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. XXXI. (Book 31)

AND how this Socinian Authour can acquit himself from all De∣grees of this unpardonable Sin, I can∣not tell; for, though he doth not blas∣pheme this blessed Spirit at the same rate, as the Jews once did; yet he de∣signs, attempts, and doth whatever he can, to disprove his Personality, as if he were no more than a Quality, or Power of God the Father, but not a Divine and distinct Being subsisting by himself. For with a world of confidence he tells us thus; 'Tis plain from the general A∣nalogy of true Faith, grounded on Scri∣pture evidence, that the Holy Ghost is no distinct Person subsisting of himself: So he.

But if this indeed be so plainly de∣livered in the Word of God; how comes it to pass, that such vast Num∣bers of judicious, learned, and pious

Men, well versed in the Holy Scri∣ptures, could never yet see it there? well, to inform us better, and to con∣vince us of this pretended Truth, tho' it be a real Heresie, he urgeth this sor∣ry Argument. If the Holy Ghost be a distinct Person, then 'tis clear that our Lord could not be the Son of him, who is now called God the Father, since 'tis plain that the Virgin Mary's conception was occasioned by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. To which I answer thus;

1. Our Lord, in respect of his Di∣vine Nature, is the Son of the first Per∣son only; and that Person alone, up∣on that account, is often called, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And our Lord himself, upon the same ground only is properly stiled some∣times, the begotten, and sometimes, the only begotten Son of God; a Title, which cannot fairly belong to him in respect of his Manhood.

2. Our Lord, in regard of his Hu∣mane Nature, may not unfitly be cal∣led the Son of the whole Trinity; the first Person contriving his Incarnation, the second freely consenting to it, and the third effecting it; and this doth rather prove than hinder the distincti∣on of their Persons.

And now let us try the strength of this Man's Argument; The Holy Ghost, saith he, is not a distinct Person in the supposed Trinity, but why not? his Reason is this: Our Lord, who was con∣ceived by the Holy Ghost is stiled the Son of the first Person, or God the Father; and if so, it should seem that God the Fa∣taer, and the Holy Ghost, are not perso∣nally distinguished; That's the Substance of his Argument: To which I thus re∣ply;

1. Our Lord was the Son of the first Person, long before his Conception of the Holy Ghost.

* 1.1Accordingly Athanasius stiles him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Son of God before Mary's time, the Son of his substance, his na∣tural Son, even by an eternal Genera∣tion; a Generation sure, but inexpli∣cable.* 1.2 For, as St. Austin demands, Quis enarrabit, quomodo natus sit Deus de Deo, nec Deorum numerus creverit? Who can declare how a God was born of a God, and yet the Number of Gods not in∣creased? but that so it is, this great Man took for granted: For, preach∣ing upon a Christmas Day,* 1.3 he told his Hearers thus: Hac die est natus ex Vir∣gine

Matre, qui ante saecula aeternus est genitus ex Deo Patre. This Day was he born of the Virgin his Mother, who was begotten of God his Father before all Ages, even from Eternity. So then, our Lord, upon this account, may very well be called, for doubt∣less he is, the Son of the first Person; and yet this first Person may be, and is, distinguished from the third, be∣cause in this Eternal Generation of the Son, the Holy Ghost was no way con∣cerned. But,

2. We grant that our Lord, as be∣ing in his humane Nature conceived by the Holy Ghost, was to be called, as the Angel told his Mother, the Son of God, but how this proves, that God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, are not Personally distinguished, I cannot tell.

For, the Angel doth not say, He shall be called the Son of God the Fa∣ther, the first Person only, excluding the second and the third. Nor may we here restrain the Name of God to the first Person only; for our Lord, the second Adam, as well as the first, was the Son of God by Creation; a Work, wherein the whole Trinity had an equal hand. And whereas the Creation of our Lord's humane Nature is here par∣ticularly

ascribed to the Holy Ghost; and whereas 'tis said, Therefore that holy thing shall be called the Son of God, the most genuine and natural inference, which can thence be raised, is this; namely, that the Holy Ghost is God.

But this our Socinian denieth, and tells us, 'Tis evident from these addi∣tional words, And the Power of the highest shall overshadow thee, that the Holy Ghost is only that Divine and In∣visible Power of God, by which he works his will and pleasure in the World; and by consequence, that God and the Spirit of God are no more two distinct Persons, than man and the spirit of man are; so he. I answer,

This Speech of the Angel contains two things: 1. The Person, who was designed to be the immediate Authour, and efficient Cause of this miracu∣lous Conception; namely, the Holy Ghost. 2. The Instrumental means, whereby this wonderful Work was to be wrought; namely, the Power of the highest, the Omnipotence of God. And if this distinction be allowed, then did the Angel speak like himself, but o∣therwise not; for, if by the Holy Ghost, and the Power of the highest, the An∣gel means but one and the same thing,

then here's an Instrument mention'd, but no Agent to use it; here's a Work to be done, but no Authour to do it; here's a Son to be conceived and born of a Virgin, but none to supply the place of a Father.

But, to gratifie this Authour, let us suppose that the Holy Ghost is here cal∣led, the Power of the highest; yet now will this Title prove that he is indeed no Person;* 1.4 St. Paul stiles our blessed Saviour, the Power of God, which is all one with the Power of the highest. And dares this Man take occasion from this Character, to say that our Lord is no Person, but a meer quality only? if not, if this Title, which St. Paul ascribes unto Christ, do not disprove his Perso∣nality and distinction from his Father; why should the same Title, being a∣scribed by an Angel to the Holy Ghost, disprove his?

And whereas this Man boldly saith, That God and the Spirit of God are no more two distinct Persons, than Man and the Spirit of Man are; I an∣swer, the Man and the Spirit of Man cannot be two distinct Persons, because Man without his Spirit cannot be so much as One; but 'tis not so with God. Now, to shew the Falshood of this

Man's assertion, I shall prove these two things; 1. That the blessed Spirit of God is indeed a Person. 2. That he is a Person distinct, both from the Fa∣ther and the Son.

1. That the blessed Spirit of God is indeed a Real Person; and such an one is thus defined,* 1.5 substantia individua & singularis, intelligens, incommunicabilis, non pars alterius, nec ab alio sustentata, so one;* 1.6 and thus another, Persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia: In short, a Person is an intelligent, in∣dividual, and distinct subsistence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; or, as some would rather express it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so Gregory Nazianzen tells us. Now, that the blessed Spirit of God is indeed such a Person, I shall prove two ways; 1. By the Testimo∣nies of pious, learned, and judicious Men, who are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as well deserve to be believed. 2. By the Au∣thority of sacred Writ, which is the Infallible Testimony of God.

1. That the blessed Spirit of God is indeed a Real Person, we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.7 a Cloud of Witnesses, such a multitude of such Witnesses, that a∣bout this matter, no humane Testi∣mony can be greater; nay, none can match it.

I know,* 1.8 that to invalidate this Ar∣gument from the Authority of Men, a late Socinian Book in its Title Page, tells us, Non quis, sed quid; we are to consider, not who speaks or writes, but what is spoke or written; and therein the Authour of that Tract, and we are agreed. But withal, have we not reason to believe, that the Defenders of the Trinity in all Ages did seriously consider, Quid, what they said, and what they wrote, especially about a matter of so great Concern? Can we charitably judge that so many Men of such excellent Parts, such exempla∣ry Piety, such acute Judgments, who made it their business to examine the Scriptures, to compare Text with Text, that they might surely find out the Truth, should be rash in their Deter∣minations, and recommend this Do∣ctrine, as a necessary Article of Faith, to the whole Christian Church, had they not found in their Bibles a suf∣ficient warrant for it? Can we think that without any certain grounds, they themselves would have professed the Faith of the Trinity, lived and died in that profession; yea, and condemned for a Pack of Hereticks, all those who did any way oppose it? certainly, if

there be any Validity in the Testimony of Man, there is as much as can be ex∣pected in any Mortal, in the Testimo∣ny of the Primitive Councils, and An∣cient Fathers, who were prudent, lear∣ned, judicious, and pious Persons; and therefore witnesses even beyond all ju•••• Exception.

Thus much being premised, let us consider what these Men of great re∣nown in the Church of God have thought, done, and writ in reference to the three Persons in the Deity, of whom the blessed Spirit is one.

Epiphanius* 1.9 tells us, that the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost was denied by the Arians,* 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They speak blasphemous Words against the Spirit, and dare to say that he was created by the Son. Of the same opinion was Eunomius,* 1.11 who af∣firmed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That the Son was the Workmanship of the unbegotten; and that the Paraclete, i. e. the Holy Ghost, was the Workmanship of the Son. This opinion of the Arians St. Austin ex∣presseth thus;* 1.12 spiritum sanctum Crea∣turam Creaturae, hoc est, ab ipso Filio creatum volunt: They would have the

Holy Ghost to be the Creature of a Creature, to be created by the Son himself.

But how did the learned Men of those times resent these opinions, and those that held them? 'Tis well known; and the Historian tells us, that the Coun∣cil of Nice,* 1.13 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did excommunicate Arius, and all others of his opinion, as so many Hereticks. This Council consisted of 318 Bishops, who compi∣led and approved that Creed, of which that famous Emperour Constantine the Great wrote thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'Tis nothing else but the mind of God: And for that he gave this reason;* 1.14 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Holy Ghost influencing the Understan∣dings of so many and such excellent Persons, revealed his Divine will and pleasure to them.

Nor was this Council rash in their Determinations; for, saith the Histori∣an, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.15 Questions were moved, and Answers were given over and over; and again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.16

The wicked opinion of Arius was throughly examined and debated in the Presence of the Emperour himself, who so well approved the Decrees of the Council, that by a Letter of his own he recommended them to his Sub∣jects, and required them to acquiesce in them.

And as the Acts of the Nicene Coun∣cil were approved and commended by the good Emperour, who heard the matters before them fairly debated; so were they afterwards confirmed and ratified by the second General Council, consisting of an 150 Bishops, who were convened at Constantinople, by the Com∣mand of Theodosius. And to what end they were summoned together, we learn from Sozomen,* 1.17 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; or, as Socra∣tes words it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; To confirm the Nicene Faith. And accordingly they did so, for their first Canon tells us,* 1.18 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They de∣creed that the Faith of the Nicene Fathers should not be abrogated, but remain firm, and that every Heresie

should be condemned; and particular∣ly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that of the Eu∣nomians, Eudoxians, and others, whom the Canon names, as Enemies to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; of which this Council was so satisfied, that in opposition to the Macedonian Heresie, they thought fit to enlarge that Arti∣cle of the Nicene Creed, which re∣lates to the Holy Ghost; and to assert his Divinity, they added some Clau∣ses to it; and made it run thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who to∣gether with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. Doubtless, the ad∣dition of these words to the Nicene Creed, is a clear Evidence that this Council did firmly believe the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost.

But if these words,* 1.19 as some learned Men have thought, were put into this Creed originally by the Nicene Fathers themselves; yet since this Council of Constantinople did own and confirm all

the Articles of that Creed, our Argu∣ment from their Authority holds as strong, as if they themselves had com∣posed the whole Creed, or enlarged it. And the same Argument may be plea∣ded from the Authority of the Third Oecumenical Council, that of Ephesus, consisting of 200 Bishops, convened by Theodosius the second against the Here∣sie of Nestorius.* 1.20 Of which Council 'tis thus recorded, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. in effect, the Bishops, there assembled, decreed that no Man should offer, compose, and write any other System of Faith, besides that of the Nicene Council. And yet further, the Constitutions of these three forenamed Councils were approved and ratified by a fourth,* 1.21 that of Chalcedon consi∣sting of 630 Bishops and Reverend Fa∣thers, convened by Martianus against the Heresie of Eutyches. Their first Canon is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; we think fit that the Canons, which have been declared and approved in every one of

the foregoing Councils should be still observed and kept in force.

Now, the Divine Personality of the Holy Ghost, being thus attested and as∣serted by these four General Councils, by the joint Suffrages of so many hun∣dred learned and pious Divines met to∣gether, who seriously consulted the Scriptures about this matter; we need the fewer Testimonies of single Persons to prove the same Truth. That of E∣piphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, shall be one;* 1.22 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and a∣gain he saith of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,* 1.23 that they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, truly perfect Names, and truly perfect Per∣sons. Gregory Nazianzen, sirnamed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Eminent Divine, spea∣king of God,* 1.24 saith that he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One in Es∣sence, Three in Persons, Baptism being administred in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Gregory Nyssen stiles it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.25 The Mystery of the Three Persons. Theophylact speaking of the same Sacra∣ment, saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Our Lord did therein make mention of three Persons, of which the Holy Spirit must be one; and that so he is indeed, St. Cyril of Jerusalem proves by this Argument,* 1.26 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Spirit must needs be a Person, because he is a living and in∣telligent Being. And, to name no more,* 1.27 Elias Cretensis writes thus of the Holy Ghost: Spiritus est essentia, quae per se in peculiari Hypostasi consideratur, the Spirit is an Essence considered in a subsistence peculiar to himself. And to the same purpose might abundance of more Authorities be transcribed out of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and many other Christian Writers, who with one consent own and assert the blessed Spirit to be, not a Quality, nor the Power of God the Father, as our Socinians dream, but a real Person sub∣sisting by himself.

But, as to this present Argument drawn from humane Authority, if any of our modern Socinians shall say to us, as one of their Predecessours did, in a like case,* 1.28 to Great St. Basil: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: We desire you in the first place, that you will not judge and de∣termine concerning Truth or Falshood by the Multitude of Voices, that you will not conclude that side to be in the right, which hath the greater Num∣ber; that you will not so far respect the Dignity of Persons, as to prepossess your Judgment with prejudice; that you will not attribute so much to the Constitutions and Decrees of former Ages, as to slight and stop the Ears a∣gainst the Proposals and Sentiments of later Authors.

To this I shall return the same An∣swer, which St. Basil did; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. What do these Men say? may we not shew a more than ordinary respect to the An∣cient Fathers? may we pay no reve∣rence to the Multitude of Christians, which now are, and have always been ever since the Gospel was preached? may we not highly value the Judgment

of those Persons, who were apparent∣ly blest with variety of spiritual Gifts and Graces?

We cannot well deny that those ear∣ly Christians, who lived nearest to the Apostle's time, had the fairest opportu∣nity to acquaint themselves with the Doctrines, which they delivered, a∣mongst which the Doctrine of the Trinity was One; so saith Irenaeus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.29 &c. The Church, tho' dispersed throughout the World, re∣ceived from the Apostles and their Dis∣ciples Faith in one God the Father, and in one Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Now, since this Apostolical Doctrine was generally owned by the Primitive Chri∣stians, ratified by several Councils, de∣fended by learned and pious Confessours and Martyrs, and in despite of all its Opposers, transmitted to Posterity from Age to Age; I think, no humane Testi∣mony of its Truth can be greater.

It's true, some learned Men, tho' com∣paratively but a few, have vigorously opposed this Doctrine;* 1.30 and who they were, and why they did so. St. Austin

thus informs us. Immaturo & perverso rationis amore falluntur. Quorum nonnulli ea, quae de corporalibus rebus, sive per sensus corporeos experta noverunt; sive quae na∣tura humani ingenii & diligentiae vivaci∣tate, vel artis adjutorio perceperunt, ad res incorporeas & spirituales transferre conantes, ut ex his illa metiri atque opi∣nari velint: The summ of which words is this; Men doat too much upon their own crude and obstinate Reason, they measure spiritual things by things cor∣poreal, matters of faith by matters of sence, from visible objects they raise in∣ferences about things invisible, and the doing of that deceives t••••••.

And thus do our modern Socinians argue against the Doctrine of the Trini∣ty, by finite and corporeal Beings, they measure Beings infinite and incorpore∣al; and because the humane Nature subsisting in three distinct Persons, con∣stitutes three Men; and the Angelical Nature subsisting in three distinct Sub∣jects, doth make three Angels: They hence conclude, that if the Divine Na∣ture doth equally subsist in Three di∣stinct Persons, there must needs be three Gods. But doth the Nature of Men, Angels, and God, fall under the same considerations? the Nature of Men and

Angels being finite and limited, when 'tis communicated to three several Sub∣jects, doth make three Men or three Angels specifically the same; but the Divine Nature, which is infinite and indivisible, being entirely communica∣ted to three distinct Persons, cannot make Three Gods, but One God nume∣rically the same. But how one and the same numerical Nature should equally subsist in three distinct Persons, how each of the Three should be God, and yet God be but One, is a difficulty ve∣ry hard to be explained. But in mat∣ters of this kind, we must submit hu∣mane Reason to Divine Revelation; and sure I am, if no Trinitarian were able to return a satisfactory Answer to those Arguments, which our Socinians urge against the Trinity; yet no Socinian as yet ever did, nor, I think, ever can fairly answer those Texts, which we plead for it. And if so, whether we ought to give more credit to the fallible Reasonings of Men, than to the infallible Word of God, let every impartial Rea∣der judge.

And judge he may with the greater ease, because, so far as humane Testimo∣ny is of any value in our present case, we have the fairest on our side; for the

Defenders of the Trinity are, to speak modestly, Persons at least of equal weight with their opposers; and to be sure, they are far, very far the greater Number; I think, an hundred for one; and our hundred have been as much concerned, as their one could be, not to commit the Sin of Idolatry by worshiping any Person, who is not truly God.

It's true, in those early Ages, where∣in this dispute concerning the Divinity of Christ, and his Holy Spirit was first raised, and by degrees began to grow, the Defenders of this Doctrine could have no humane Authority to give it countenance; but they then had, and we still have far better Evidences to prove it. For, we do not depend up∣on the Testimonies of Men any farther, than as they are well bottomed upon the sacred Word of God, which, in this case especially, is to us the only rule and ground of Faith. But since we think that the Ancient Fathers, who were learned and pious Men, chiefly when met in Councils, were very able to apprehend, and very conscientious to declare the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures; and since the generality of succeeding Divines in after Ages, have

approv'd the Judgment of the four first Oecumenical Councils, and many other excellent Writers; we cannot be per∣suaded by all the pretences of humane Reason, to alter our opinion about the sence of those many Texts, which have been judged by such vast Numbers of such incomparable Persons, so plainly to assert the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And the rather, because those other Interpretations, which the opposers of this Doctrine do even force upon those Texts, which make against them, are so impertinent, wild, absurd, and indeed intolerable, that, were it not to serve a turn, they could never be owned by those Socinians, who esteem themselves such great masters of Sence and Reason.

Did a figurative interpretation of se∣veral plain Passages in the Writings of St. John, and St. Paul tend to overthrow the Socinian Hypothesis, they might as justly abhorr the thoughts of any Tropes in those Speeches of the Evangelist and Apostle, as the Roman Catholicks unjustly do in those words of Christ: This is my Body, This is my Blood.

But to forbear the further pursuit of this Digression. To shew what Scri∣pture evidences we have for the Di∣vine

Personality of the Holy Ghost, the proof whereof is my present design, will be the business of my next parti∣cular, and the Subject matter of my last Section.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Athan. in Ep. ad E∣pict. p. 583.
• * 1.2

  August. d•• natal. Dom. Ser. 8. T. 10. p. 128.
• * 1.3

  August. de natal. Dom. Ser 18. T. 10. p. 133.
• * 1.4

  1 Cor. 1.24
• * 1.5

  Ravanellus
• * 1.6

  Aquin. qu. 29. Art. 1.
• * 1.7

  Heb. 12.1.
• * 1.8

  A Letter to the Reve∣rend Cler∣gy of both the Uni∣versities.
• * 1.9

  Epiphan.
• * 1.10

  Haer. 69. Sect. 52. p. 774.
• * 1.11

  Basil. M. adv. Eu∣nom. l. 2. p. 76.
• * 1.12

  August. de haeres. Haer. 49. Tom. 1. p. 6.
• * 1.13

  Socra. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. p. 23.
• * 1.14

  Id. p. 31.
• * 1.15

  Id. p. 25.
• * 1.16

  Id. p. 27.
• * 1.17

  Sozo. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 7. p. 711. Socra. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 8. p. 264.
• * 1.18

  Conc. Con∣stantinop. Canon. 1.
• * 1.19

  Jacobus Usserius Armacha∣nus de Symbolis, p. 17.
• * 1.20

  Concil. E∣phes. Can. 7
• * 1.21

  Pandectae Can. & Concil. Graec. T. 1. p. 103. Patrick Sympson's History of the Church, p. 509.
• * 1.22

  Epip. Haer. 62. p. 515.
• * 1.23

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.24

  Greg. Naz. Or. 32. p. 520.
• * 1.25

  Greg. Nyss. in Bapt. Christi, p. 804. Theoph. in Matth. cap. 28. v. 18.
• * 1.26

  Cyril. Hier. Cat. 16. p. 176.
• * 1.27

  Elias Cret. in Naz. Or. 1. p. 83.
• * 1.28

  Basil. M adv. Euno. l. 1. p. 5.
• * 1.29

  Iren. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.30

  August. de Trin. l. 1. c. 10. T. 3. p. 54.