A divine antidote against a devilish poyson, or, A scriptural answer to an anti-scriptural and heretical pamphlet entituled A designed end to the Socinian controversie, written by John Smith answered by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks.

SECT. VI.

MY second Argument, which car∣rieth a fair Probability in it, if the Judgment of Pious and Learned Men be any whit valuable, to prove that the God of Israel was more than one in Person shall be this;

That God, who delivered the Law upon Mount Sinai, was the God of Israel. But that God, who there deli∣vered that Law, was more than one in Person.

That God the Father is the only Per∣son in the Deity is the Doctrine of our Socinians; and consequently they stand

obliged by their own Principles either to grant that the Law was given and delivered by God the Father, or else to deny its Divine Original, which, I think they do not do.

The Evangelist indeed tells us, The Law was given by Moses, but how that was, Origen tells us, who thus distin∣guisheth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. We understand that the Law was given by Moses, but not from him. 'Tis sure that Origen means the same thing, which Erasmus thus expresseth, Moses Legis Au∣thor non fuit, Moses was not the Au∣thor of that Law: No, Castalio tells us, Quòd Lex data est, Divini fuit beneficii, The giving of the Law was from the kindness of God. As for Moses, 'tis said, He received the lively Oracles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith St. Chrysostom, he received the Law from another; and so proved not the Legi∣slator to establish and make the Law; but a Minister, an Herald, a Scribe, to receive, proclaim and write it. So that Ebion, that pestilent Heretick, had no reason to think Moses, who is said to have given the Law, to be upon that score, a greater Man than Christ.

But although the first Promulgation and delivery of this Law upon Mount Sinai cannot possibly be ascribed unto Moses; yet it seems very clearly to be attributed unto Angels. Thus St. Paul, For if the word spoken by Angels was sted∣fast, &c. What Word was that? Theo∣phylact answers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Apo∣stle means either the Decalogue, or ge∣nerally all those Commands, which were dispensed by the Ministry of Angels under the Old Testament. Thus St. Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Decalogue, the Commandment, Lex Mo∣sis, the Law of Moses; so Grotius. And of this Law doth the same Apostle else∣where thus affirm, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it was ordained by Angels; How so?— Ministerio Angelorum, by the Mi∣nistry of Angels; so Clusius. 'Tis the Observation of Grotius, that the Law was pronounced by some one of the Angels, others attending round about him.

And that the Law was indeed deli∣vered by some one single Angel, seems evi∣dent from that expression of St. Stephen, This is that Moses, who was in the Church in the Wilderness, with the Angel that

spake to him in the Mount Sinai, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the Angel, the Expres∣sion imports, that it was some one par∣ticular Angel, who pronounced the Law. But the question is, Who this Angel was? Grotius saith, it was, unus ex pracipuis Angelis, one of the Chiefest Angels; it was such an Angel, as was counted worthy to represent the Person, and bear the Name of God. So Moses tells us, God spake all these Words; and as Moses gives him this glorious Title, so doth this Angel himself assume it, I am the Lord thy God; and that he was so indeed, the People believed, who said, The Lord our God hath shewed us his Glory, and we have heard his Voice; we have seen this day, that God doth talk with man, &c. From such Expressions do learned Men gather, that the Per∣son, who delivered the Law, was God himself, either appearing under the Form, or at least speaking by the Tongue of an Angel.

And indeed that it was no created Angel, but some Person of the blessed Trinity, that delivered the Law, was the Opinion not only of Philo the Jew, but of St. Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Ter∣tullian, and some other Fathers of the Christian Church, who affirmed with

one Consent, revera fuissa Deum. that it was God indeed; and in particular, the second Person in the Trinity, whose various appearances under the Old Te∣stament were nothing else, but as St. Austin calls them, Symbola & Praeludia Incarnationis, the Symbols, Tokens and Essays of his Incarnation.

This is that, which Gregory Nazian∣zen confidently affirms, Filium Dei in monte Sina cum Mose locutum esse scimus, that the Son of God upon Mount Sinai did discourse with Moses, is a thing that we know. And to this purpose doth St Chrysostom expound that passage of St. Stephen, He was in the Wilderness with the Angel; What Angel means he? St. Chrysostom answers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'tis the Son of God, whom he calls an Angel. And again, a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Expression sheweth, that the Angel who appeared to Moses, was the Angel of the great Council; and that is, saith Dionysius the Areopagite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jesus himself.

Indeed, the same Dionysius in the same Chapter saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the

Scriptures teach us, that the Divine Law was handed to us by Angels. So Josephus too, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, our most Excellent Doctrines and most Holy Precepts were delivered to us by Angels.

Well, suppose it were certain that Angels, properly so called, created An∣gels, had to do with the delivery of the Law; yet this doth no way hinder but that Christ might be, and 'tis judged that he was the Legislatour notwith∣standing. For whosoever this Angel was, that which he delivered, was cer∣tainly the dictate of God. 'Tis so ac∣knowledged by Josephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Moses learnt these Constitutions and Laws from God.

And that the second Person in the Tri∣nity was he, who dictated this Law to Moses, was the Opinion of Oecumenius, Who writes thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; it is God who gave both the Law and the Gospel; but which Person might it be? he an∣swers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'twas he, who intercedes for as our Media∣tour and Reconciler to his Father, even

the same, who is Christ, though he were then under the shape of an Angel, or at least spake in and by one. For as St. Austin observes, Quemadmodum Ver∣bum Dei, quod est Christus, loquitur in Propheta, sic & in Angelo loquitur; as the Word of God, which is Christ, spake in a Prophet, so did he speak in an An∣gel too.

I remember Coelius Rhodiginus tells us that the Lawgivers of several Nations were very ambitious to make their Sub∣jects believe, that all the Laws which they established, were derived from some Deity or other. Thus Trismegistus Fathered his Laws upon Mercury; Draco and Solon, theirs upon Minerva; Zamolxis, his upon Vesta; Plato, his upon Jupiter and Apollo; Numa, his upon Egeria, &c. Now, that Divine honour, which they sought for their Laws, ours undoubted∣ly hath, as being infallibly the Law of God, or, which is all one, the Law of Christ, that glorious Lawgiver, with whom those of this World, whom Seneca mentions for the wisest, Solon, Lycurgus, Zaleucus, Charondas, &c. are not once to be named.

Now, to sum up this Argument, since the Law of Moses was certainly given by a God, and since he who gave the

Law in the Opinion of many Judici∣ous Men, is supposed to be the Eter∣nal Son of God; so far as we may rely upon the Authority of such Pious and Learned Interpreters, we may con∣clude upon this ground also, that the God of Israel, who delivered his Laws to Moses, and by him to the Jewish Na∣tion, was more than One in Person.

And indeed that the second Person in the Trinity should deliver the Law, seems the more probable, because he was the Person already designed in after-times to explain and fulfil the Law, and to call Men to an account for it, to re∣ward Obedience to it, and to punish the Transgressions of it.

But because these two Arguments be∣ing only probable and grounded upon the Opinion of Men, who are subject to mistakes, will not satisfy our Soci∣nian Author, that the God of Israel was more than One in Person; I shall to con∣vince him of his Errour, and to prove the same Truth with the greatest cer∣tainty, add 2 Arguments more, which I take to be clear Demonstrations, as being grounded upon the express, plain and infallible Word of God.

Notes

• Joh. 1.17. Origen. in Joann.
• Erasm. in Joann. c. 1.17. Castal. in Joann. 1.16.
• Chrysost. in Joann. 1.17.
• Heb. 2.2.
• Theophyl. in locum.
• Chrys. in locum.
• Grotius in locum.
• Act. 7.38.
• Grotius in Heb. 2.2.
• Exod. 20.1.
• Deut. 5.24.
• Greg. Na∣zianz. Or. 49.
• Chrysost. in Act. 7.30.
• Dionysius Areopag. Coel. Hier. l. 4.
• Joseph. l. 15.
• Joseph. Antiq. Judaic. l. 3. c. 10.
• Oecum. in Gal. 3.19.
• August. contra A∣dimant. c. 9.
• Coel. Rhod. Antiq. l. 18. c. 19.
• Seneca E∣pist. 9.