotes nothing out of thefe Fa.
thers. He requires us to take his Word. But I think
I have given you fufficient Teftimony of the Faith of
both thefe Fathers, in our Examination of the Texts of
Scripture. And if you wou'd have further Satisfaction,
I refer you at your leafure to Dr. Ballh Defe«Jio fidei
Ntcex*. Printed at Oxford. 1685. There Sect. 2. c. 9.
you have Origens Doftiin as to the Divinity .of the Son
of God vindicated to be Catholick, and plainly agreeable
to the Nicene Faith. And Sect. }. c. 2. Juft in Mtrtyrs
Dottrin as to the Eternity of the Son is explain'd.
SOC. Let us then proceed with our Author. He
tells us a Lamentable ftory how Low they are now
brought, that neither the Nazeren Faith, nor the Arian,
or
The fourth DIALOGV E. 23
or Nicene (truly fo call'd) are openly profeft in the
Territories of Chriftian Princes and States, except in a
few obfcure Towns.
CHR. BlefTed be God, That the Nazeren and Art an
Herefies have long been banifrYd Chriftendom, almoft
as much as what Theodoret faid, that their very names
have not till of late been known to many, at' leaft a-
mongft Us.
But it is a fad and diimal Profpetl: of our Sins,
that God furTers thefe Tares to appear now again ; and
this ought to bring us to fpeedy bethinking our felves,
wherein we have fain fhort of our Chriftian Principles,
and fearching into thofe provocations, and returning from
them, which other wife may root up our Religion, and
Deftroy Chriftianity among us.
But with what ArTurance can your Author put in
the Nicene Faith as banifh'd Chriftendom, with the Na-
zaren or Socman, and the , Art An Faith? Is not the Creed
of that Council of Nice read in the Chriftian Churches.
SOC. You except the Sociniim I hope.
CHR. They are no Chunk Providence has not per-
mitted them to come to the very name of a Chriftian
Church „ i They look like a Blot or an Objection only
in Chriftianity. The 0Jf M Vnitar. cells us, That their
Faith is no where openly profeft in the Territories of
Chriftian Princes and States, except in a few Cities of
^Ivania, and fome in the Vnited-Nether lands t which
allows of all Religions^ that, will advance Trade. He pas ' 2 °*
fays there are many of them in the Turhijh, and other pag. 3©;
Mahomet cm and Pagan Dominions. It feems God has
banifht them from Chriftendom, only left fome, as of the
Canaamtes,, to keep us in exercife, leaft we fhou'd forget
our Chriftian War.
' jt tho' they are fo low now yet they fay in
Ancient times they were much ftronger, The Arians
.: very' High once,
CHR-
24 The fourth DIALOGVE.
CHR. Indeed God did fuffer them to make great In-
' roads upon Chriftianity ; and to have favour at Court,
and raife Perfecutions againll the Othodox.
SaIS? But he ftil1 moft % nall y and Glorioufly preferv'd
tfwrfSocinians The Faith, and, after fome contefts, Crown'd it with
mi a com?*- vi&ory over Arius and His Herefie to this Day.
SodnSn And befides the Modern Unitarians, cannot be call'd Ari-
.tfwiMahome-4^, nor have title even to his Antiquity.
tanifm. The ArUm fayj That chrift was Generated before
Hifr. vniu. the World ; and in procefs of time became Incarnat in
P- 33- our Nature.
The Socinians deny that He had any exiftence before
He was born of Bleffed Mary.
Again the Avians fay, That the Holy Gboft is the Crea-
ture of the Son, and fubfervient to Him in the work
of Creation.
And the Socinians fay, The Holy Spirit is the Power
and Wifdom of God which is God.
But Mr. Bidle, and thofe that follow him, take the
Holy Spirit to be a Perfon, chief of the Heavenly Spirits,
prime Mini ft er of God and Chrift.
But notwithstanding of thefe material Differences the
Hiftorian includs all thefe under the Name of Vni-
, pag. 34* tarians % becaufe, fays he, they agree in the principal
Article, that there is but one God, or, but one who is
God.
And in this fenfe we claim the Name of Unitarians
as much as any. None affert more than we the Unity
of Gods Nature, which cannot be more than One ; we
fay that is but One God or One Nature which is God.
But whether that Nature may not admit of feveral
Per/onsy is another Queftion, and medles not with the
Unity of the Nature. But your Different Sets of Uni-
tarians know not what to make of the Divine Perfons 9
The Socinans Differ from the Arians both as to the Son
and the Holy Ghof. And therefore can in no Juftice
derive
The fourth DIALOG V"E. 25
Derive themfelves from them. Tho', if they cou'd, as
will be further fhewn, it wou'd do them little Service.
But they neither have Unity with Arias, nor among
themfelves, no, not as to the ObieO: of their Worfhip,
they have not the fame God ; fome of them, at this day,
making the Holy Ghoffi to be God, others to be only
a Creature, Some that he is a Ferfon, others only as a
Quality. &C.
SOC. But my Author fays, that the Arians and Socini- p> 34#
am efteem of one another as Chriftian Brethren and True
Believers,
CHR. It is impofFible they fhou'd think one another
to be True Believers, unlefs all the bovefaid Opinions
can be True, or that it is not Material whether the Ho-
ly Ghoft be God, or a Creature ; whether Cbrift had, or
had not a Being with His Father before His Incarna-
tion.
And for tfyeir being Chriftian Brethren ; If it be only
the word Cbrift that does it, then all who acknowlege
the name of ChriH muft come in, let their Opinions of
Him be what they will, tho' fome think Him GU,
others only a Man.
The Alcoran {peaks thus of Him. u The Mefftah, Jefus Tranfi.Ea-
44 the Son of Mar)i, is a Prophet, and an Apoftle of God,& li(h Lond *
" His Word, and His Sprit, which He fent to Mary. ^l'^%
" The Angels faid to Xjchary, thou fhall have a Son
61 called John, he fhall affirm the Mefftas, to be the
« Word of God.
ki The Angels faid, O Mary, God declareth unto thee a
" Word, from which fhall proceed the Mefftas, named p * s4 '
es J e fe s or (as it is in the Latin Tranflation of D.
Partus Abbas Cluniacenfis put out by Theodor. Bibliander) A ™™' 5<
Maria tibi fumus nunci] gaudium cum vet bo Dei, cujus^' * 3 *
somen e(i CHRISTVS JESVS, filius MarU, Qui eft fa-
des omnium gentium, hoc fceculofuturo. Here the Alco-
r.m fays, the name of the Word of God is Cbrift Jefus,
E That
26 The fourth DIALOGV E.
That He is the Face of all Nations, which the Anno-
tate* obferves, to be a parallel Phrafe to the Defire or
Expectation of the Gentiles, and other like Appellations
of Chrift, Gen. 49. and Chap. 22. Efay. ii. and Zjch. 3.
Hag. 2. And He is the Face of all Nations, fays the
Alcoran, not only in this World, but in the World to
come.
So that if fpeaking Great and Honourable things of
Chrift makes a man a Chriftian, the Mahometans are as
Good Chrijlians as the Socinians.
SOC. If they did acknowledge the Scriptures, it might
go a great way.
CHR. They do acknowledge them, only they take
the Liberty, as you do, to Interpret them Differently
from the Catholick Church, Thus we read in the Alcoran.
c.4*P*$ x *0 you that have knowledge of the Scriptures ! Believe in the
Alcoran, that Confirm eth the old and new Teftzment.
f. $. p. 75- He fThe Lord) [hall fay to Jefus, J ejus Son of Ma-
ry, remember thou my Grace towards thee and thy mother,
I ftrengthned thee with the Holy Ghofi thee did I inftruci
in SCRIPTVRE and Knowledge, the OLD TESTAMENT
and the GOSPEL. Again, I will teach him the SCRIP-
c^.p. 34. TVRE, the Myfienes of the Law the OLD TESTAMENT
? * 35 * and the GOSPEL. And the Common Appellation which
the Alcoran gives to the Jews and Chriftians, is, ye
that know the SCRIPTVRE! And it provokes them
to Difpute out of the SCRIPTVRE. ye that know
the SCRIPTVRE come with words alike true between
you and us ; do I Worfhip other than God? Be ye Wit-
neffes that we believe in God, O ye that under ft and SCRIP-
TVRE Difpute not the Law of Abraham, to wit, if he
Obferv'd the OLD TESTAMENT, or the GOSPEL ; they
were taught after him, perhaps you will acknowlege your Er-
ror ; ye that have Difpute d what ye know not ! Abraham
was no Jew nor Chriftian, he profejfed the Vnity of God,
he was a true Believer, and vot of the number of Infidels,
The
The fourth D IALO GV £. 27
The People, and particularly tbofe that followed him of his
Time 3 as alfo the Prophet MAHOMET, an A all true Be*
lievers have known the Truth of his haw ye that
know the SCRIPTVREl Do not Mdicioufly conceal the
Commandments of God Obferve exactly what you have
learned in SCRIPTURE, and what you read Remem-
ber that He {God) taught you SCRIPTVRE and know-
lege, and that after this came a Prophet, that confirmed the p. 36.
Doctrine that was taught you, that you might believe His
Words.
Thefe are the words of the Alcoran: And you fee
they make no more of Mahomet, than a Prophet who
fucceeded Chrifi, as Chrifl fucceeded Mofes; And as Chrifl
confirm'd Mofes Law, fo Mahomet Confirms the Gofpel
of Chrifl. The latter (till confirms the former. Say to
them, (fays the fame Chapter of the Alcoran) we believe p. 37^
in God, in what He hath infpired into us, in what He
infpired into ABRAHAM, ISMAEL, ISAAC, JACOB,
and the TRIBES, in what was ordained by MOSES, by
JESUS, and generally all the Prophets from God. Such
as (hall be Impious towards JESVS having believed the
BOOJ^JS OF MOSES, and fhall augment their impiety against
MAHOMET, fhall Err Eternally, And there is a great
Deal more to the fame purpofe.
SOC. At tliis rate they advance Chrifl beyond Ma-
homet.
CHR. Only, That Mahomet was a later Prophet, and
fo the laft MefTenger from Heaven. Otherwife they do
not fpeak fuch things of him as they do of Chrifl. They
acknowledge Chri/i to be born of a Virgin, by the Ope-
ration of God, in the fame terms with the Scripture;
They fay not fo of Mahomet, whom they do not call
the Meffias, the Word of God, and the Face, or Lord of
the World to come, as you have heard the Alcoran fpeak
of the Lord Chrifl.
E .2 SOC*
2 8 The fourth VIALOGVE.
SOC. Wherein then do they differ from the Chrijlian
Church ?
CHR. In the fame points which the Socinian s do. They
allow not the Trinity nor Divinity of Chrift. And they
Interpret thofe Texts which fpeak of the Trinity and
Incarnation of the Wordy as the SocinUm dor
Momi p. And they acknowledge not the Satisfaction of Chrift,
*• but they put him into the number of Inter ce^ors with His
Divine Majejly : Which are exactly the Socinian Te-
nets.
And I wou'd not have you afnam'd of it, but accept
Mahomet for one of the Fathers of Socinianifm. He is
not half fo Scandalous, nor fo Heterodox as Ebion, and
Tbeodothn, and that firing of Hereticks whom your Hi-
ftorian has mufter'd up for the Primitive Founders of
Socinianifm in its purity. Some of thefe us'd a different
Gofpel from ours, others rejected all our Scripture, but
fome parcel that pleas'd themfelves, they corrupted the
Scripture* and it being Prov'd upon them under their
Hands, they call'd it Mending and Improving the Scrip-
ture. Some, of them wou'd not allow Chntt to be Born
of a Virgin, but that He was begot by Jofeph, as other
Men are. And many other things which I will fhew
you by and by, and which grate the Ezvs'even of a
Socinian now,,
Mahomet is much more Chriflian than thefe, and an
exprefs Unitarian, but thefe are not fo well known in
the World now as Mahomet is. Therefore you wou'd
not own Mahomet to be of your Party, leaft the Peo-
ple ihou'd Stone you, for they have all a great Averfion
to Mahomet, But I allure you, that thefe Primitive Anti-
Trinitanan Hereticks were as odious to the Chrift ians
then, as Mahomet is now. W 7 itnefs St. John quitting the
Bath where Cerintlms, one of the Ring-leaders of thefe,
came in, faying, he wou'd not ftay in a Place where
ther was one of fuch Anti-Chriftian Principles, leaft a
Judge-
The fourth DIALOGUE. 2?
judgment fhou d overtake him for being in fuch Com-
pany.
Mahomet Succeeded Arius, and fet up his Dochin,
which is Contained in the Alcoran, with fome Additions.
And it is Obfervable, that where Arianifm moM: prevaii'd,
there Mahometifm came in and profperM. That Men
might Read their Sin in their Punifhment, by the Pro-
grefs of their Wickednefs, and having once Departed
from the Chriflian Faith, can now find no Stop or Re-
medy.
And as Mahomet Improved Arianifm, fo the Socinians
have Exceeded even the Alcoran, in their Contempt of
Chrifl, as I have fhew'd, bringing Him lower, and ma-
king Him more a Meer Mm than the Alcoran do's.
SOC. I muft tell you, that notwithstanding all you xix.
have faid, we have fome of your Modern and Celebrated. "^ c F e :
Chriftian Writers, who Favour our Opinion. And our * s ^Ja by
Hijlory Names three. or four of them. Aiiedging
CHR. This you Urge not, I fuppofe, as an Argument m J%? c .^ em
11 •> 1 P • r in ;• ^ >> r Chrifhan
onely that it woud Gain tome Credit to your Game, wrmrs^n-
'Tis well he can Name no more: But that you mny vou ^ rs ? f .
not Lofe any Advantage, I am willing to hear whom their opmm
he Names.
SOC. He names two of the Church of Rome, and two
of the Reformed, with a fifth one Sandius, whom he
calls the Arians Hifiorian.
The firft he names is Erafmus, who Liv'd and Dy'd mfinus*.
in the Communion of the Church of Rome. Yet he was
not a Bigot Paj?ift, as he was far from being a thorop
Proteftam. His great Wit led him from many Errors of
Rome. He begun well, but it was left to others to Finifb.
Yet might he be Vindicated in a great Meafure from what
your Hiltorian lays upon him, but that is not our pre-
sent bufinefs. Neither does what is here alledged, prove
him to be either Arian, or Socinim. For tho' Phil. 2.
6. be. a Principal Argument of the Fathers againft- the
Arians 7
3 o The fourth DIALOGUE.
Avians, and tho' Erafmus flhou'd fay (for your Author
quotes no place where he fays it) that this Text did
not prove againft the Avians, yet it is no Confequence,
that Therefore no other Text does prove it. One Man
may think that a proof, which another does not.
And as to his fecond Proof from what Erafmus fays
upon Epb. 5. 5. I do not find in him what your Author
fays in that place. Yet, if he fatd it, viz. That the word
God us*d Abfolutely, always fignifies the Father, this
wouM not prove him a Socman, For we grant the
word God Frequently to mean the Father, as 1 have al-
ready told you, But that it does not always fo, you may
fee Col. 2. 2. where the Apoftle fpeaks of the My fiery
of God, and of the Father, and of Chnfl. Where the
word God, us'd Absolutely is diftinguiflfd from the la* her,
as from Chrift, and this is there call'd a Myftery; which
it were not, if it were fpoken all of one Fevjon, as you
wou'dhave it: But on the other hand, where it is not
fo Diftinguifh'd, we grant that it Always means the Ba-
ther, but not in Exclufion of the other Pei fons : For the
word God us'd Abfolutely, means the Divine Nature^
which Includes all the three Per fons. He next quotes
Erafmus's Scholia on the third Tome of St. Jeromes
Epiftles, but he names not which Epiftle, that you may
not find it without reading him all over He fays Erafi
rnus there denies the Aruns to be Hereticks, and that
they were Superior to our Men in Learning and Eloquence.
To which we muft demur till he quotes the place.
But 1 am fure if he fays the Arians are not Hereticks, he
Contradicts himfelf, for in the fecond Tome of St. Je-
romes Epiilles, in his Argument of the Epiftle adverfus
Lucifer umP s p. 1 $4. Edit. Bafil 15 $7. he fays, that
no Herefy did more grievoufly afflict the Church,
than that of the Avians. And in his Paraphrafe upon
John 21. no Trinitarian can fpeak more full and ex-
prefs than he does. He calls Chrift, " ex Deo vero,
" verus
The fourth DIALOGV E.
u verus Deus : Very God, of very God, That He was the
u Eternal Word, with the Eternal Father, and that this
" Word, did fo come forth from the Father as never
f? to part from the Father. Neither did he fo adhere
* to His Father as an Accident adheres to its Subftance,
li but He was God of God, He was God in God, He
6i was God with God, becaufe of the common Nature
ic of both their Divinities. Thefe two who were alike
il in all things, nothing did diftinguifh but the Proper-
" ty of the Begetter, and the Perfon Begotten. And tho'
" this Word was God Omnipotent, of the Omnipotent, yet
'' being diftinguifh'd by the Property of His Perjon,
il He was with God the Father not in any Diflimilituds
" of Nature. Neither was He Made, or Created by the
il Father-, but by this His own Word, Co-eternal to
*' Himfelf, the Father made all things, that He did make,
" whether Vifible or Invifible; by the fame He Governs
" all things, by the fame He reftores all things, not ufing
" Him as an Instrument or Minifter, but as a Son of the
" fame Nature, and fame Power with Himfelf. So all
" things whatever are, came from the Father as the But
being anfwer'd by J. Crellius, he not only never reply'd,
bjt thank'd Crellius for his Anfwer ; and afterwards
publi il>,
3 8 The fourth D IALOGV E.
publi filing fame Annotations on the Bible, he interpreted
the whole according to the Mind of the Socinians?
CHR. You have had a Tafte of thefe Annotations,
and whether they be wholly according to the Mind of
the Socinians ; and from hence you may guefs at the
truth of the other part of his Allegation : But if you
wou'd. have full fatisfaclion, confult Grotius's Works
of that Edition I have juft now narn'd ; and there before his
defence of the Catholick Faith as to the Satisfaction of
Chrift againft Fauftus Socinus, you have 'his Letter to
Ger. Voffius clearing himfelf as to this matter of his An-
fwer to Crellius, and his Faith, both as to the Trinity,
and the Satisfaction of Chrift, and vindicating himfelf
from the Imputation of Socinianifm.
It is a ftrange thing that you will make a Socinian of
a Man, who writes againft Socinus by Name ; and throws
it off as an Afpertion to be thought to be a Socinian.
Nay he not only clears himfelf, but fays of Holland and
JVeft-FrieJland that none there did Defend Socinus. Nemo
ibi hactenus inventus eft qui Socinum Defender et (Tom. \.
Lond. Edit. p. 112.)
reuvius. SOC. Let us go to the next. My Author fays, That
mft. p. 32. £> Petavius, the moft Learned of the Jefuits, has gran-
ted that generally the Fathers who liv'd before the Nicene
Council, and whofe writings are preferv'd, agree in their
Doclrin concerning God with the Nazarens or Socinians,
and concerning the Son our Lord Chrift, and Holy Spirit
with the Arians.
CHR. This is a Condemnation of the Socinians : For,
as before is told, they differ exceedingly from the Arians,
both as to ChrsTt and the Holy Ghoft, the Arians make
the Holy GhoH a Creature, the Socinians fay that he is
nothing different from God, but is God. The Arians are
for Chrift's Pre exist ance before He was Born of the
Virgin ; the Socinians fay, that He had no Being before
He was Born of the Virgin^ &c.
And
The fourth 1)1 A LOG V E. i9
And if the Anti-nhene Fathers were for the Avians in
thefe Points, then it is a Demonftration that they were
againft the Socinian Opinion. So that (lands Condemn'd
on all Hands.
But your Author has Quoted no particular Father, only
fays it in the General; And I have fhown you in £».
j'ebius, the names of feveral of thefe Fathers, whom he
Quotes againft the like Allegation of the Soc/n/ans; and
I have before fhew'd you, that the Tenets of the Ante-
mesne Fathers were fully on our fide, in the Examination
of the feveral Texts which prove the Trinity. But your
Author does not Quote the place, where Petavius fays
what he alleges from him, and confidering your Author's
Ingenuity in other Quotations which I have examined,
he may be juftly fufpe&ed in this. But I do not think
it worth the while to fearch over Petavius's Works for
it, becaufe I know it is a common Topick with the Pa-
pifls to difcredit tthe Ancient Fathers, and run all into
the Authority of what they call the prefent Church. And
therefore if your Author cou'd find a Jefuit faying fo, it
wou'd be no great Argument. For I allow the Papifls
and You to agree in a great many things, even when you
feem to be moil contrary to one another, as your dear
Friend Grotius has obferv'd, who makes the like diffe-
rence 'twixt Popery and Socinianifm, as 'twixt Tyranny,
and unbridled Licentioufnefs. (oper. Grotij. Londini. 1679,
Tom. ?. p. 112.) this he fays in anfwer to Sibrandus, who
obferv'd that the Socinians had rather take part with the PA-
PISTS than with the REFORMED.
SOC. The next my Author Quotes for a Socinian, is npifcopius
of the Reformation, it is Epifiopius : Who is he fays, fo p. 34. *
much efteem'd by the Englifi Divineso
CHR. And defervedly for a Learned Man. But now
for your Proof.
SOC-
+ o The fourth DIALOGUE.
SOC. My Author Quotes the Book and Chapter in
him. Epi\co. fuftit. Thiol 1. 4. c. 52, 3?, 34. and he fays
that Epifcopius (eerns to be Arian.
CHR\ He is more modeft witff Epifcopius than he was
with Grotius by much. Grotias was 4// owe, and *£•
folutety Socinian Epifopius only /**«** ft? £ s, or otherwife being heedlefly granted might
carry his Caufe. Therefor in anfwer to him, we fay,
with Epifcopius, that the Father is firft in Order, but not
in Time. And Epifcopius fays nothing in this, diftant
from the Caihdick Church.
SOC. But he fays, that to make three equal Perfons
in God, or in the God-head, is to make three Gods.
CHR. That is, fo Equal, as to have no Superiority of
Relation among them, which we do not fay. We fay,
they
The fourth DlALOGV E. 41
they are Equal in their Natural VerfeBlons ; but not fo •
in their Natur-al Relations. And in this E ptj 'cop ius does
not differ from the Church.
SOC. He denies that the Lord Chrijl is the Son of
God by fubttanual Generation, from the Fathers Substance
or £ffence.
CHR. He does not deny it. He does indeed find fault with
defining the Modus or Manner of it, according to all the
Extravagant Invention of the Schools, which he reckons
up. c. 11. and they are indeed Extravagant andmoft Dan-
gerous, as Epifcopius there fets forth, but determins nothing
only that fuch Queftions ought not to be ftarted, are
not neceflary to be believ'd, becaufe not Reveal'd, and
have bred much trouble in the Church, whofe Creeds at
firft were plainer and fhorter than of after Ages. But
if the ftarting of Herefies impos'd that fatal necefTi ty
upon the Church, where will the blame lie r* It is a great
Misfortune to be forc'd to fight at all, but if my Life
be Aflaulted, I muft choofe the letter Evil.
I think it a very great hurt to the Church, and a Judg-
ment fent from God, that this queftion we are now up-
on fhou'd be broach' d among us. But pray who began?
If you throw your Books about, and boaft of them as
Unanfwerable, and overthrow the Faith of many, you
force us to enter the Lifts, tho with Grief of heart ai
the occafion of the Quarrel, And then you make the
very Quarrel an argument againft us. Why do ye Dif-
pute of thefe things ? Can you not let them lie in their
primitive fimplicity ? O that you cou'd have done fo !
Was there ever any Creed or Canon made but againft a
Here]} that was then in being, .and fpread before fuch Creed
or Canon was made; To be under Phjjick is a difconfo-
late Life, but the Remedy fhews that the Difeafe was
firft. Yet you charge your Phyfician as the Caufe of
your Difeafe. God in his mercy, heal the breaches of our
Sion, for they are many.
G But
4 * The fourth DIALOGVE.
But to return to Epifcopius, ifitweremy TasklcouM
fhow abundantly his' principles as to the Trinity and
Incarnation Bur I think it fufficient to have anfwer'd
your Hiflorixas Objeclic:'
I will only tell you, that Epifeopius did not only believe
the Trinity but that it was clearly and plainly and
moft perfptcuoufly ReveaPd in Scripture. And he disputes
thisagainft Et'larmine, -who wou'd have the Scripture ob-
fcure in this point, tha he might bring us to the Au-
thority of the Church, hpifcepius does indeed find fault
with the un-necefTary School-Viftintfions, as to the man*
mr or modus of thefe Divins Myfteries, which is not re-
veal d, and that this has provM an ofTence and (tumbling-
block to the Jews, and other Enemies of Chriftianity; and
all good Chriftians do join with him in this, and that
we fhould keep as dole to the Scripture as poflible,
efpecially in thofe myfteries which we had not known
but by the Scriptures. And he gives for a Reafon of this
that the Scriptures themfehes are fuffioiently clear and fid
as to the Trinity, Incarnation, &c which are exprefs'd,
in Scripture, non folum perfecle not only perfectly, fed d-
tiam Dilucide, but moft clearly, adeo ut neque Ecclefu De-
cifione fo that we need neither the Decifion of the
Church, the Conclufion of Dotfon, nor the Decrees of
Councils in this matter, (concio fecunda De Conft Incredulit.
Juddorum^ That God is one, is of it felf evident in
Scrip ure, and, fays he, (Inftit. Tkeol. 1. 4. c. 18.) that
He is Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, is no lefs clear from
the Scripture ; and from hence you may Judge what fort
of A.Un this Epifeopius was. And what advantage it is
to your Caufe to have nam'd him. Indeed he refufes
to tell the manner, how thefe three are one, as not necelfary,
becaufe not Reveal'd, and we all join with him.
SMdius. SOC. The next he names is C. Sandius.
CHR. This is he whom you have already quoted as
an Arian, the Arian opinion, fays your Author (p. $4)
May
The fourth D1AL0GV E. 45
M*J be fee n on their fart in their Hiftorian Chr. Sandius.
And now you bring him into the Number of the Catho-
lick writers. You wanted one to make up the Number.
But tho' he cannot be produc'd as a Catholick, yet if he
fays any thing material, tho' an Arian, we may hear
him.
SOC. My Author fays that C. Sandius wrote on pur-
pofe to prove that all Antiquity was Arian. p° 35*
CHR. But does he (hew any of his proofs?
SOC. No. He only fays that Sandius wrote with that
Defign.
CHR. Then I will oppofe to him Eufebius and the
Fathers he quotes who were before the Council of Nice,
and were not Arians. But if by all Antiquity being Ari-
an, he only means, as in truth, he can mean nothing
elfe, that the feeds of the Arian Herefy, werefown even
in the Apples time, and fo were from Antiquity y we do
readily grant it, and have prov'd it.
SOC. He fays, this Sandius under the borrow'd name
of CingaUus wrote a Treatife call'd Scriftura Trinitatis i$
Revelatrix ; where, under pretence of aflerting the Tri-
nity, he has as/much (as he cou'd) defeated all the Strengths
of the Catholick Caufe, and (hews that there is no Con-
fiderable Text objected to the Arians or Socinians, but
is given up by fome or other of the Trinitarians them-
felves : fo that among them, they have given away the
Vi&ory to their Ad verfaries.
CHR. This if true, ferves only to (hew that your San-
dius was a treacherous Enemy, betraying under the fhew
of Friendfhip. And for his faying that tottioTrinit arian
or other has given up every Text, it makes no more
if Granted, ("which it is not) than this, That one Text
may appear ftrong to one, and another Text may ap-
pear more convincing to another. But tho' i lay afide
fuch a Text, and chufe rather to infift upon Another, it
does not follow that I give up fuch a Text, becaufe I
G % wavfc
44 The fourth D IALOGV E.
wave it ; yet after all, I muft abfolutely deny the AfTer-
tion, whether it be your Author, or Sandius makes hy
and I put it to the proof, and fay that ther are many
Texts, as to the Trinity which no Learned Trinitarian
will give up. But I will retort this upon your Author.
That ther is no point of the Unitarian Do&rin, as di-
ftinguifh'd from the Trinitarian, but what is given up,
as I have already fhewn, not only by Arians againft
Socinians, and Socinians againft Arians ; But by fub-divi-
fions of Arians againft Arians, and Socinians againft So-
cinians, Bidkites, Anthromorphits, &c. And all againft the
Nazarens, Ebonites, and others taken in for the Primi-
tive Unitarians, as you call them, and even by thefe
Ancients among themfeives, hardly two of them agree-
ing almoft in any point, wherein they broke off from the
Church. So that among them (to ufe your Author's words)
they have given away the Victory to their Adversaries,
with a witnefs.
As for the Advantage he expe&s from Dr. Burnet's
relation of Van Parr the Dutchman, with which he ends
his firft Letter I fhall fay nothing ; at this time. I
will not Anticipat what a Living Author fhall think fit
to fay in his own Defence. Left 1 miftake his mean-
ing.
Thus you have feen his ftrength from Hifiory, and
his fuccefs in gaining fome men of name to favour his
party.
Pv37-
THE
THE
FIFTH DIALOGUE.
A General View and Application of what
has been faid.
L
CHRISTIAN. IT ET Us now from the feveral
Heads upon which we have
Difcours'd, take a General View %
of the State of the Controverfy
on Both fides. And fee where the Difficulty lies of
Believing^ and the Prejudices that Detain Tou or Vs.
SOC1NIAN. Our Prejudice lies in the feeming Con-
tradiction to Reafon there is in your Faith. And iwe
wonder that do's not Byafs you to- Come to our fide.
CHR. I will not repeat what has been faid upon
that Head. But then you ought to Confider, That
it muft be fome very Strong and Powerful EVIDENCE
that Sways Us againft that Byafs of feeming Reafon. For
Every Man wou'd make his Faith as Eajy to him as he
Cou'd. No man Loves Difficulty ; But in fome Cafes
it cannot be Avoided ; And the Greatejt Matters are not
to be attain'd without it. This
2. The Fifth DIALOGUE.
This Evidence is the Holy Scriptures, as Underftood and
Generally Receiv'd in thofe Ages wherein they were
Wrote : And the fame Senfe Deduc'd and Carry'd down
to Us. through all the following Ages to this Day.
And your Prejudice again ft Receiving thefe Scriptures
in the fame &#/?, is, the feeming Contradiction you Fancy
ther is in Reafon againft the Chrijlian Do£trin, of which
we have Difcours'd.
*• flrd But I wou'd fay a word more Concerning a Preju-
God Ix^mydice you have taken up, as if the word God in Holy
scripture is Scripture was always meant of the Father only ; And
commonly fo you Apply whatever you find faid of God, as belong-
in a 'complex ing only to the Father, and Urge fuch Texts to Infer
Senfe, as in- t ^ Q Exclusion of the other Perfons, the Son and the Holy
eluding all „ ■> J y
the 3 Perfons; UtfOJt.
And fome- Now I Grant that the Word God is often in Holy
^rvfaX&riftm us 'd to mean the Father Particularly, or in
^forthejr4*a Perfonal Senfe, He being the Fountain fas I may fo
ther, f a y^ f tne £) f /jfy, whence the other Perfons do Pro-
ceed. But moft commonly it is taken in a Complex \enfe,
to exprefs the Deity or Divine NATURE, wherein all
the Perfons are included. So that God is the three Per-
fons, and the three Perfons are GW. And thus we find
it exprefs^ in Scripture, (viz.) Tqe three Perfons with-
out the name of God at all ; to take away the Cavil
about that word; and to (hew that as God is a proper
word to exprefs the whole Trinity, or any of the Perfons ;
fo the Trinity may be exprefsM without the word God
at all. We find the three Perfons nam'cj where God is
certainly meant: And yet the word God not there, nor
any Difcrimination or Exception of any of the Perfons.
And what God has put together, how can we take a-
funder? God is expreft by three Perfons. And fhall wc
take upon us to except any of the Per/ons ? Or fhall we
fay that one of thefe Perfons is God, and that the other
are Crutures ? Shall we. fay this, tho' the Scripture fays
no
The Fifth V IALOGV E. 3
no fuch thing? Or fhall we fay that Creatures, are part
of the Defcription of God? We may as well fay that they
are Part of God.
When Chrift Commiftion'd His Difciples to Baptize in
the Name of God. He Does not ufe the word God,, but ex-
press and Defcribes Him thus, Go and Baptize in the Mw.28.19*
Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the if*.**
HOLT GHOST, again. There are three that bear record
in Heaven, The FATHER, The WORD, and The HOLT
GHOST.
If you will make the two Second Perfons to be Crea-
tures (as one party of the Socinia/A do) than you Join
Creatures into the Defcription of God, and Baptize
Men in the Faith and Worfhip of Creatures. As Mr.
Bidle, in h\s Confeflion of Faith touching the Holy Trinity, a-
bove Quoted, does exprefly own ; And fets up a Trinity^
which confifts of God, and two Creatures, the firfl: Perfon
God, the fecond and third Perfon were Creatures.
And it will, in no ways folve the Horrid Blafphemy, to
lay that thefe two are very Excellent Creatures ; for the
Diftance twixt God, and the mofl Excellent Creature that
is, or can be, is Infinite ; and the Blafphemy the fame
to join one Creature as another into a Trinity with God.
And to Baptize men into the Faith and Worfhip of Crea-
tures, jointly with God.
And this Trinity, in Mr. Bidleh Confefjion of Faith,
which he afferts by the exprefs name of 'The Hvly Trinity^
muft be more Abhorrent tbn the Chri/lian Trinity , to
the other fet of Socinians, who own what we call the
fecond and third Perfons to\ be nothing Different, but
the felf fame thing with the fir ft Perfon^ becaufe, fo, the
Chriftians join nothing with God, nor Adore any thing
but God in the Holy Trinity : And fuppole the Chriftians
ftou'd be miftaken in their Notion, or Explanation of
the Trinity, they ftill avoid the Blafphemous Idolatry of
joining Creatures With God, Or fearing His Honour to
then?
4 The Fifth D1AL0GV E.
them: which (by vertue of the diftinclion of LdtrU
and Dulia, of a Supreme and Inferior, Divine woifhip)
was the only Foundation and Excufe of the Pagan, Arian,
and K ^" a y s ne > Than this is my Bodyi Tet ive reject the
Dotfrin of Tranfubflantiation, becaufe it is Contradictory and
Impoffible that the fame Body Jbou'd at the fame time.be in
more places than one
(6.) CHR Here he plays both the Socinian and the Jefuit.
Cat^of r>?» e ** e implies, that we think Tranfubfaniiation is contain'd
fubfiantiatioti.in thefe words, This is , my -Body, and that moft exprefly.
What can be more exprefs ? fays he, And that tho' it be fo
exprefly contain'd in thefe words, yet that we reject it -on-
ly becaufe it feems contradi&ory &c. Herein he infinu-
ates two manifeft falfhoods. Firft, That we think Tran-
fubftantiation is exprefly contain'd in thefe words, This
is my Body. Whereas, we fay, That it is fo far from
being exprefly contain'd in thefe words, that it is not
contain'd in them at all.
The
The Fifth D I A L G V E. p
The Lutherans take tbefe words as Literally as the Pa-
pi/Is; and yet our Author cannot but have heard, That
they utterly reject Tranfubftantion.
This miftake of his cccafions, a fecond, which is, That
the reafon of our rejecting Trdnfubftavtiation, is the teem-
ing Impoflibility of one Body being in two places at
once.
This indeed is a great Objection. And God never
Commanded any thing Contradictory to Human Senfi.
But this is not our Chief Reafon ; Our Chief Reafon
againft Tr -anfubfl 'antiation, is, that it is not reveafd in
Scripture. But that it is againft many exprefs Revelations of
Scripture : for Example, i. Cor. u. 27. Math. 26 29.
1 Cor. 10. 17 As for thefe words This is my Body, we
fay, Traxfnbftantiation cannot be inferred from them;
And we put- the IfTue upon this.
SOC.^ ou fay, That God never commanded any thing
contradictory to Human Senfe. We do often infill: upon
the Parallel 'twixt Tranfubftantiation and the Trinity, and
fay that ^he Trinity is as Contradictory as that or more.
• CHR: I know you do, And it is a common place
of the Papifts too. But as much without Ground as any
thing. ever either of you faid. Becaufe Tranfubftantiation
is wholly againft fenfe, and the Trinity is not at all.
As I have already fhew'd.
r SOC* But let me Repeat. Is not the Trinity againft
Senfe at all ?
CHR. No. Tell which of the Senfes it is againft ?
Is it againft* your Seeing, or Tafte, or Swell?
SOC. I cannot fay it is againft them. But our Senfes
cou'd not have found it out.
CHR. Who ever faid they cou'd ? Every Spirit is
without the reach of our outward Senfes. But that is
the reafon why a Spirit is not again ft our Senfes , or Con-
\ traditfery- to them. -
Bat
io The Fifth DIALOG V £,
But Tranfub/lantiaion is flatly againft them all.
And I do infill: upon it, That God never requir'd a-
ny man to believe any thing that did Contradict any of
his outward Senfes.
So very poor is your Parallel twixt the Trinity and
Tranfubjlantiation,
Again, we have feen Parallels in Nature, as to the
Trinity, But ther is none as to Tranfubjlantiation. Can
you tell us any other cafe where accidents appear with-
out Inherance in a Subftattce proper for fuch accidents ?
Nothing like it was ever heard of, to lead us to any
poffible Idea of it.
( 7 .) SOC. We reject both, becaufe we will have no Myjle-
Concerning^ \ n our Religion : and all the Sacraments, their opera*
Myjlems. ^ ^ an( j ^^ e g e ft s ^ w j iat tbey Typify, and what they
Exhibit, is, in the modefteft Explanation very M/JIerious.
I mean your way of explaining them, for we make them
as familiar and plain as the High way.
CHR* You do fo indeed. Till they deferve the name
of Sacraments no more than what you have nam'd. And
fo you do v/ith all the reft of Religion : But you have
ill luck at it, for while you endeavour to make it fo
very plain, to avoid all Myfiery, you have intangl'd it
to the degree of Contradiction it felf, and forcing words
out of all the meaning that ever mankind put upon
them, of which we have feen Liberal Inftances. You
have advancM Idolatry beyond the notion, even of Hea-
thens, while you own a perfon not to be God, and yet
pay him Divine Worship. This takes in the mod Anci-
ent, Honourable, and greateft part of the Unitarians.
Then to make God a Body, with your Biddleit-Vnitari-
&ns, to Revive the moft Noifom of the Ancient Here-
fies, and moft Nonfenfical, the Anthropomorphits, and
Countenancing the Idolatry of making Pictures of the
Inviftble God, which, if God be a Body of the fbdpe of
a Man 9 with Hmdsy Feet, Eyes, &c. can be no great
fault.
The Fifth DIALOGUE. 1 1
fault. And all this to make the Scripture Plain, and to
fhun all Myfiery in our Religion!
SOC. But how do you anfwer our Arguments? Howm^, c
can any thing that is ReveaPd be a Myfiery ? It was a 9. p. 49.
Myftery or
11. The Objection, That if fe
Underwent the whole Pjtnijh-
mem of &>, He muft have had
De fp^', p# 20#
12. That He mull have fufter'd
Eternally. Both Anfwer'd, p. 21.
XXII. Of the Eternity of //ek, by becoming our Surety, ib.
He is Our Homage, ibid.
Heb 7. 22. Explain d. p. 34.
9. The Socinian Interpretation of
Jfai. 53. 11.. p. 35
TO. A Notable Argument of the
Socinians to Excufe themielves
for Denying the Divinity of
Chrifi, p. 36.
Arguments of the Sociniam to
Prove,
1 . That the Dotfrin of the Trini-
ty is not Fundamental to C/?r*-
Ui unity, p. 37.
2. That the Sociniam ought not
to be put under any Penalties
by the JL^rp, p. 39.
3. That we ought to own them
as our Christian Brethren, p. 41 .
None Sar'd but by the Satisfa&ion
of Christ. ibid.
Concerning that faying in the Creed
of St. Athanafius, -without Doubt
frail Perifh, ibid.
The Socinian Faith, p. 43.
Compar'd with the Chriftian, ibid.
We mult Work, becaufe God Works
In and With Us, p. 44.
Yet we mult be Vn-Clothed of
them all, and Clothed in the
Righteovfnefs of drift. ibid.
AnAppeal to the Sociniam, p. 45.
1 he Grace of God neceilary to
Work true Faith in Us, p, 47.
A Perfuallve Inference from the
whole p. 48.
M
ADVERTISEMENT.
Juft Publifli'd,
R. Lefiie's Anfwer to the Remarks on hi firft Dialogue againft the
Socinians. Sold by J. Morpbew near Sttfiofiers- HalL
PREFACE.
THE Importance of the Socinian Qontroverfy fhews it felf 9 and
Needs no words to Enforce it. It is no lefs than whether what
we Worfhip is God or a Creature: Whether we Adore the
True or a Falfe GOD, and are the Gr off eft Idolaters in the World}
1 wi[b ther had been no Occajion of Reviving this Controverfy,
which of a long time has lain Afleep among Vs. But of late
Years thefe Socinians, under the Name of Unitarians, have
Appeared with Great Boldnefs, and have not only fiU'd the Nation
with their Numerous Pamphlets, Printed upon a Publick Stock,
and given away Gratis among the People, whereby many have
been Deluded •• But they have Arrived to that Pitch of Aflu-
rance, as to fet up Publick Meetings in our Halls in London,
where feme Preach to them who have been Spewed ont even by the
Presbyterians for jheir Socinianifm.
It is told in the Life of Mr. Thomas' Firmin that he Defign y d
to have a Publick Meeting-Place fet up in London for the Unita-
rians. And now we fee it Accompliihed, and their Standart fet up !
Thefe things have ?nxde it Neceffary to Appear in Defence of
the Chriftian Faith, that tt be not Loft among us ; and 'to give
fame Check to thefe Socinian Pamphlets which Swarm, through this
City efpecially.
Inftead of Enlarging in a Preface, / will here Prefnt the Rea-
der with a Rarity, which 1 take to be fo, becaufe of the DiflicuU
ty I had to obtain it, It is the following Addrefs or Epiftle of our
Unitarians to the Morocco Ambaflador. And the Latin Treatife
Mentioned in it (of which likewife I have a Copy) / have feen in Print
here in London, to (hew the Diligence of the Party. / know not
if it is Publickly Sold, for I only ftw it in * private Hand.
A I
ii PREFACE;
/ have likewife Added, two Letters upon this Subject, one mote
in the year 1694, the other in 1697. Which may ferve as a Com-
pendium of what is at Large Treated of in thefe Dialogues, and Summs
up the Merit of the Caufe in a few words '■> which will help the Me-
mory, and ferve for a Ready Anfwer to Socinians in Difcourfe 9
that may not be at hand to give, when it is to be Collected out
of a. Larger Volume.
1 defire the Reader to Confider wti&t Account the Unitarians gm?
^..Maiomet. ajrfhis £re3t Judgment in their foli&wing Addrefs
to tfe Ambaffador, to whom they fay, That God hath Raifed your
MAHOMET to Defend the Faith with the Sword, as a Scourge
on the Idolizing Chriftians— And we, For the Vindication of your
Law Maker's Glory, ftrive to Prove, that fuch Faults and Ir-
regularities (not cohering with the Fafhion of the Reft of the
ALCORAN Building, nor with the Undoubted fayings of your
Prophet) — - were Foifted into the Scatter'd Papers found af-
ter MAHOMET's Death- And we do Endeavour to Clear,
by whom, and in what Time, fuch Alterations were made in
the firft fettting out of the Alcoran.
This is the like Vindication which they make for the Holy Scrip-
tures 0/God, That many things were Foifted in, which they do not Like y
as they Frequently Anfwer in their Pamphlets, particularly as to the Wri-
tings of St. John, allofwhoje Authority they Strike at, becaufe they make
mofi againfi them. So that by the fame Salvo the Alcoran is Vindica-
ted and f&, with whom we muft agree in fuch, e-
ven againft our other fellow Cbrijiians: Therefore,
we that are fain d to be more exercis'd Soldiers in
fuch controverted points in Religion, and fhou'd beft
know the differences in Europe about the fame, fhall
undertake in this our Second and Third Treat is, (which
are but as Observations on that Letter) Firft, to fet
forth (for your better information) briefly and di-
ftindtly in what points all Cbrijiians do generally a-
gree with the Mabumetans, in matters of Religion.
Vdly. In what things Cbrijiians Univerfally difagree
from you, with the reafons for the fame. 3 and all the true and pureft
Chrijiians their Lawful Difciples, do to this very
day, worfhip no other, but the Sole Soveraign God,
the Father and Maker of all things. And therefore
are we calld Unitarians, as Worfhippcrs of that
one only Godhead in EJfence and Perfon, that we
may be diftinguifh'd from thofe backfliding Chrijii-
ans named Trinitarians, who own three Co-equal
and Self-fubfifting Perfons, whereof every one is an
abfolute and Infinite God (as they pretend) and yet
they'll have all thefe three y to be but one God; which
is fuch a Contradicting abfurdity, that certainly
a our
x
our wife Maker and Lawgiver, woud never im-
pofe it to be believ'd upon that harmonious and
relative Rectitude he hath plac d in the Reafon of
Man. But of the firft oppos'd this rifing Errcft
in old times, was Paul of Samofate, a Zealous and
Learnd Bijhof of Antioch, with his People and Ad-
herents he liv d Sixty years before the Council of
Nice, that was held on this Subject about three
hundred years after the Afcenfion of Chrift our
Lord. There was alfo Marcellus Biihop of Ancyra
in Galatia, with his Friends and Followers. Etifta-
t'lus Biftiop of Antioch, and Arrius a Presbyter of
Alexandria, with many more that liv d in the time
of that Council did openly withftand and refute
the Trinitarian Schifm 5 as we fee in theChronicles of
that Age. lomit PhotinusBifnop o( Syrmitwi, and the
famous Neftorious with many more Perfecuted perfons
for the fame Truth : Who, tho' they had fome Nomi-
nal difFerency about the too Curious Expofitions
ofthofe Myfterics; yet, they agreed in that main
point of the Undiftinguilh'd Soveraign Unity. And
from the Reign of the Emperor Conftantine, both
the Oriental and Occidental Emflre generally per-
filled for fome hundred years in that fame Faith,
refitting thofe contradictory opinions of the Trini-
tarians, ev'n in the declining times of Chrijiia?iity y
occafion a by the Growth, or the Tyrannical Ufur-
pation of the Popes and Clergy, who wou d force
their private notions and human Inventions on
Men's Confcienccs • that is, in the Reign of the
Empe-
IX
Emperor Charles the Great about the year Eight
Hundred; Bonofiusmd Elipandus with other Bifhops
and Chrifiians in Spain, unanimously oppos'd the
Dodtrin of a Trinity. And of late years, in Europe,
flood up the pious and noble Perfonage Faufius
Socinus and his Polonian Affociation of Learned
Perfonages, that Writ many. Volums againlt that
and other Sprung up Errors among Chrifiians. But
now to lay before your Excellency, the extent of
this Orthodox Faith of the Unitarian Christians,
in what Nations it is held, be pleas'd to ob-
ferve that all the Chrifiians throughout Perfia,
Armenia, Mefopotamia, thofe call d of St. Thomas, and
forne Hollanders and Portuguese in Afia, thofe that
live among the Greeks m Europe, even your Neigh-
bouring Chrifiians in Nubia. All thofe together
{which far exceed the Trinity averting Chrifiians)
do maintain with us, that Faith of One So-
veraign God, one only in Perfon and Efence.
And why iliou'd I forget to add you Mahumetans,
who alfo confent with us in the Belief and Wor-
fhip of an One only Supreme Deity, to whom be
Glory for ever. Amen.
But in the Weft and North of Europe, we are
not fo numerous, by reafon of the inhumanity of
the Clergy, who contrary to the gentle ways of
Chrift, wou'd convince us and others, buc by Fire
and Thunder, and J ay Is, and Swords of Princes^
tho' our Patient Carriage and Brotherly Love to-
wards them for their precious Truths we ftill hold
a 2 in
Xll
in Common, might Evidence to them of what
fort of. Spirit both they and we are. Yet our
People are numerous in Poland, in Hwigary, in Hoi-
land as well as Engla?id, but being under the threats
of fuch Un-chriftian Perfecutions, (which hath been
in the Wifdom of God, the lot of all true Chri-
ftians from the beginning, for to try, exercife and
fortify their Knowledge and Virtue by the oppofi-
tion of their Adverfaries) we cannot open our (elves,
nor argue touching our Faith, but that ev n our
neareft Friends that are Trinitarians, out of a mi-
ftaken Zeal r wou d be the firfl to deliver us up
to Bifhops Courts, Tritons and Inquifitions to the
endangering both our Lives and Fortunes. That
is the fad reafon, that we have not hitherto wai-
ted in greater Numbers, to congratulate and Wel-
come your Excellency, nor can at this prcfent in
fuch a manner, as we well judge to be fuitable to
your Grandure, and the refpedt we bear to your
Prince and People, for any lhare of Divine Truth,
you or any other do hold entire with us from our
God and our Saviour Chrift.
Countenance therefore this Philofophical plain-
nefs and freedom (that's part of our Profeflion)
which emboldens us Two to be more forward
than others of our Perfuafion, to offer to you rather
than fail, ev n a Mefs of our own Trade. Such
flight prefents in appearance as thefe little Books
are, whofe contents neverthelefs we think fo im-
portant for the good of your Souls that we woud
be
be ready (if acceptable) to go and affert the Con-
tents thereof, to the learned of your Country, had
we any profpedt of Succefs, while we are uncertain
what Entertainment attends fuch as would objedl
any thing againft your Alcoran be it never fo mo-
deftly and lovingly propos'd.
Therefore, fince we cannot now in Terfon, be
pleas'd Noble Sir, to Communicate the import of
thefe Manufcripts, to the Confideration of the fit-
tell Perfons of your Country-men, only as a Scant-
ling of what the more learn d of our "Unitarian
Brethren cou'd fay, far beyond any thing that's
here on thefe Subjects of our Differences. And
leaft you might think it too mean an Office to
be instrumental in fpreading any fuch divine Ve-
rity ; confider, if it be fo great a matter to per-
form the part of anEmbafadoramong earthly Princes
(which your Excellency hath fo laudably done of
late) how far more Glorious is it, to undertake
the leaft Embafy in the Caufe and Religion of
the Supreme Monarch of the World. To whom be
glory and Dominion for ever, Amen,
THE
XV
THE
Socinian Trinity
EXPLAIND,
AND
COMTAR'D with that of the
CHRISTIANS-
I N A
LETTER
T O A
FRIEND.
June y 169^.
S I R 5
^l"~i Y{ £ Socinians hold a Trinity as well as we:
Nay they hold feveral Trinities. They have
JL lately Publifhed Bidles Confejfion of Faith tou-
ching the Holy Trinity. But in the Explanation of this
is all the difference. (I.)
XVI
(I.) He, and one part of the Sortitions, make the
Second and Third Perfons to be Creatures, wherein
they are guilty of a very grofs fort of Idolatry,
beyond what was acknowledged by any of the
Heathens, to join Creatures into one Holy Trinity
With God, and to Baptize Men into the Faith and
Worfhip of Creatures. The Arians could never
anfwer the Charge of Idolatry in giving Divine
Honour to Chrift, while they acknowledged him
to be but a Creature: Nor can the Worfhip of
Chrift, fuppofing him but a Creature, be excufed
from Idolatry, by any manner of way, which will
not at the fame time juilifie the Excufes not only
of the Church of Rome, but of the Heathens them-
felves for their Idolatry.
( II. ) Another fort of Socinians deny the Second
and Third of the Trinity to be Perfons: And make
them no more than the Power and Wifdom of God,
one calFd his Word, the other his Spirit, but yet
that they are nothing different from God ; as by a
Man's Spirit, you mean the Man himfelf. Thus the
Brief Hiftory of the Unitarians.
But, by this Rule, they cannot flop at a Trinity
m God, but mull go thro' all his Attributes, Juftice,
Mercy, Provide?ice, Onmipotence, Eternity and Twen-
ty more ; and inftead of the Three in Heaven
(which they acknowledge) they mull go to a Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and without End.
In the next Place, where it is faid, John i. 14.
The Word was made Flefh } they fay that no Perfon
was
XVll
was made Fkjh .' This Second of the Trinity they fay
is not a Perfon, but only God's Power, or the Mani-
fejfation of his Power, which they fay Inhabited an Hu-
man Perfon • /. e. the Perfon of Jefus Chrijt.
So God Inhabited or Infpired the Prophets, Apojlles,
&c. but this did not make Him to become Flejh.
But he infpired Chrift in a Higher Degree-
The Degree fignifies nothing as to the being made
Fkjh. No Inspiration or Inhabitation of God, or any
thing Tcfs than an Impersonation, il e. taking our
Flefh into his own Perfon, fo as to be one Perfon
with him 9 nothing lefs than this can make him to
be Flejh.
And it is certain that nothing can be made Flejh
but a Perfon. A Manifejlation of God, or of any
thing elfe, is nothing in it felf; it is but our man-
ner of Apprehending what is manifejied or jhewn to
us : And to talk of this being made Flejh, is the
grofeft Nonfence and Contradiction: Therefore if
there be but One Perfon in the Trinity (as this Sett
of Socinians do hold) then the whole Trinity was
made Flejh - y and then they muft come to Muggleton,
who fays, as they do, that there is but One Perfon
in the Godhead, which is God the Father - t and that
He was Incarnate, and really Died, fo that there was
then no God; But Muggleton fays, that Elijah go-
vernd in his abfence, Kais'd him from the Dead,
and Reftor'd him to his Throne, and then He was
GOD again.
b But,
xvin
But, on the other hand, if ther be Three Per*
fons in the Holy Trinity ( as the reft of our Socinians
do hold ) But the Second and Third only Creatures,
and that the Word (the Second Perfon) was Incarnate \
then they muft anfwer for their Idolatry, in Wor-
fhiping a meer Creature ; and anfwer the Cloud of
Texts which require and atteft Divine Honor to
be due to Chrift, and Command the very Angels of
God to Worfhip Him.
But, to turn again to thofe Socinians who will
have but one Perfon in the Trinity, they put this
Meaning upon Matth. 28. 19. that we are Baptized
in the Name of the Father, and of the Son ( who
is the felf-fame Perfon with the Father) and of the
Holy Ghoft (who is the fame Perfon with them
Both.)
Again, Matth. 12. 32. if you fin againft one of
thefe you fhall be forgiven ; but if you fin againft
another (who is the very fame with that otie) you
(hall not be forgiven-
(III.) Now, I pray you, compare their Trinity
and ours. They make Three in Heaven who
are not only Three, but may be Threefcore, and
yet a 1 ! but one and the felf fame Perfon.
We acknowledge the Three in Heaven, whom
the Scriptures tell us of, to be only Three, and
that they are Three Perfons.
One of thefe was made Flefh, the other not,
yet they will not allow them to be different
Perfons, but that He who took Fle/h, and He
who
XIX
who did not take Flefti were the fame, or that
they were not Two.
Thefe are the Men who cry out upon My-
/leries-, and pretend to Explain their Faith wholly
£>y Reafon and Demonjiration, and to make it eafie
and intelligible to the meaneft Understanding/
Befides, they differ more (if more can be) be-
twixt one another, than they do from us. What
greater difference can ther be concerning the
OhjeSt of our Worfhip than one to make it GOD,
the other but a Creature i As it is among the So-
cinians, in their Opinion of the Second and Third
in the Holy Trinity. What greater difference, than
for one to fay they are Perjons, another no Per-
fo?is ? One to fay they are Adorable, the other not ?
Muft not one of thefe think the other Idolators i
And the other think them Profane, and Erroneous
in Faith, who deny Divine Honour to whom it
is Due?
(IV.) We acknowledge a Great and Sublime
Myfiery in the Holy Trinity of GOD. That is a
My/iery to us, which exceeds our Understanding.
And many fuch Myfteries ther are, to us, in the
Natureot God which we all acknowledge ; AFirJiCaufe
without a Begi7i?ii?ig\ A Being whiclr neither made
it felf, nor was made by any other ! Infinite with-
out Extenfwn! In every -place, yet circumfcrib'd in no
place y ! Eternal and Perpetually Exiting, without any
Succejjion of Time\ a Prefent, without Pa/i : or Future !
And many other fuch un-Explainable, un -Intelligible,
b 2 Incom-
Inccmprehenfibk Myfteries ; which yet hinder not
our Belief of a God. And therefere not being a-
ble fully and clearly to explain the Trinity, which is the
very Nature of God, can be noReafon for us to reject
fuch Revelation which God has given us of Him-
fe)f. Yet do we not want fever al Shadows ami
Refemblances of one Nature communicating it fclf
to many Individuals, without cither a Mult if li
cation or Divifion of the Nature. We fay that
the Soul is all in all, and all in every fart of
the Body ; yet that the 5W is neither Multiplied
nor Divided among the feveral Members of the £0-
dy. It is impoflible for us either to Explain this,
or to Deny it ; for we feel it to be fo, though
it is wholly unconceivable to us how it can be. Now
if the Soul which is but an Image of God, at an
Infinite diftance, can Communicate it felf to fe-
veral Members without breach of its Unity 5 why
Ihould it be Impoffible for the Eternal and Infinite
Mind to Commun cate it felf to feveral Perfons,
without breach of its Vnity ? I will be bold to fay,
you will not find fo near a Parallel in Nature
whereby to conceive of Gods Eternity, or his
Infinity, as this, and a great many more, whereby
we may conceive of His Trinity and Vnity, by
what we feel in our felves, and fee in a thoufand
things that are before us. We fee Extenfion not
Divided but DiftinguifWd into us three Dimenfions ;
and Communicating its whole Nature to each of
the
XXI
the Three, for Each is Extenfeon; and yet there
is but one Extenfion in all the Three.
The Soul is not Divided^ betwixt its feveral
Faculties j they remain perfectly dijli?iguifhd, though
not divided from one another : To underftand
what is prefent, is a quite different thing from
Remembring what is Paft j and to Love or H^
is different from both of thefe g yet thefe Three
Faculties, the Vnderftanding, the Memory, and the
JF/7/, partake all equally of the fame Soar/.
Z/g/^/ and Heat are fo different, that fome are
capable of the One, who are not of the Other - 9
and yet they are not Divided in the Sun 5 but
flow equally and naturally from it without any
Divifion of its Nature.
I fay not that any of thefe Parallels do come
up to the full explanation of the Communication
of the Divine Nature to feveral Perfons, without
any Divifion or Multiplication of the Nature. But I am
fure they take away the Contradiction alledged to be
in it, while we fee the hmcDi faulty in our own and
other Natures, which we can as little Explain,
(V.) But. inftead of folving this difficulty, the So-
cinians have made it a downright and Irreconcilea-
ble Contradiction. They would have Three to be
One and the fclf fame Perfon, This cannot be fav'd
from a Contradiction. They acknowledge the Three
in Heaven, the father, the Word, and the Spirit. If
they are One and the felf-fan^e Perfon, they cannot
be Three* If they are am Nature and feveral Per-
fons i
fons j this is & Difficulty, it is a Mijlery] but it is no
Contradiftion, becaufe they are not One and
Three in the fame refpett j for that is neceffary to
make it a Contradiction. In one RefpeSl, that is of
their Nature + they are One-, in an other RefpeSl, that
is, of their Perfons, they are Three. But if they
are One in Perfon, as well as in Nature; and yec
are 77;r^ (as thefe Socinians do confefs) then they
are Three and ##e, in the J klf- fame RefpeSl, which
is a full Contradiction.
xxm
T HE
Second LETTER,
Puts our
EngWh UNITARIANS,
T O
D E F E N D Themfehes.
And Ihews they are not
christians.
July 17. 1^7.
SIR,
I Have received yours Dated the 5 th Inftant,
wherein you Defire a Second Letter from me
concerning the Socinia?is, or Vnitariatis (as they
call thcmfelves) And you tell me how much you
have been Difappointed as to the I(Tue of the Firft,
which you Defir'd from me : That you were made
believe by thbfe Socinians of your Acquaintance,
that they were as Ready to Defend their own Prin-
ciples, by Reafon, as to object againft others : And,
that they woud Immcdiatly give, you an, Anfwer .
to any thing upon that Head, provided it were.
Short and Clear. You tell me, that they objedt no-
thing againft my firfl Letter, upon either of theTe
Ac-
XXIV
Accounts : And yet that now in three Years time,
you can get no Anfwer from them, tho' you have
been made Daily to ExpeA it. Sir, this is no fur-
prize to me, this is what I told you, at the begin-
ning, woud be the Event of it. I told you, that
men of leaft Reafon, were the greateft Pretenders ;
that many can Apprehend an Objection, who have
not Depth of Reafon enough to fearch into the
Solution. Therefore Objecting is the Eafier Task ;
according to the Proverb, that A F may Ask
more Questions than a wife man can Anfwer. Therefore
I told you, that thefe fort of Mfcn woud never En-
dure to have the Tables turn d upon them, and be
put to Defend themfelves That when they faw
more Contradittion amongft themfelves than they can
Pretend amongft us: And the Difficulties which they
Objecft againft our Hyfothefis, return ten times more
Monjlrous and Manyfold againft their own, they
woud be Silent, and at laft, Modejl.
Therefore fince they have worn out your Pati-
ence, and that you are now out of Hopes of having
any Anfwer from them, you are Provok'd to pur-
fuethem ; and defire to know from me how far they
ought to be allow d as Cbrijiians. You fpeak of our
Englifh Unitarians.
But I muft firft Enter my Proteft againft their af-
fuming the Name of Unitarians : For tho' they Pro-
fefs the Unity of God (whence they take that Name)
yet they Profefs it not more than all Cbrijiians do :
Neither can they avoid that Name which they
woud
XXV
wou d render fo odious, of Trinitarians ; for they all
hold a Trinity as well as we. And which is worfe,
Different forts of Trinities, and Contradictory to one
another, and to themfelves, as is fhewn in the firft
Letter. Buc however, they will have themfelves
known by the name of Unitarians, and us of Trini-
tarians, and fo let it go. For we contend not about
Names, but Things. Yet this Precaution was Ne-
ceffary, left they ftiou'd take advantage of Words,
or others be offended.
And now I come to Anfwcr Diredtly to your Que-
ftion. And I think, That our Englifh Unitarians can in
no Propriety, be call'd Chriftians-, that they are
more Mahometans than Chriftians ; and greater Ene-
mies to Chriftianity than the Mahometans. Laftly
I will fhew, i hat they are not own d as Chriftians ,
even by thofe they call their Brethren, the main
Body of the Unitarians or Socinians in Chriften-
dom.
(I.) Firft, That they are not Chriflia?is. Chrifti-
ans are fo call'd from the God whom they Wor-
fhip. And therefore thefe who think Chrift not
to be God, nor Worfhip him as fuch, with Divine
Honour, they cannot, in any Propriety of Speech,
be call'd Chriftians.
For it will be allow'd me, on all hands, that
to Denominate a Man truly a Chrifiian, it is not
enough that he believes ther was fuch a Man as
Chrift, for that is acknowleged by all the World;
Nor is it fufficient to believe no more than what
c the
xxvi
the Mahometans Profefs, viz$ That Chrift was the
yieffuih, The Word of God, and Intercefor with Go;/
for Afez; That he was Conceivd and Born Mi-
raculoufly of a Virgin ; That He was a 7>«e Pro-
^/>, and to rid themfelves from the Scandalous
Imputation of being an Up-ftart HERESY, and
contrary to all Ages of Chriftianity ; and from be-
ing fuch a Contemptible Number, in this fmall Cor-
ner of the World, our miferably diftradred and
divided Ijland, which in the time of our Late Schifm
of 41 produc'd, like Egypt, upon the Over-flow-
ing of the Nile, monftrous Herds of Heterogeneous
Herefies; among whom were thefe now reviv'd
Semi-Arian, Semi-Socinian, Englijh Unitarians, the
Foundation and Rife of Quakers, Muggletcnians, and
vile Puddle of our Sectaries ; among whom John
Bidle not the leaft then arofe, a School-Mafter m
Glocefter, now own'd by our Englijh Unitarians his
Life written with great Pomp, and his Blafphemous
Works re-printed, and put amongft the Volumes of
the Unitarian Trails, now freely Publifh'd and o-
penly Differs d, to poifon the Nation, I hy, when
this Novelty and Paucity of our Englijh Unitarians
is objedted, then the Socinians of Poland Tranfilva-
vania, and all other Parts are muitcrcd up, Soci-
nus is Magn.fied, and Arius too is brought in Aid,
and the numerous Council at Ariminum is much in-
filled
XXXVll
fitted on, and more ancient Hereticks are inlifted
to fhew the Antiquity and Univerfality of the Englifb
Unitarian Creed :
But when prefs'd with the different Tenets of thefe
or any of them, then they are All thrown off, and
Difown'd, and as hard Words given them, by our
English Unitarians, as by any other their Adver-
fanes whatfoever.
Then they take Pains to fhew, and brag of it,
That they (the Unitarians of England) are not only
difownd ; but that they wou d be Excommunicated
by the Unitarians of Poland, if they were there.
See the full Confeilion to this, in that mod celebra-
ted Book with them which bears this Title. A Brief
Hijiory of the Unitarians, called alfo Socinians. This
was Printed, and mduftrioufly Difpers d Gratis, in
the Year i68p. And Re-Pri?ited, with Additions,
Anno i6pi. There, in Anfwer to At!.?. 14. and 21.
p. 33. of the 2d Edition, They confefs in thefe Words.
The Polonian Unitarians were fo jealous in this Mat~
ter, that they Excommunicated and Depofed from their
Miniftry fuch of their own Party 9 as deny ed that Chrift
was to be Pray d to, and worfhiffed with Divine Worfhip.
This had bad Fffetls. Therefore the Unitariansof Tran-
filvania were more moderate, they admitted to the Mi*
nifters and Profefors Places, thofe that rejected the In-
vocation and Adoration of Chrifl ; But obliged them,
under their Hands, not to ffeak^againfl Worjkifpng or
Praying to the Lord Chrift, in their Sermons or Leclures.
Thofe Unitarians that rejetl the Invocation of Chrifl,
xxxvm
fay; &:c. And fo he goes on, in Favour of thefe Lit-
ter Unitarians, who rejeit the Invocation of thrift*
And by v> hat here themfelves confefs our Englifh
Unitarians wou'd not be permitted among the Uni-
tarians oiFoland^ otTranfdvania; or indeed, in any
other Part of the Chrifian World, except in England
at this time.
And, if Christianity holds Here, their next Remove
will be under Mahomet; to whom they arc nearer
akin, and with whofe Ambaffador they have already
concerted ; for his Difciples too are Unitarians, and
of as good a Form, as thofe who, very unjuftly,
diftinguifh themfelves by that Name, here in En-
gland. From whom,
Good Lord, Deliver this Church and Nation.
N. B. I have Printed the Addrefs of our Evglijh
Unitarians to the Morocco Ambaffador, without
any Remarks upon it in that Plaqr, bccaufe all
the Allegations there made on their behalf are
fully Anfwer'd in what follows.
Our Englifh Unitarians fay that the Chrifti-
ans borrow d the Notion of the Trinity from the
Heathen (See before p. xxx. And the Remarks on
my firfi Dialogue p. 6.) And yet their Chief Ob-
jection againft the Dodtnn of the Trinity, is, That
it is fo Abfurd and Contradictory as that neither
Jews or Heathens knew any thing of it.
THE
PREFACE
CONTAINS,
I. *~r*HE Epiftle Dedicatory or Addrefs of the Englilh Unitari-
X ans to the Morocco Ambajfador y in the Tear 1682. p. iii.
II. The Socinian Trinity Explained, p. xv.
Wherein is Jhew'd,
i. That one Part of our Socinians or Unitarians make the Son
and Holy Ghoft to he Perfons, hut Creatures. p. xvh
ii. Others Deny them to he Perfons or Creatures. ibid.
iii. Thefe Compared with the Chriftian Trinity, and with Each
other. p. xviii.
iv. The Eternity of God as Incomprehenfible as His Trinity. Ther
are Parallels in Nature to the Latter ', but None to the Former, p. xix,
v. The Socinion Trinity is a flat Contradi&ion, ours but a Diffi-
culty, p. XXL
III. The Socinians put to Anfwer as well as Objecl, p. xxiii.
And it is fiewd,
i. That they are not Chriftians. p. X XV.
• ii. They prefer Mahometifm, and even Paganifm, to Chriftianity.
p. xxvii.
Mahometifm Succeeded Arianifm. p. X xix.
Iii. Our Englilh Unitarians are not Rechn'd Chriftians by the Ra-
covian Catechifm. p. xxxi.
ERRATA Dial. i.
PAge 1 5. 1. 4. f. find r. make. p. 16. Ult. r. the Prefent Cafe. p. 3 i..l. 3 1 . f. Happly r. Ap •
ply. p. 3 3.1. 1 5. r. This is. p. 34. 1. 10. f. come r. came. p. 43. 1. 13. f. Seme a v. Tally.
Dial. 2.
Page 8. 1.22. f. one. r. our. p. 1 4. 1. 31. r. feparacp. 16. 1. 20. f. dot. r.not. 1.34.r.there, in.
p. 53. 1.32. r. Text.
Dial. 3-
Pag. 3.1. 9. r. Gaius. p. 5.1. 24. r. Gains. p. 42. 1. 12. del. mL\ 1 3. r. p/xo/KTif/uw. antepe-
nult, r. [ureL. p- 48. 1. 3 i.r. tra.vT»v. p. 5 5. penult, r. Concioufhefs. p. 57. 1. 1 1 . r. (34.) CHR.
p. «j9. margin. 1. $. r. Qiar'nriov. p. 60. margin. 1.6. r. m&w 2«Tiif. . p. 61. 1. 32. put($9.)
before SOC. p. 66. margin. 1. 1 1. r. inimicus. p. 67. ult. f. Soc. r. As. p. 68 1. 23. r. Firft.
Dial. 4.
Page 9.I. 24. r. (think we) p. 16. 1. 20. f. found, r. form'd. p. 17. 1. 1$. f. on. r. one. p. 25.
1. 33. f. fumus r. fummi. penult, r. faeculoque. p. 38. antepenult, r. Prxexiftence. p. 4*. 1. 19.
f. better, r. letter.
Dial 5.
Page $. 1. 16. r. as we.
Dial. 6.
Page. i.l. 1 1. r. Objeft. p. 9. 1. 1 4. f. buried, r. burnt, p.i 8.1. 4. r. things, p. 3 1. 1. 3. f. Judg-
ment r. Government, p. 34. ult. r. Ifai. 53. 11. p- 39.1. 18. r. quos. p. 40. 1. 19- f. Facer. Faft.
p. 42.I. 24. f. Inticements. r. Incitements, p. 44. 1. 27. r. Courtiers, p. 45. 1. 10. f. Sting, r..
Skin. 1. 1 8. f. of r. off. p. 47. antepenult, r. as the. p. 48. 1. 6. r. Repentance. 1, 8. r. lean. 1. 20
r. if to. 1. j 8. r. to God.
THE
SIXTH DIALOGUE,
Of the Satisfaction made by Chrifi for
our Sins.
T
CHRISTIAN. fr^HER is one Great Point yet be-
hind, which is Built upon the
Dotfrin of the Trinity, the D#-
vinity and Incarnation of Chrift,
and that is the DocJrin of Satisfaction. Of which your
Author like wife fpeaks. And this Work will not be
Compteat, without Confidering that main Foundation of
the Chriftian Religion.
SOC. Let us then go on with our Author. He fays,
whereas befides the above cited Texts, the Orthodox ob-
je&fcitf : That if Chrifi were not God as well as Man,
He cou'd not Satisfy the Juflice of God for our &>j, or
be a full Atonement for them. The Socinians anfwer,
(i.) That Chrift is a Propitiation and Atonement for
Sin, is a Demonftration that He is not God ; for God
doth not Give or iWkfo, but Receive Satisfaction for our
Sins.
I CHR.
Tie fixth VIALOGVE.
CHR. God Gave His So* to be a Propitiation for Si#»
£d!ty°tel And Received from Him Satisfaction for our Sins,
having made' And this proves Him to be both God and Man. God
the satjifaSi b ecau f e none elfe cou'd pay Infinit Satisfaction, for Inf-
wtoHimieit.^ Goodm p ffended. And Man, becaufe that which
Offended muft make the Satisfaction. But Human Nature
cou'd not make this Satisfaction, In that it was weak
Rom. «. 3. /W ^ F/*/&, therefore, fays St. P*«/, G^ fending His
own Son in the Likenefs of Sinful Flejh, and for Sin, or
by a Sacrifice for Sin (as our Margent reads it) con-
demned Sin in the Flefh.
SOC. If God gave or fent His Son, then it was God
who paid the Ranfom to Himfelf.
CHR. In that fenfe no doubt, He did, as the Apoftle
fpeaks. God was in Chrijl, Reconciling the world to Himfelf
1. or. 5.19.^ ^^ £ ot j w j iq f ounc i out, 'and afforded us this ad-
mirable means.
He exalted the Manhood into God, united Human Na.
ture into one Perfon with the Divine Nature, whereby
man might become worthy to expiate for his offence.
And, to compare this with Cafes which are fami-
liar amongft our felves, nothing is more common than for
a man to endeavour to enable his Debtor to make fa-
tisfa&ion for his Debt ; by adding to his Stock, putting
him into the Method of Gain, obtaining for him offices,
preferments, &c. And, in this Cafe, when a Debtor has
recover'd himfelf, by the kindnefs and munificence of his
Creditor, and when he has with thankfulnefs, paid his
Debt : No body objects it as an Abfurdity, That, by
this Method, the Creditor has paid himfelf. It is fo far
true, that if it had not been for the Creditors Goodflefs
and his Management, his Debter wou'd never have
been able to have paid him ; and in this Senfe, he may
be faid to have fatisfied himfelf; becaufe the Satisfacti-
on given himfelf, mov'd from himfelf, and was carry'd
on upon his Stock : But, becaufe it was paid by the
Debtor,
Thefixtb DIALO GV E. 5
Debtor, being thus Inrich'd, it is not ftri&Iy call'd fa-
tisfying himfelf.
And thus it was, that Man paid his Debt to God, tho*
he was wholly enabPd,to it by God, and without God
cou'd never have done it
All his fufficiency is of God. And after this manner
it is that men are faid to Beftow upon God, and that
God accepts it as fnch, and rewards them for it. You
know the Free-will-offerings in the Law, and the Con-
tribution for building the Temple are calPd their offer-
ing willingly to God. Tho' David acknowledges to God,
that all this ftore that we have prepared, cometh of lChr296
Thine band and is all Thine own, yet this hinders noti<5.
what David there fays, that he had offer'd them of his
proper Goods. And at the fame time confeffcs to God, 3.
of thine own have we given Thee, J 4=
And now be Judge your felf, whether my Giving,
or Beftowing, does not argue that I have lefs depen-
dance upon the perfon who Receives a Boon from me,
than I have upon my Creditor to whom I am Bound
to Pay my Debt >
Yet you can well enough difgeft our Giving to God,
who Gives us all ; and at the fame time cry out up-
on our Paying any thing to God, as an abfurdity, tho'
he requires it from us, and calls it a Debt upon us.
But take another realon. It was God the Son who
was Incarnate, and paid the Satisfaction to His Father.
Here it is one Perfon making Satisfaction to another Per-
fon, and fo your Obje&ion is wholly over.
By this you fee how necefTary the Do&rine of the
Trinity is to the Satisfaction of Chrifl. Chrift Himfelf
did SancYify His human Nature. For their fakes I S an- joh. 17.19.
Bify my felf. And then offer'd it up as an acceptable
and fufficiently worthy Sacrifice to His Father. He
Rais'd from Death His Human Nature, freed it from
Prifon, as having difcharg'd one Debt, and by His own^ t I0# x% .
I 2 Power*
4 The Sixth DIALOGUE.
Power. He took His Life again, as, of Himfelf, He had
« I3 6, laid it down. Thus in all things, out of his own flock,
He paid our whole Debt to His Father.
SOC. The Socinians anfwer. (2.) They wonder that
Chrift tho' a man only, fhou'd not he iudg'd a fufficient
Satisfa&ion and Propitiation for Sin, wjien the Sacrifice
of Beafts under the Law, was accepted as a Full At-
tonement and Satisfaction, in Order to Forgivenefs, Lev.
6. 6.
(2.) CHR. I wonder much more, That they fhou'd be
How the Is- f Q w iif u lly Blind as not to fee, that the Legal Sacrifices
wLe Accept- were not accepted for their own worthinefs, but only as
ad as SAtisfa- j" y p es f the Sacrifice of Chrift, which only is fufficient
*""' to make Atonement and Satisfaction to the Juftice of God
for us. And St. Paul gives this for the reafon why
ther was a neceflity of Chrift y s Sacrifice in order to For-
givenefs. For, fays he, It is not fofjible that the Blood of
Bulls and of Goats jhoifd take away Sins. Heb. 10. 14.
(3.) SOC. This is all our Author fays, as to this point,
The Necefln^ £ ut j wou jd gladly ask why ther was a neceflity
Inborn the to make Satisfaction to the Juftice of God f It is
nature of ?«- no t call'd Injuftice in me, if I forgive a Debt without
P ,ce ° any Satisfaction,
CHR. What is it call'd then ? Is it call'd Jw
ftice ?
SOC. No. It cannot be call'd Juftice ; for Juftice
wou'd exact to the Uttermoft farthing. It is call'd Mer-
cy: to Forgive is Mercy, and not Juftice.
CHR. Right, and in Men ther is a mixture of both,
and fometimes we exert our Juftice, and fometimes our
Mercy. We have our proportions of each : And in fome
men their Juftice is Greater than their Mercy \ and in
others their Mercy does exceed their Juftice.
But in God it is not fo. He is both to the utmoft,
that is, Infinitely. His Juftice mull not take any thing
from His Mercy, nor His Mercy from His Juftice, every
one
The Sixth DIALOGV E.
one of His Attributes muft be Full and Compleat, and
Intire in it felf.
Therefor God is not only JuH, that is, has fame Ju-
stice in Him, or a certain Me a fur e of Justice. But He
is Juliice it felf. JuUice in the AbHrall : and whatever agrees
to Justice, to the Nature of Juftice, that muft be in God.
Does Justice require full Satisfaction?
SOC. Yes. That is the Nature of Juftice.
CHR. Then God muft require it ; for he is Juftice.
SOC. Where then is his Mercy ? If He be all Juftice,
ther is no Room for Mercy.
CHR. He fhew's His Mercy in finding that Full Sa~
tisfattion for us ; which is Cbrift, whom He gave and
fent to us. And this Satisfaction being Infinit, confe-
quently His Mercy is Infinit ; and fo all His attributes
ftand in their full Extent, and the one is not crippled
to eafe another. His Mercy is not Exalted, by the Lefs-
ning of His Juftice ; but in the Fulfilling of it. His Ju-
flice is Exalted, by His finding an Infinit Satisfaction for
Sin. And his Mercy is Exalted, in that His Juflice cou'd
take no lefs a Satisfaction, which brought His Mercy to
a Neceflity of finding fuch a Satisfaction, if it wou'd
Save man. Thus His Attributes Exalt and Magnify one
another, but they do not Cramp, nor Incroacb upon one
another. Ther is Harmony, not a Strugle 'twixt the At-
tributes of God ; and what feems to be a Difference be-
tween them, Unites them the more ftrongly. One Deep
calleth another*. The Abyfs of His Juflice, calls upon
the Abyfs of His Mercy. His Juflice, requires Satis-
faction ; His Wifdom, finds it ; and His Mercy, be flows it.
Here are the three Perfons of the Trinity before de-
fcrib'd, viz. Power, Wifdom, Love. And let me obferve
to you, That, as the Will ads from the Laft Di&at of
the Under/landing : and the Holy Spirit of Love Proceeds
from the Wifdom, which is the Second Perfon of the BL
Trinity , as before has been Explain'd: So, in the Pre-
fer
6 The fixth V IALOGV E.
fent Difquifition we are upon, the Satisfaction due to the
Juftice of God for our Sim 9 His Love or Mercy do's a&,
not Arbitrarily, i e. without Reafin; but according to
the ft riot Rules of His Wifdom and Juftice : with which
His Goodnefs and Mercy muft keep even Pace ; other wife
ther muft be a Fraction and Division in Go^, that is,
among His Attributes, and one get the Better of another.
But according to the Do&rin of Satisfaction, they Re-
commend and Glorify each another : They all concurr
to the fame end, tho' in different manners, tho' they
feem to be oppofit, to go againft one another : which
they often do among men ; for want of Wifdom to find
out a Method to fatisfy both juftice and Mercy : and
therefor one is forc'd to yield to the other, one to
oppofe, to be againft the other. But in God, they are
all one.
SOC. St. James fays, Mercy rejoyceth againft Judg-
ment, c. 2. 13.
$m.i. 13. CHR. That may be faid in Complyance with our
Expiain'd. manner f apprehenfion, which, as has been obferv'd, is
often us'd in Scripture : And in our ForgivenefTes, Mer-
cy rejoyceth againft Judgment : we cannot reconcile them,
therefore this was fpoke ad Captum.
But 2dly, our Margent reads it Glorieth; and the
Vulgar has it, Mifericordia fuper exalt at Judicium. Mercy
exalts Juftice, or as the Greek will bear it, Mercy Glo-
rieth of Ju/lice.
And this appears plain from the part of this verfe
which goes before ; for thefe words are deduced as a
Confequence from an Inftance of Juftice, and even of
Juftice without mercy ; for he /ball have Judgment without
mercy, that hath [hew d no Mercy, and mercy Glorieth of
Judgment.
But if you mean that Mercy Glorieth againft Juftice,
by way of Getting the better of Juftice, of taking off
from the Satisfaction which Juftice wou'd require. How
is
The fixth DIALOGV E. 7
is that done in Executing Judgement without Mercy ? which
this Text i peak's of?
But if you mean that this fevere and exact Juflks
does recommend Mercy to us fo much the more. Then
the force of the Argument appears plain, becaufe this
Juftice was threatn'd to thofe who had fljew'd no Mercy.
So that this Juftice recommends or exalts Mercy to us.
v And Mercy here Glorietb of judgment, of this Juftice done
to thofe who have no Mercy.
To Glory or Boaft of a thing, fhe ws that we have
a KJndnefs for it, that we are Pleased with it, or as
the common faying is, Proud of it: And this fuppofes a
Concern for it, and not an Enmity , again (I it. And thus
it is that the Mercy of God Glorietb of His Juftice: But
by no means Againft it, in this Senfe, as if His Mercy
does thwart His Juftice in the Redemption of Man by
Chrift Jefus. But as the Apoftle fpeaks, His Rigbteouf-
nefs (or Juftice, ^ixaiWnj) was Declared, in His being
Jufl, and the Juftifier of him who believetb in Jefus, %nom*i&.
Mercy fatisfying Juftice, ; Exalts Juftice, and, in that
Senfe, may be faid to Glory even againft it, viz. That
the Debtor is not Ruined by Juftice, which Juftice does
not Require, fo full fatisfaction be made otherwife;
But it is not fo if Mercy will fave the Debtor without
fatisfying of Juftice, for then Juftice muft be Reftrain'd
and Curtailed and Driven from its Right, fore'd to be
Satisfy' d 9 without Satisfaction given to it. And Mercy
Glorying, or Rejoycing againft Juftice, in this Senfe,
is being an Enemy to Juftice, Contefting againft its Right,
and overcoming it : And this cannot be betwixt the At-
tributes of God, without fuppofing God to be at Enmity
and Contradictory to Himfelf.
But pray tell me, fince you will not have Chrift a
Satisfaction or Propitiation for your Sin, what it is that
you make of Him ?
SOI,
3 The Sixth DIALOGVE.
W SOC.We think He is our Mediator and Interceffor ;
:^°muutt And tnat ic is P r W/J Safie ^ at God for S ive s our Sins,
only. and gives us Heaven.
CHR. And you think this more Rational, than that
God fhou'd need any Satisfaction to His Jujlice. But
now upon the Point of Reafon, does God need any to
Mediate or Intercede? Does not He know and confider
whatever any Body elfe can fuggeft to Him ? For, who
hath known the Mind of the Lord, or who bath been His
Councellor? Rom. ii. 34.
SOC. That is true; But if God pleafe to ordain a
Mediator I
CHR. And if he Pleafe to ordain a Satisfaction? Why
do you reject this as being againfi Reafon? And yet fet
up a Mediation, which you confefs has as little Rea-
fon ?
(S-) But how do you folve the Ju/iice of Chrift's Death,
wSve who can find n0 ufe in the World for His L>eath ? For
for'the Death He might Mediate and Intercede without Dying.
of Obrtf. sqc" He D/d to Confirm the 7>«^ of His Dottrine.
firm°his C i?o- CHR. Many Men have Dfd for an Error. Dying
ftrin. proves no more than that a Man is ftrongly perfwaded of
the truth of what he fays.
in Hatred SOC. God took Chrift's Life, to fhew God's Hatred
ioSi »' to Sin.
CHR, This proves flatly againft you, for Chrift had
no Sin of His own, and therefor it muft be, that He
took our Sin upon Him, and iuffer'd for it, which you
will not allow.
But let us leave our own Reafonings and Gueffing,
they are very fallible, and kt us come to matter of
Fatt, and fee what Qod has done, not what we may
fancy proper for Him to do.
The ftrongeft Argument to perfwade you in this great
CbriBcaw Point of the Propitiation of Chrift, is to view Him in
fuki'd in His j-n s Types of the Old Teflament: And thefe will give
%•'• '• you
The Sixth D IALOGV E, 9
you the eafy. Scnfe cf tnofe Texts of the New Tefla-
ment, which fpeak of Him as fulfilling thofe Types of
His.
Himfelf tells you, That one Jota of the Law can- Mit < i«
not pafs till all be fulfilled. * 5 '
And St. Paul is fo exaQ: in the Parallel 'twsxt Him
and His Types, That he gives this for the Reafon of that
feeming frnall Circumftance in the Sufferings of Chrift,
which otherwifej I fuppofe, no body had obferv'd, and
that W$s, That He fuffer'd without the Gate of the City, ^b.i^iir.
But the /ipoflle tells us- That this was order'd by Pro- 12 "
vidence, on purpofe that He might fulfill His Type of
the Sin-Gjfering, or Expiatory Sacrifice, whofe Body was
to be buried without the Camp.
And it is notorious, That thefe Sacrifices were Ex- Lsv.v6.tu
phtery or Propitiatory, for Attonement and Satisfaction for
Sin. That they were to fuffer in our Stead, and for us ;
Our Sins were Confefs'd over the Scape Goat, and put
upon his head, and he was to bear upon him all our Ini-
quities. This was another Type of Chrift, which He was
to fulfill to the leaf! Tittle.
This was more than bare Interceeding. Nay we are Heb. 9 .n„
plainly told, that ther is no Remiflion without (bedding Gen*zij.
of Blood. Ther mud be Death. Death was threatn'd
to Sin, before it was born. And this muft be made
good. And this did Confecrate or Devote our Life to
God ; that is, lay it under the Curfe of God's Indigna-
tion, or Juftice, and for its fake, the Blood (its Vehicle)
which therefore was forbidden to be Eaten; it Was not
ours, it was forfeited to God, by our Sin ; it was a Debt
due, and muft be paid. This Blood . thus forfeited to
God, He gave to us again, not to eat, or to our own
common ufe, but to a new ufe, to be a Type of the
Blood of Chrift, which only has Vertue to make At-
tonement for our Sin. And in its Vertue only, its Type,
K the
up The fixth DIALOGVE.
the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices, was faid to make At-
tonement for our Souls.
Lev. 17. 11. The Life of the Flefi is in the Blood, and 1 have given
it to you upon the Altar, to make an Attornment for your
Souls : For it is the Blood that maketh an Attornment for
the Sou L
Here we are told what it is, that maketh the At-
tornment, not the naked Interceffion, or Mediation, no
nor Merit of the Sacrifice.- For it is the Blood that ma-
keth an fit tonement for the Soul. Ther muft be Payment-
another Man's Riches will not Satisfy for my Debt, un-
lefs he Pay the Debt for me. Thus ChrifVs Merit or
Riches, had not Satisfy } d without His Death ; It was His
Merit made His Death to be Satisfactory, which other-
wife it had not been for Sin. But His ABual Dyings
was the ABual Payment of the Debt. And hence it is
that our Redemption is Attributed to the Death of Chrift,
His Blood, the Sacrifice of His Life for us.
Do not miftake me, as if this took away His Medi-
ation and Interceffion. No, It was this which render'd
them Effeaual.
(7.) Be pleas'd to Confider with me fome of the
9 lir ^;'; n ; Texts which attribute our Redemption to Chrift's
ptton is by the A
'Deith of Death.
chrift. fj e cam e to give His Life a Ranfom for many — .
M 2«. a i8.**'My Blood is fhed for the Remiffion of Sins Except
$db.6.'tt. ye Eat His Flefb, and Drink His Bloody ye have no
%om. 3. 25. Life— Whom God has fet forth as a Propitiation, thro'
4-2§- Faith, in His Blood He was delivered for our Of-
^l 0, fences Reconcil'd to God by the Death of His Son — ■
1 Cor. <. 15. by whom we have received the Attornment. He Dyed
»i« for all God made Him to be Sin for us, who knew
no Sin ; that we might be made the Righteoufnefs of
Gal. 1.4. God in Him. He gave Himfelf for our Sins, He hath
3. x 3- Redeem'd us from the Curfe of the Law, being made a
Epbe.un. £ {ir f e f° r us ? We h ave Redemption thro' His Blood, the
forgivenefs
The fixth DIALOGUE. 1 1
forgivenefs of Sins, having made Feace thro' the Blood of CoL l - 2 °-
His Crofs. Not by the Blood of Goats and Calves, but Heb.g. 12.
by His own Blood, He enter'd once into the Holy Place,
having obtained Eternal Redemption for us Having 10. 1.3.
therefor boldnefs to enter into the Holyeft by the Blood
of Jefus- — The Blood of Chrift fhall purge your Con : 9- M- .
fcience — • And for this Caufe, He is the Mediator of t ,
the New Teftament : That by means of Death, for the
Redemption of TranfgreiHons we might receive the
Eternal Inheritance. He by Himfelf Purged ouv Sins • ^ ,,,.
His own felf bare our Sins in His own Body on the x p 2 *
Tree — ■ by whofe Strips ye were healed. The Blood r /^. ;. 2 7 „
of Chrift cleanfeth us from all Sin — * He is the Pro-
pitiation for our Sins God fent His Son to be the \*\ .
Propitiation for our Sins. Chrift Dyed for our Sins ac- x Ccr , „
cording to the Scriptures.
SOC. What Scriptures does the Apoftle there mean?
CHR. All of the Old Teftament which relate to the
Sufferings of Chrift ; All the Sacrifices and Inftitutions
of the Law, which are apply'd to Chrift; Particularly,
of that remarkable Chapter, the 5$ Ijaiab. Where it is
faid, that He was " Wounded for our Tranjgrefftons, He
" Was Bruifed for our Iniquities, The Chaftijewent of our
" Peace was upon ffim 9 and with His Stripes we are
CHR, Xss.Chrift does require from us a livelyand ftedfaft aus,
Faith, in that Satisfaction He has made for us,(which he can-
not have who does not Believe it) together with fincere
Repentance and Amendment of Life, And then His Satis*
faff ion will be apply 'd to Us, by our Faith. This is the
Condition, that is, Faith and Repentance: And this is of-
fered to All. And full . Satisfaction is made for the Sins
of the whole World. Yet All have not the Benefit of
it. Becaufe All will not accept of the Conditions. Let
me give a familiar Example: Suppofe youfhou'd Pay all
the Debts of the Prifoners in a Jail, and open the Doors,
on Condition that All who Acknowledg'd your KJndnefs,
and wou'd Go out, fhou'd be Free. And there were.
Some among them Defpis'd your Kjndnefs, and wou'd
not go out, prefering the Lazy and Sordid Life of a Pri-
fin? before the True Liberty : cou'd you fay that their Debt
had not been paid ? And yet it wou'd be true, that they
were never the better for it, but the worfe. It wou'd
be an aggravation of their future Bondage.
What a grofs Conception had Crellus of the Nature, Difference-
of $/* ? He look'd upon it only as a lump of Money to JSf c / h ^
be paid down : That we run in Debt to God as a man and of konyl
does to his Creditor ; fo that God wou'd lofe his Money
if it were not repaid to Him, and fo being paid by a-
nother, God is no Lpfer, and the Debtor has no more
to Do, he owes nothing to God his Creditor , But may
now Defy Him as out of His reach ; Need be Pious no
more, Love, Fear, or Truft in God no more ! This is the
Socinkn Argument againft the Satisfaction \ It wou'd hin-
der
j6 The Sixth D 1AL0 GV E.
der Piety ! And all this, becaufe Sin is call'd a Debt.
But the Sopbiftry confifts in not Diftinguifhing aright
'twixt the Debt of Sin, and of Money. God does not
■ Lofe by Sin\ as a Man La/m his Money, That isaGrofs
thought.
r . „ u BUt &'* is an Offence againft Z(?i/e and Goodnefs, that
to Love. is againft God, for G^ is Love.
And the Greater the Goodmfs againft which you O/JW,
your Offence is the Greater. The Greater -Love has been
fhown to you, the more your Ingratitude, If you be not
fenfible of it.
Cio# n And the Greater Mifery to your felf too. Vox Love
The 'satis- is Happinefs, and Confequently the Want of Love mud
i^* h be iW//*^, it is E/Ji/jf, iW<*//c7 ar j
That Nothing Created is Worthy before G/ CHR. De/pair of Gods mercy does^ not proceed from a
ftrong Senfe of Sin, tho' it fuppofes it. It proceeds from
a weak, which is a falfe Notion of God. Hence it is
that one man who Hopes in God, may yet have a ftron-
ger Senfe of Sin than another who Defpair s : but then
he that Defpair s has not fo ftrong and true a Notion of
God.
Thus Chrift had a Senfe of Sin infinitely exceeding
that of all the Damtfd, even to Eternity : becaufe he had
an Adequate Notion of God, and confequently of the In-
finite Demerit of Sin. But, from the fame Reafon, He
cou'd not Defpair, which, as has been faid, proceeds on-
ly from a Low and Inefficient Notion of the Nature of
God. Tho' in the great Cafe of Dereliclion upon the
Crofs, when hecry'd out, My God, My God, why haft thou
forfaken me\ He fubmitted Himfelf even to that Infir-
mity of our Corrupted Nature, as much as cou'd poffi-
The fixth DIALOGV E. 21
bly be DiftinguifbM from Sin, and Confift with a
right apprehenfion of God-, which tho' we may fup»
pofe in a great meafure Clouded thro' the Anguifh of
Sufferings, and the Load of Sin in its full weight, which
merited the Eternal Defertion of the Comforts of Gods
BlefTed Influence from the Sinner, and which therefore
Chrift endured to an Vnexpreffible Degree, exceeding, in
Weight, even the Defpair of the Darned; yet formal De.
fpazre eou'd never befal Him, became it proceeds from a
falfe Notion- of God.
SOC. You fay, That Eternal Punifhment is the Re- (12.)
ward of Sin. Therefore if Cbrift did undergo the whole °\ Tli h ac H£
Punifhment due to Sin, He muft have Sufler'd Bter* Suffer'd !*«■-
nally. nal Pumfb.
CHR. The Eternity of the Punifiment is only becaufe ment '
Satisfaction can Never be made by the Damned. Whom
Jufiice Detains till they have Pafd the Vttermojl Far-
thing. Which they not being Able to Pay, confequent-
ly are Prifoners for Ever. But as Jufiice Requires the
Vttermojl Farthing, fo when that is Pafd, fujlice \%
Oblig'd to Releafe. That Vtiermost Farthing, which the
Nature of Love Requires, as well as of Juftice fas I
have fhew'd) is a Senfe of the Sin, Proportionable to
the Offence. Which Christ, in our Nature, having Of-
fer'd in full Tail, He PurchasM the Releafe of that Na-
ture. And gives the Bene ft to All who will Accept of
it. Whereas if He had Sufier'd Eternally, He had only
been a Prifoner w ith us, but had Purchas'd no Redemption
for Us.
SOC. In Anfwer to your Arguments Drawn from the
Nature of God, as explain'd by the Nature of Love,
I think them too Notional,
CHR. It is the Notion God has given us of Himfelf.
1. John. 4. 8. and 16. God is Love. And therefor it
muft be the moft certain Topick from wbence to argue
of
icrnity
21 The Sixth D1AL0GVE.
of this Nature. And to fay that this is Notiond> is
finding Fault with Scripture.
SOC. I like the other Topick better, that is, to Con-
fider of God only as a Great Governor; and not to ar-
gue from His Nature, but only to confider what may be
Confiftent, that is, fafe to His Government.
xxil. And in this Senfe I take all His Threats, even of
or the e- fj e /^ t0 De n0 m0 re but Threats, in order to fecure His
of Government over us : And that therefor He is not bound
in 'jttftiwi or any way, to inflict thofe Punifhments,
further then to fecure His Government : And that this is
no breach of Promife, or of His word, more than it is in
a Prince to remit that Punifhment, which he, by his
Laws, has Denounc'd againft fuch an Offence. The
Security of his Government is all he has to look to.
It is no Injujlice, or Falsifying his Word, to Pardon fuch
an Offence, or to Mitigate it, to what Degree he pleafes.
And therefor, tho' God has 1 hreatn'd Hell to be
Eternal ; He may Remit that, either in part, or in whole,
without any Impeachment to His Juflice, or His Veracity,
as He fpar'd the Nmevits after Hs faid He wou'd de-
ft roy them.
I CHR. His Threatning of the A 7 inevitswas in order to
their Repentance; Jonah. §. 10. and fo are His Tempo-
ral Threatnings to other Nations and Kingdoms, as we
are affur'd fer. 18. 7, 8, &c. And therefore when
they do Repent, the end of that threatning is ob-
tain'd. f
But it is quite otherwife in the Punifhment of Hell.
For the Sufferings there are not intended for the Amend-
ment of the offenders (which is in order to pardon)
But as a Satisfaction to Juftice, the time of Forgivinejs
being over. As when a Malefactor is brought to Juftice,
to Dye without Mercy for his Offence.
SOC. This is only to fecure the Government againft
the like offenders for the future. And therefore I faid
that
The Sixth DIALOG E. 2
that God does, and ought to punifh, fo far as to
fecure His Government; But farther than that Con-
flderation, He is not Oblig'd either in Jttfttie or
Honour .
CHR. Why? Is God afraid/ Is He in Danger of
having His Government overturn'd ? What a poor No-
tion have you advanced of God's fuflice]
Befides, this Argument only takes place as to this
World ; for no body fays that the Punifhments of Hell
are only for Example fake. Therefore it muft be from
fome other Confideration ; and I can fee no other but
that of Satisfying the Ju/lice of God. But why was Ex-
ternal Punifliment threatned by God.
SOC. It was of ufe to have Eternal Punifhments
threatned at leafl ; becaufe lefs than that wou'd not De-
terr Men from Sinning ; fince we fee that that it felf
does not do it. For,
" The fting of Sin is the terror of Eternal Punifh-
" ment ; and if Men were once free from the Fear and
" Belief of this, the moft powerful restraint from Sin p * 4a
Ci wou'd be taken away And therefore if any thing
plagis, verberibufque "ad fe pertrahere an-
niter etur, whom they cou'd not perfwade by fair
means they endeavoured to bring over to their fide by
Force and Perfecution. Of this you will be Satisfied
abundantly not only in the Reigns of Conflantius and
Valens, but of the Gothick Kings in Spain, and the Van-
dal Kings in Africa, whofe Perfections are writ by
Victor Vitenfis.
If we fhou'd, tell them that they fhou'd have the
fame Quarter they gave to Athanafius, what Objection
cou'd they make againft the Juftice of the Sentence.
And what Security cou'd they give, or Reafon to make
any one Believe, that if they had a Socinian Prince (which
God avert) they wou'd not Perfecute as Bloodily as
they did Formerly ? Or that Socinian Bi(bofs in this Age
would be more Christian and Merciful then thofe in the
Ages paft, and wou'd not make ufe of the Temporal
Power, as they did before, to Deprive the Orthodox Bifhops
and
4 o The fixth D I A LOGV E.
and Seize upon their Sees for themfelves ; And Profecutc
thofe for Schifmaticks, who refus'd to Join with them in
Communion ; And as Obnoxious to the Temper al Law,
who fhou'd Dare to own their Deprived Orthodox Fa-
thers. When they can fecure us that, in this cafe, the
Orthodox ought not to be put under any Penalties by
the Law ; then, and not till then, it will be time for
them to plead that the Socinians ought not to be under
any Penalties by the Law. of which they are under
no apprehenfions at prcfent, nor can they ask more
Liberty than they have, uniefs w be ■ Eftablifb'd by Ac!
of Parliament as the National Religion ; of which I will
not fay, whether they have hopes or not ; or whether
now, or in a little longer time, when their Principles
Ihall be more generally fpread, and as publickly own'd
in the Country * as they are in and near the City. For
what other End (hould they Defire a Repeal of the
Penal .Laws, I cannot fee at prefent, for they are in
Face ; .as -much Suj fended towards the Socinians, as to wads
other Dijfenters. The Socinians have now for a Long
time had an Open Meeting- Houfe in Cutlers-Hall in Lon-
don: Their Preacher one Emlin, formerly a Dijfenting
Preacher in Dublin, but fore'd to Fly out of Ireland,
for his Open and Notorious Socwiamfm. I have fsen a
very Long Catalogue of the many Volumes of Socinian
Traces Printed fmce this Brief Hiftory we are now up-
on. And they have been Difpers'd with Great Dili-
gence all over London, without Caution or Secrefie, and
are ftill to be Bought Openly in the Book-fellers Shops.
Yet no Inquiry or Profecution ! I have heard Sociniimfm
by Name Openly Defended in Publick Coffee- Houfe s,
and the Perfons own themfelves to be Socinians, and
no Notice taken/ What Liberty wou'd they have? Or
what Perfecution (Jo they Fear? They all pafs under
the Name of good Proteftants ! For they are not Pa-
psfts,
SOC.
The Sixth DIALOGVE. 41
SOC. This brings me to the Third Point, which is, ^0
That the Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians as ou ™ t a t 00 *j;
Christian Brethren, them as our
CHR. You Charge us with Polytheifm and Idolatry. ^f n ian ^ c
and that Christ whom we Worfhip as God, you fay nre
is but a Creature what Greater Difference can ther be
in Religion ? As foon may Contradictions Reconcile, and
God, and No God, mean the fame thing, as we be
Christian Brethren.
The Jews and Heathens confefs Christ to be a Man,
and a Good Man ; The Turks own Him for a True Pro-
phet, and the Mejjtah fent from God : Thefe too muft be
Chnttian Brethren upon the fame Score.
Befides you Reject the only way we know to Hea-
ven, which is, by the Satisfaction of Chrijt. How then
can we be Christian Brethren, we go not fo much as the
fame Rode together?
SOC. Mull: every Body be Damn'd that does not Nonefav'4
believe the Satisfaction of Chrili ? but by the
CHR.l will not fay that, But I do firmly believe, that no *£$?"*
Man can be fa v VI but by the SatisfaBion of Christ. Infants,
Fools, Mad-Men, and thofe who never heard of it, are ex-
cus'd from Believing it, but yet are fav'd by the Vertue of it.
SOC. Why then does Athanafus fay, That except we
believe we fhall be Damn > d t and without doubt, Penjh E-
verlaftingly ? are not thefe words too Pofitive.
CHR. They are no more than our Saviour faid, Go
Preach the Gofpel to every Creature. He that believeth {hall Wark « 16,
be Jav y d y but he that believeth not [hall be Damn'd, I4) l6 '
SOC. But why does Athanafus put in fuch poll live
words, as tofay without Doubt they fhall Perifh, &c. As oh. of a.
if he were fo fure of it? tbmtfwto*
CHR. Is. not what Chri/l fays true without Doubt ? £f JTjS!?
SOC. Yes fure. Ferijb.
CHR. Then without Doubt they who believe not fhall
be Damn'd
SOC. This is a Hard faying, O CHR.
4 i The fixth DIALOGV E.
CHR. But lay it not upon Athanafius, who but re-
peated it after our BlefTed Saviour, and fpoke the Senfe
of all the Reft of the Fathers of the Church. And, in
the True Senfe I think it goes no farther than this ;
That thofe who Refufe or Neglect the Preaching of
the Gof pel, that is, Reafonable Conviction of thefe Re-
veal'd Truths (hall be Condemn'd. But I do not think
- at all, That thofe are Included whofe unbelief proceeds
from an Impoffibilhy of Conviction ; either thro' want
of Capacity, or want of Means. And my Reafon is,
Chrift bids them go and Preachy and than who do not
believe— — So that when there is no Preaching, or Suf-
ficient Publication of the Gofpel, there this Sentence does
not take Place, for it is only pronouncM againft thofe
who Refufe to Believe upon the Preaching of the Gofpel.
Secondly No Man is Required to Believe farther than
his Capacity can reach; for that is not in his Power,
and is Impoffible, and a Contradiction in Nature. And
God has faid, That He will Require no more than He
has given ; But then men may improve their parts, and
ftrength will encreafe by Labor, and decay by Idlenefs.
And to him that hath more fhall be given; and he
will be Condemn'd who hides his Talents.
Thefe are ftrong Inticetnents to the utmoft Diligence,
and Sincerity, but by no means to Defpair.
And it is in this fenfe, That I recommend to you the
Doclrin of the Satisfaction otChriB. For if Faith in Him, as
fuch, as our Surety and Satisfaction to Gods Juftice and
Wrath againft Sin, if this be the faving Faith, as we fay it
is, Then the Turks and Barbarians will enter into Heaven
before you, and have a better Title to the Name of Cbriftians.
The Alcoran allows of Chriji as an Interceflbr with the
Divine Majefty, as you have heard. And they fpeak
as Great and Honourable things of Chrift, as any Soci-
nian can do ; and a great deal more in fome refpects,
as I have fhewn alrcoft to the height of the Arians
themfelves. The
The fixth DIALOGVE. 43
The nearnefs of their Faith may be the Reafon P« 3°-
why the Hift. V nit avians tells us, That the Socinians in
the Turkifb and other Mahometan and Pagan Dominions 2 ?>
are very numerous, but that their Do&rin is not profeft in
Chriftendom y except in a few very obfcure and little Places.
But pray let me ask you in good Earneft, for I do not . The „ ?° ci "
well underftand, how you expeft to be Sav'd by Chrift?™™^
SOC.By that New Covenant He has made with God for us.
CHR. What is the Condition of that Covenant f
SOC. Our True Obedience, and upon Failure, Sincere
Repentance and Amendment,
CHR. Is any of our Repentance and Amendment as
True and Sincere as it ought to be ?
SOC. No. We rnuft not prefume to that, for the Scrip-
ture fays, that all our Righteoufnefs is as pithy Raggs. If. 64. 6.
CHR. Was the Condition of the Covenant, That God
fhou'd accept of thefe filthy Raggs.
SOC. Thro 1 the Interceffion of Chrift.
CHR. God hates Sin, with an Irreconcilable Hatred.
And He is of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity.
Wou'd Chrift intercede with Him, to A3: contrary to
His Nature, and to Love what He Hates ? Does not
Chrift Himfelf Hate Sin ? Does He defire it to be accepted ?
SOC. That will not bear. But do not you fay the fame ? Compar'd
CHR. Far from it, we fay, That God accepts ifcfyjgj, th —
the Satisfaction of Chrift, as being Full and Adequat to
His whole fuftice. And the Condition and Privilege of
Chrift's Covenant is, by our being Incorporated into Him,
to make His Righteoufnefs ours, That as He was made
Sin for us who knew no Sin, fo we (who have of our
felves no Righteoufnefs} might be made the Righteoufnefs 2 Cor.<.Bi,
of God in Him. And being thus Cloathed in the Gar- *
ments of our Elder Brother ; we are accepted in Him on-
ly. And thofe Only are accepted, who in profound Hu-
mility and Senfe of their own Unworthinefs rely wholly
on the Righteoufnefs of Christ.
O 2 SOC.
44 The Sixth D IALOGVE.
we muft SOC. If we lean fo wholly to the Merit of ChriHs
gJ? work? Righteoufnefs, then we need not Work our felves. So
m Ani witbus. fay the Solifidians.
CHR. That has been fufficiently anfwered already,
And it is Refolv'd Phil. 2. 12. 15. Work out your own
Salvation becaufe it is God who worketh in you both to
Will and to do of His Good Pleafure.
God gives us Power to Work, that we might Work.
We muft work becaufe God commands it, and we
muft do all we can, becaufe he gives us Ability, and it
is, that we might Vfe that Ability : But when we have
done all we can, we are Unprofitable Servants; we muft
truft nothing to any thing we do; it is all Unclean, and
cannot appear before God. Nor can ever, for its own
fake, be accepted by Him ; It muft be Hid and Covered,
and Cloatfrd with the Righteoafnefs of Chrifi ; that no-
thing of it felf may appear at all in the prefence of God,
(as has been faid) who fees Folly in His Angels, and the
job, 4. ip. Heavens are not Clean in - His fight ; how much lefs
them that Dwelt in Houses of Clay, whofe Foundation
is in the Daft, who are Crujb'd before the Moth}
14. 4. And who can bring a Clean thing out of an Unclean ?
Yet muft You that truft in your ©wn Works, appear to me as
be vndothei a man c loath J d in Filthy Raggs, (Tor fuch is all our Rjgh~
iL^ctobei' teou f He f s ) and brought into Court, rubbing and f crabbing
in the jugbte -and patching thefe najly Clouts, driving to make Himfelf
cbr'a 0t £l* An an( * Fine and well Drefi as the Courtiershz fees there. *
Who may commend his Skill and Induftry in Darn-
ing or Cobling, but muft withall Pity his Ignorance, if he
thinks ever to make his Drefs Fafhionable by fuch means.
But if he fhou'd prefume to make one, in that Garb, at
a Solemn Feaft, made upon the moft Glorious occafion, The
Marriage of the Kjngs Son, he muft not only be thought
Mid, but expect to be Severely Punifht^ and thrown
out of Court with Difgrace, for fuch Impudence.
£«if?er4. », If none Cloath'd in Sackcloth (the weed of Mourners)
muft
The Sixth DIALOG E. , 45
muft enter into the Kjngs Palace, much lefs fhall one Be-
jmered, and in Filth come into His Pre fence, Sic down to
Table with Him, Nay be admitted to His Bed, made One 21. "'
rw'fA J//>« and Marry* d to Him, and fit with Him 11* His
Throne. For fuch High prerogative has G&r//? obtain'd
for all true Believers: Who when they come to JJeavete;
are not, for Chri/Ps fake, admitted in their F/7///y JRrfgg/,
nor is His Covenant with His Father to P^/fA and AV0*™
their R*ggs, No, they can never be made fit for that
place. But as the Serpent Leavs all his Sjfng behind Him,
they are «S7r//tf and Dive/led of all their Earth Stain* d fin-
ful Weeds. And as the Cuftom is in fome Courts, they
are New Cloath'd in the Fafhon of that Court to which
they come, as God laid to Jcjbua (Zech. j. 4.) Behold,
1 have caufed thine Iniquity to pafs from thee, and I will
Cloath thee with Change of Raiment. New Botching the Old
will never do; we muft have all New, a New Wedding Matt. 22,
Garment put upon us, we mull: throw of the Old Man, not 1 ^' Co, 3'*
feek Excufes for him, or to Reconcile him to God, who '°
Hates him, and all Wickednefs, by the fame Neceilky that He
Loves Himfelf. Nor can Chrijl plead for fuch : That wou'd
make Him Wicked too ; He hates Sin as much as God does.
Give me Leave to fuppofe, that you had now all your An 4^
Death-bed Thoughts about you; place your felf, in your co £h e soeai-
own Imagination, in the utmoft Scene of your Life, and Wo
juft ready to breath out your laft; and to be carry'd to
hear the Irrevocable Sentence pafs upon- you. Wou'd you
delight to bring the Sincerity of your own Performance
before the molt Exrream Scrutiny of Infinit Ju/iice, fo as
to ftand or fall by it to all Eternity ? Or wou'd you think
it greater Comfort, if you cou'd believe that Chrift wou'd
appear, not to plead for God's Acceptance of your Pro-
vocations, for fuch have been all your Performances : But
that having made you a Member of His own Body, of His
Flejh, and of Fits Bones, and contequendy given you a P ' e
Title and a Rigk to all that was His; as every Member,
even
4 6 The fixth DIALOGUE.
.even that which is Grafted, partakes of the Nature and
Privileges of the Body : And that is truly a Member, which
is Enlivened and Actuated by the fame Spirit, and receives
NoiHiifhment from the fame Head; Whence the Apoftle
.Rom. s. n. inferrs the neceflity of our Refurrettion, becaufe that Spi-
rit which rais'd up Chrift from the Dead, muft raife us
up, being Members of His Body, and a£ted by His Spirit,
I fay if you cou'd Believe, That the Merit of Chrift 1 s
Righteoufnefs were thus made lours, fo that you might
■Plead it as your own, as a full Satisfaction to the utmoft
Demand of Juflice, paid by your Surety, fuch a Surety as
has made your Debt /;/'/ own, by making j^# ewe with Him*
/elf. If you cou'd Believe this, wou'd it not give you more
Comfort and Delight, more L/g/rf and Affurance to your
Mind, than any fijcc/z/e? you cou'd Fancy to be made for all
your Failings, fo as to make God in Love with them, and
Accept them upon whatever Arbitrary and Fancy 'd Cove-
nant you may fuppofe 'twixt him and Chrift, to Accept them,
which is contrary to the Nature of them Both ? And that
upon the only Reafon of an Innocent Perfons being Murther*d
by thofe Sinners, without any Need or Neceffity for it at all,
upon Account of Satisfying the Juftice of God for our Sins,
ior fo you Socinians fay. Bat yet give no other Reafon at
all for the Death of Chrift. But fuppofe a Covenant for it,
without any Why or Wherefore, when all might have been
done as well without it ; which is oppofit to all Senfe and
Reafon; while you reject as Irrational the Satisfaction of
Chrift, which is ftri&ly Confequential, and neceffary to the
Nature ofju/lice, which is God: And the Covenant of Re-
?ntjjim, grounded upon it,flows neceffarily from it, carries its
own Light and Ajfurance with it, and leaves no Doubt or
Sufpence in that Heart which can Believe it: He that thus
follows Chrift, walketh not in Darknejs, but I will be judg'd
by your feif whether your way be not Dark and Slippery}
Whether you can Lean your 6Wjabfolutely, and without
Hefitation upon that Foundation of your being accepted
without
The fixtb DIALOGUE. 47
without any Satisfaction made for your Sins, trufting only
to the Sincerity and Perfection of your own Performance of
thofe Conditions which Christ hath enjoyn'd, as the Terms
of that Arbitrary Covenant you fuppofe He made with God,
without any Covenant of Satisfaction ? Which of thefe Co-
v en ants wou'd you Defire to plead before your Judge, be-
fore the Face of the utmoft Juftice, unerring EfTential Ju-
stice in the Abftract, which cannot Forgive, or Remit the
leaft farthing, more than it can ceafe to be what it is, that
is Ju(tice? Wou'd you appear there Pleading your own
Right eoufnefs, or Sincerity of your Repentance, as an Atom*
went for your Sins ? That wou'd be Cleaning of your
Filth with a Fitthy-Cloatk Wou'd you not rather (to end'
in the words of Scripture} have the filthy Raggs oiyour own
Righteoufnefs taken quite away, and to be € loathed in the
Wedding Garment of the Righteoufnefs of Chrifl ?
SOC. Ther is no difpute but the latter wou'd be cbofen,
If it w T erein our Choife, that is, if it were in our Power to
Believe it. It has Comjorts'm it beyond all Imagination.
CHR. We are told by St. Paul, Eph. 21. 8. That this The Grace
Faith is the Gift of God. • All Arguments will prove inef- ^ v Gq ^^
feclual without the Influence of God's Blejfed Spirit; His true Faith la*
Grace, like the Sun, is that which muft Infpire the Ground^-
of our Heart, to make it Capable of Receiving the Good
Seed of His Word, and bringing forth Fruit into Salvation ;
without this, all our own Manuring and Cultivation is but
loft pains. Yet we muft prepare the Ground, and Cleanfe our
Heart, but that is only to render it fufceptible of the Influ-
ence of this BlefTed Sun of Righteoufnefs, which only gi»
veth Life. Therefor all the Glory, all the Praife is not to him
that Somth or Watereth, but to him thatgiveth the lncreafe.
To him the Doclrin of Satisfaction reftores the whole of our
Salvation, without taking any thing from the Obligation of
our own Endeavours, not as Partners in the Merit, butasjia-
turaland bounden Duty of Creatures, and Sinners received to
Pardon and Grace ; which therefor to neglett is Rebellion, and
Contempt-
4 8 The Sixth DIALOGVE.
Contempt of God, and renders us Incapable of the Influence
of HisBlejfed Spirit, which will not Defcend into an Impure,
or Polluted, nor into a Stubborn and Difobedient Heart ; much
lefs into an Heart fraught with the Conceit of its own Since-
rity, fo as to think it has no need of any Satisfaction for its
Sins, more than the Integrity and Perfection of its own tjkr
ventance. Upon which your ielves are forc'd to Confefs,
you cannot leaj^your Souls confidently when you come to
Dye, but iVifo for that Satisfaction againft which you Difpute.
' a Perftva- Judge then with your felf whether you had rcafon to avoid
five Inference a \] the plain Texts which fpeak of the Satisfaction of CV