Page 24.

and Socinian Herefies had disturbed the Church; and indeed there was no need of it, for the only Son of God must be by Nature God, and the Spirit of God is as effentially God, as the Spirit of a Man is effential to. a Man.

He concludes; That theirs (the Socinians) is an accountable and reafonable Faith; but that of the Trinitarians is abfurd, and contrary both to Reafon and to it felf, and therefore not only falfe, but impoffible. The Faith of a Trinity in Unity, I hope, I have fufficiently vindicated already from Abfurdity and Contradiction. But it will be worth the while briefly to confider, how accountable and reafonable the Socinian Faith is.

The Socinian Doctrine is, That Christ, who is called the Son, the only begotten Son of God, the Brightness of his Glory, and the express Image of his Perfon, is no more than a meer Man, who had no Being, till he was Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and is called the Son of God, because God formed him by an immediate Power in the Virgins Womb, and raised him from the Dead, and exalted him to his own right hand in Heaven; and that the Holy Spirit is only the Power and Inspiration of God, that is, is either God himself, or the Operation of his Power in Creatures.

This is their accountable and reasonable Doctrine, and to fhow how very accountable and reasonable it is, I come now to draw up my charge against it.

1. That it ridicules the Scriptures. 2. That it rip. 23. dicules the whole Jewish economy. 3. That it ri238 dicules the Chriftian Religion. 4. That it juftifies, 252 or at least excufes both Pagan and Popish Idolatries.

The

The Charge is full enough, and I am contented it fhould pats only for big huffing words, till I have proved it; and then I hope, it may pass for a just Return to the ridiculous Blafphemies of the Brief Notes, and Brief History. :

1. That it ridicules the Scripture, by putting either an abfurd, or a very mean trifling fenle on it, unworthy of the Wisdom of God, by whom it was infpired; and this I fhall give fome Inftances of,in their Expofitions of Scripture, which I find in the Brief Hiftory of the Unitarians.

In the fecond Letter he takes notice of fome Texts in the Old Teftament, which fpeak of God, and in the New Testament are applied to Chrift, which we think a very good Argument to prove, That Chrift is that God, to whom thofe Texts belong in the OldTeftament; for though poffibly without fuch an Application we could not certainly have known, that thefe Texts were fpoken of Chrift, yet the Authority of Chrift and his Apoftles who have made this Application, is as good a Reafon to believe, that they were. meant of Chrift, as to believe any other part of the: Gofpel Let us then confider, how he anfwers fuch Texts.

Pag.4.5.

i Hebr.8,9.

What the Pfalmift fays, Thy Throne, O God, is for Pag 4-5. ever and ever, a Scepter of Righteoufne is the Scep- 45 Palm 6, 7. ter of thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved Righteousneß, and hated Iniquity, therefore God,even thy God hath anointed Thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows; the Apostle to the Hebrews applies to Christ; But unto the Son he faith, thy Throne, O God, &c. To. this be Answers, In the Hebrew, and in the Greek, 'tis God is thy Throne (ie. thy feat, resting place, efta

blishment)

blishment) for ever; If he had only faid, it may be fo, he had faid right; but it is falfe, to fay, it is to. For the Hebrew Elohim may be either the Nominative or the Vocative Cafe, and fo the Greek & Oes, which is an Attick Vocative, and fo is used by the Septua gint, 22 Pfalm r. Ὁ Θεός με, ὁ Θεός με, My God, my God, why haft thou forsaken me. And it is evident, the Septuagint, the Vulgar Latine, the Chaldee Paraphrafe, the Syriack and Arabick Verfions, took it for the Vocative Cafe, and thus the Chriftian Church has always understood it; and this is the most natural Conftruction,when it immediately follows a Pronoun, which has no other immediate Relative; Thy Throne, O God, that is, O God, thy Throne is for ever and ever. And thus the Apostle must understand it ; To the Son he faith, thy Throne, O God; where, O God, muft Le referred to the Son, and thy to God: and the fenfe he gives of it, is abfurd, and what we have no Example of in Scripture, that God is a Throne: God indeed is 18 Pfalm 2. called a Rock, a Fortress, a high Tower, which is expounded by a Deliverer; but a Throne here fignifies

26,27.

Kingdom, as is evident from the following words; and to fay, that God is the Throne, and the Kingdom of Chrift, is to fubject the Father to the Son; for a King fits upon his Throne, and governs his Kingdom.

The Apostle in the next Verfe cites another glorious Teftimony which God hath given to his Son; And, 102 Pfalm 23, Thou Lord in the beginning haft laid the Foundations of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of thine hands; they fhall perish, but thou remaineft, and they all fhall wax old as doth a Garment, and as a Vesture fhalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the fame, and thy years shall not fail. This

is fo plain a Testimony to the Divinity of our Saviour, if these words be allowed to be applied by the Apostle to Christ, that our Author is forced to deny it. He Lays, The Context has this fenfe, And thou Lord, (that Page so. is, and in another Text of the Pfalms, it is faid, Thou Lord) which is certainly true, if he had added but One word more,viz.to the Son. And in another Text of the Pfalms, it is faid to the Son, And thou Lord haft laid the Foundations of the Earth; for fo the Context requires us to fupply it, if we will make fenfe of it; for the Apoftle obferves in what different Language God (peaks of the Angels, and to the Son: Of the Angels he faith, who maketh his Angels Spirits,and his Minifters a flaming fire; but to the Son, he faith, thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: And to the Son he faith, Thou Lord in the beginning haft laid the Foundations of the Earth. But to which of the Angels faid he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine Enemies thy Footstool. This is eafie and natural; but to apply those words to the Father, Thou Lord in the beginning haft laid the Founda tions of the Earth, &c. is to break the whole Context, is contrary to the Apostles defign, and no good fenfe can be made of it; and this I think is to ridicule Scripture, to make it Nonfenfe, or very bad disturbed, and incoherent fense, when there is no need of it, but to ferve anHypothefis which the Text was defigned to confute. He fays, Tho. Aquinas rightly acknowledged, that the words of both thefe Texts may be understood of God only, not of Chrift; but this is falfe (as indeed he feldom cites any Author, but he corrupts him) for Thomas fays, this Text may be understood of either; but if you understand it of the Father, then by in the beginning you must understand the Son, who, he says,

68 Pfalm 18. 4 Eph.8.

is called the beginning: Thou Lord in the beginning that is, in or by thy Son, haft laid the Foundations of the Earth; for he faw the Context required,that thete words fhould be applied to Chrift, but he thought it indifferent, whether they were applied to him in whole or in part, fince both ways he is made the Creator of the World, which anfwers the Apostles defign; and though I think Thomas was mistaken, yet this makes nothing to our Authors purpose.

Thus what the Pfalmift fays of God, Thou hast afcended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou haft received Gifts for Men; St. Paul attributes to Chrift. Here our Hiftorian, fpends a great many words to no purpofe, about Chrift's defcent into the Grave and into Hell, and his afcending into Heaven to fill all things, or as he fays, it might be better rendred to fulfil all things, that is, all the Prophefies of himself, and others concerning his Death, and Afcenfion into the highest Heavens: But how does rá ala fignifie all Prophefies, or how does his Afcenfion into Heaven fulfil all Prophefies? As for the Gifts given to men, he says, in the Pfalms, they are literally meant of God, and of Chrift, only by way of Prophefie, or rather of Emblem, or Accommodation; which he learnedly proves, because the Gifts the Apostle speaks of, were not given or received till about One thousand years af

ter David's time.

Now what of all this? we readily grant, the af cending on high, the leading captivity captive, the receiving iving gifts for men, which the Pfalmift fpeaks of were not the fame, with the Afcenfion of Chrift into Heaven, his leading Captivity captive, and giving Gifts to men, but were Types and Figures of it; but the fingle Question is, Whether Chrifto be that God,

of