THE FIRST SECTION Containing the INTRODUCTION .

THE Author of this little Tract designed thereby , as its Title imports , to put a full end to the Socinian Controversy ; an excellent Design , were it rightly intended , fairly managed , and well accomplished . The main thing concerned in this Controversy is the Divinity of Christ and his Holy Spirit , both which our Socinians deny , and we assert .

This Dispute began betimes , even betwixt our Lord himself and the Jews , who , being blind and prepossess'd with prejudice against his Person , his Doctrine , his Miracles , and his Conversation too , denied him to be the promised Messias , and the Son of God . And when our Lord had affirm'd himself to be both , they attempted to stone him , and gave him this Reason for it , Joh . 10.33 . Because thou being a man , a mere man , as they thought , makest thy self God , here was , though not a Verbal , yet an Interpretative and practical denial of our Lord's Divinity .

Amongst the Jews was Ebion , and besides him that Villain Cerinthus , who held and endeavoured to propagate the same Cursed Opinion , which gave St. John a just occasion to write that Holy Gospel of his , wherein by such plain Arguments , as can never be fairly answered , he hath infallibly proved that our blessed Saviour is truly God .

But notwithstanding all the Evidences of our Lord's Divinity , which had been given by Prophets , Evangelists or Apostles , there was still a sort of men , who , because they could not reconcile this mysterious Doctrine to their own corrupted and shallow Reason , resolved to oppose and dispute against it . And by this means the Peace of the Christian Church was so much disturb'd , that the good Emperour Constantine the Great thought it necessary to summon an Oecumenical Council to determine this so grand a Controversy .

In this first General Council of Nice , which consisted of 318 Bishops , the Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity and Consubstantiality with his Father was discussed , and after mature deliberation , and the strictest enquiries into the Word of God , which those Bishops were as likely to understand as any men of that or after Ages , was approved and established as sound and Orthodox ; very few of that great number dissenting , and most of those few , upon second thoughts , subscribing to it .

But this almost unanimous Consent of this famous Council did not end this Controversy ; for , in a short time it was revived , and hath been ever since more or less carried on , in several Ages , by men of several denominations ; they , who were once called Ebionites , Arians , Phocinians , Sabellians , Macedonians , and afterwards Socinians , do now distinguish themselves by a new Character , and without all reason , usurp and appropriate to the men of their own Opinion the Name of Unitarians , as if we , who believe a Trinity of Persons , did also believe a Trinity of Gods .

And here we do willingly acknowledge , that some of those Persons , who formerly did , and yet do , oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity , were and still are Men of Parts and Learning ; but it is too-hard a task for the ablest Person to defend a falshood , and to maintain a foul matter by fair pretences ; and such a matter is that Opinion , for which these Men contend ; so gross an Error , so contrary to Divine Revelation , that it is somewhat of wonder , that any Man of Parts and Piety should ever espouse , countenance and own it

But altho' it hath been so , though some Learned Men have put their Understanding to the very utmost stretch to invent Pretences against our Lord's Divinity ; yet the strongest Arguments which their most subtle Disputants have ever raised either from Scripture or Reason , have been fairly answer'd and clearly baffled by the judicious Writers of the Catholick Church .

And yet the Enemies of this important Truth being Men of presuming and restless Spirits , the Controversy hath been continued and prosecuted ; tho' not with equal Vigour , from one Generation to another : But now , in this Age of ours , there hath unexpectedly started up , tho' not dropt down from the Clouds , a Man who intends to do great Wonders ; I mean to put an end to that Controversy , which hath lasted and perplexed the Christian Church so many hundred Years .

Now , one would think , that he , who undertakes this Noble , but Difficult Work , should be a Person of rare Endowments , an incomparable Scholar , an excellent Textuary , a very choice Critick in the Original Languages of his Bible , well versed in School-Divinity , and such an acute Disputant , that the poor baffled Trinitarians , being clearly convinced by the irresistible Strength of his Arguments , submitting to his better Judgment , may all at once come over as Proselytes to his Opinion , and for ever acquiesce in his uncontroulable Determinations ,

Such a Man , and so qualified , this very assuming Socinian Champion should be ; but pray , who is it ? he calls himself , if his Printer do not Nick-name him , John Smith , and truly , as the Poet observes , Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis , this Person's Name is apposite enough , and somewhat of kin to his Occupation ; for , I am inform'd by an Eminent Citizen of London , whom I have great Reason to believe , that this great Undertaker and Reconciler , is by Trade a Clock-maker , and therefore a Man in all probability , who never had any thing of a liberal and learned Education ; perhaps indeed some little Skill in the Mathematicks may be useful to him , in framing a Clock ; but in his managing this great controverted Point of Divinity , as we do not expect any Mathematical ; so neither can we find any Logical Demonstrations . And is it not an Instance of unparallell'd presumption , that an illiterate Mechanick , who should rather handle the Smith's Hammer , than the Scholar's Pen , should ever hope to produce stronger Reasons and clearer Texts to end this Controversy by disproving our Lord's Divinity , than any learned Men of his own Perswasion were ever yet able to do ? Is it not a sign of intolerable Arrogance , that an unlearned Tradesman should be so highly conceited of his own Abilities , as to think himself sufficient to confute all the Arguments , which have been urged by General Councils , Ancient Fathers , and later Divines , even Men of incomparable Parts , to prove that our blessed Saviour is really and truly God ? Certainly , hic labor , hoc opus est , it is a difficult Task indeed , but yet it must be done by him , who would end this Controversy ; and whether a Clock-maker be a likely Man to do so great a Work , let the Reader judge .

But , by the way , since in this unhappy Age of ours , we have good store of Lay-Preachers , it is the less wonder , that we now find some Lay-Disputers too ; they , who had the face without any Steps and University Degrees per Saltum , to leap from the Shop-board into the Minister's Pulpit , may with equal right , invade the King's Divinity Professor's Chair ; but of the two , it is an easier Adventure for a bold Ignoramus to prate in a Pulpit , as our Apron Levites did , where none opposed them , than to Dispute against any one learned Antagonist ; 't is but an easy thing for a Man of much assurance to repeat a Sermon , and probably some other Man's ; but 't is a much harder Task to solve and untie a knotty Argument : whether our Clock-maker be a Preacher or not , I cannot tell ; but he hath undertook a more difficult Work , and ventured to Dispute , tho' not in Mood and Figure , yet in Print .

And now let us try his Strength , and consider whether he hath obtain'd his End , and according to his Design , brought the Socinian Controversy to such a Conclusion , that there may be no room left for any more Disputes about that Matter .

SECT . II .

THis Author , in the very entrance of his Work and his first two Sections , makes it his only business to prove these two Propositions . 1. That there is a God . 2. That this True God is but one in Nature and Essence . Were this Man disputing against an Atheist , who thinks that there is no God ; or against a Pagan , who thinks that there are many , the proof of these Propositions had been necessary ; but in a Book levelled against us Trinitarians only , who own a God , and but one , it might have been spared . For , to what purpose should a Man take Pains , muster up Arguments , and cite several Texts , to confirm those Truths to us , who , being already convinced and satisfied about them ; do acknowledge them as readily as he ? That God is , and is but one , is a Truth so evident from the Light of Scripture , and right Reason too ; that , as no Christian doth , so no intelligent Heathen , who improves and exerciseth his natural Understanding , can deny or doubt it , if this Author thinks us guilty of Polytheism , let him prove that Charge against us , if he can ; but if he hath no such Thoughts concerning us , what need he have spent his two first Pages in confirming a Truth , which none of us , against whom he writes , ever did , nor can deny .

There must indeed be something of Prudence and Policy in beginning with these two granted Truths ; that his Reader's mind , being prepossess'd and well seasoned with both these Preliminaries and well known Verities might be the less inclinable to suspect any Falshood in any of those Assertions , which are to follow ; for a few Truths , intermingled amongst many Errors , seem like a little Sugar sprinkled amonst a greater quantity of Ratsbane , which renders the Poyson the more palatable , and tempts the silly and cheated Vermin to swallow it down so much the sooner .

But if this Author laid down these Truths , as the necessary Foundations of his future Buildings ; sure I am , those Superstructures , which he hath thought fit to add , can never be cemented to them , nor stand firm upon them ; for , the Unity of the Godhead is very consistent with the Trinity of those glorious Persons , whom we believe and worship .

But , in Opposition to this , our Author doth in express Terms lay down a third Proposition , namely this , That this one true God is but one in Person ; and this , saith he , is evident ; and truly if it be so indeed , it will do this Man's work : and according to his Design , it will bring the Socinian Controversy to an end ; but if the Truth of this Proposition be indeed so Evident , as this Man makes it ; How come so many thousand Persons , who had very good Eyes in their Heads , not to see it ? How come we poor Men , to be so far mistaken , as to think this third Proposition to be as False , as the other two are true ? The Scripture tells us that there is but One true God , and we believe it ; the Scripture also tells us , There are Three Persons that bear record in Heaven ; and why should we not believe that too ?

And yet notwithstanding this and many other Texts , which clearly prove the Trinity , and notwithstanding the General Belief of the Christian Church concerning it , this Heretical Clock-maker , in despight of God and Man , makes bold to say , 't is Evident that God can in no sense be any more than one in Person .

This bold Assertion is not absolute and perfect Atheism , but 't is somewhat like it , and a fair step towards it ; it is a degree of Atheism to limit the Providence of God , and confine it , as some have done , to Heaven ; and what is it less to limit the Personality of God , and to contract Three Persons into One ? Verily , this Man , who doth so , had need secure himself upon the most infallible Grounds , that those two Persons , whom he thus excludes from the God-head , are but imaginary , such as have no Entity , save only in the Thoughts of deceived Men ; for , if these Persons should at length prove real Subsistences , as millions of very understanding Persons formerly did , and still do believe ; he , who denieth , and as far as he can , dethrones these Glorious Persons , may justly expect to feel the utmost severity of that Divine Vengeance , which is due to such horrid Blasphemy and Impiety .

And if this Socinian Hypothesis , if false , be certainly attended with the greatest Danger ; then every Man who owns it , and valueth his own Soul , is highly concerned by the most undeniable Arguments to make it good . The question then is , How comes this Author to be so fully satisfied about the Truth of this Assertion , as to publish his own Perswasion of it to the World , and as a publick Act of Charity to his Neighbours Souls , to recommend it to other Men ? How doth he prove it ? I answer two things ,

1. To prove this bold Assertion , That there is but one Person in the Godhead , this great Pretender doth make no use of Scripture .

To prove some other of his Assertions , he doth sometimes quote great variety of places out of the Prophets , Evangelists and Apostles ; but in this case , where he had most need to prove this , he doth not , because indeed he could not cite so much as one single Text . The Scriptures indeed do often tell us , that there is but one God ; but they do no where tell us , that there is but one Person in the Godhead ; nor can this be ever proved by any Consequences fairly drawn from Sacred Writ ; for no Consequence can be Genuine , which contradicts the express Letter of those Texts , which are not figurative , and wherein the Trinity of Persons is clearly avouched .

2. To prove this bold Assertion , That there is but one Person in the Godhead , this great Schoolman , or some body for him , makes use of an Argument drawn from some of God's Attributes , and naming three , he argues thus , If the Divine Nature did contain in it several Persons , then each of those must he truly Immense , truly Almighty , and truly most Wise : We grant it , and believe that the whole Trinity is so ; but this Author thinks this impossible , and that impossibility he endeavours to illustrate by two Instances , relating to the Omnipotence and infinite Wisdom of God ; and thus he Reasons ;

Suppose , saith he , two such beings as A and B ; now if the Person of A can do more than the Person of B , then the Person of B cannot do more than the Person of A ; but hold a little , this Consequence is often false ; for suppose by the Letter A , we should mean our Author , and by the Letter B , we should mean his Answerer , then the Argument must run thus , If this Author can do more than his Answerer , then his Answerer cannot do more than this Author . This Inference is manifestly untrue , for this Author can make a Clock , which is more than his Answerer can do ; and yet his Answerer can make some shift to understand Greek and Latin Authors ; which , I presume , is somewhat more than our Clockmaker can do .

But I am of Opinion that by A. and B. our Author intends two Persons by him only supposed , but by us firmly believed to subsist in the Godhead , I mean the Father and the Son ; now if this be his meaning , his Argument must run thus . If the Person of the Father can do more than the Person of the Son , then the Person of the Son cannot do more than the Person of the Father ; for if he could , then would not the Father be able to do more than the Son , and by consequence he could not be Almighty ; so reasons this subtle Sophister ; but verily this way of argumentation is much to blame ; upon a double account : For ,

1. Here is a plane ; Petitio principii , the begging of a question . He takes that for a granted Truth , and grounds his Argument upon it , which we believe and can prove to be a Falsehood ; he presumes and takes it , pro concesso , that the Father can do more than the Son ; which we deny .

2. Whereas we affirm that the Father cannot do more than the Son , he subsumes , and saith , that then by consequence the Father cannot be Almighty .

But truly this Gentleman , if he seeth the necessity of this Consequence must have more and better Eyes , than ever Argus had ; for cannot the Father be Almighty unless he can do more than the Son , who is Almighty too ? It is the Belief of the Catholick Church , warranted either by express Texts , or evident Deductions from them , that the whole Trinity is one and the same Almighty God ; Co-essential , and Co-equal , in Power , Wisdom , and all other Essential Perfections , which are natural to , and inherent in the Deity ; whatever any one of them can do or know , every one of them can do and know .

But here perhaps this Author may thus reply , that by our equally ascribing the whole Divine Nature to the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , we make three Gods as well as three Persons ; perhaps he may say , as some have done before him , that as the humane Nature , being communicated to three distinct Persons , doth constitute three several Men ; so the Divine Nature being communicated to three distinct Subsistences , must needs constitute three several Gods .

To this supposed Objection we answer thus ; The forenamed Comparison , and the inference from it , are both naught , and so cannot hold ; for , there is a vast difference in the Case , the humane Nature being finite and limited , cannot be communicated to three Persons without separation ; and consequently where it is so communicated , it must of necessity constitute three several Men , whose Nature is , not numerically , but specifically the same . But with the Divine Nature it is not so ; for , that being infinite , and indivisible , and entirely communicated to three Persons , distinct indeed , but not divided , doth not constitute three several Gods , for , the Divine Essence of each Person is not specifically , but numerically the same .

And from this Unity of their Essence ariseth the Identity of their Divine Attributes ; they are alike in Power , alike in Wisdom , and so in all other essential Excellencies ; so that notwithstanding this Author's absurd Hypothesis , the Father may be , and certainly is , both Almighty and All-Wise , tho' he cannot do nor know more than the Son ; and the Son also may be , and certainly is both Almighty and All-Wise , though he cannot do nor know more than the Father ; so that this Man's Argument drawn from the Divine Attributes , doth no way prove that , for which he brings it , namely — That the True God is but One in Person .

SECT . III .

THE next thing , which this Author attempts , is the proof of this Proposition , That this One Person , who is truly God , is he only , who was the God of Israel , and is now called the Father of Jesus Christ . — To which we answer thus ,

That the God of Israel was and is the only True God , we easily grant ; but that this God of Israel was and is but One in Person , we must not , without sufficient Proof , take this or any other Man's bare Word . 't is a very bold Assertion , and it is that , on which the force of all this Author's subsequent Arguments doth depend , and for that reason he was much obliged to prove it well ; but therein he miserably fails .

The Texts , which he produceth out of the Old Testament , are such as these — Thou art God , 2 Kings 19 15. Esa . 46.9 . and Thou alone , and again , I am God , and there is none else — These , and some other Texts , which he cites , do only prove , what none of us deny , that the God of Israel was the only true God ; but none of them prove that , for which he quotes them all , namely , that this true God of Israel was but One in Person . When God Almighty saith , I am God , and there is none else , that proves that there is no other God ; but it doth not prove that there is but one Person in the Godhead ; and when 't is said , Thou art God and thou alone , 't is not meant of one Person only , but of the whole Trinity took together . So thought that great Man Athanasius , who tells us , Athanas . dial . 3. de Trin . p. 223. {αβγδ} , &c. i . This word Alone , when 't is applied to the Deity , doth for the most part , imply the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , who are indeed the only true God . Nay , the word , God , being absolutely taken , when there is no reason in the Context to restrain it to any one particular Person , is generally , to be understood of the whole Trinity . As for instance , when Moses tells us , The Lord God said to Adam ; Aug. de Trin . l. 2. cap . 10. St. Austin gives his Judgment thus , Cur non ipsa Trinitas intelligatur , nihil dici potest . i . Why by these two Titles , the Lord God , the whole Trinity should not be understood , no reason can be assigned .

But this Author goeth on to prove , as well as he can , that the true God of Israel was only he , who is the Father of Jesus Christ ; by whom he means , and so do we , the first Person in the Deity ; but , by his favour , we do not believe that the first Person only is the true God , nor can he ever prove him so .

For , of those many Texts , which he cites out of the New Testament to prove that the Father of Christ alone , is truly God , there is but one , which doth so much as seem to give any Countenance , though indeed it gives none at all , to his Opinion . 't is that Expression of our Lord in his solemn Address to his father ; Father , this is life eternal , John 17.1.3 . that they may know thee the only true God ; and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent : 〈…〉 suppose that this is the Text , upon which this Man doth principally depend , because he mentions it in his Title Page , and here cites it first ; and had he cited no more , he had shewed himself so much the wiser ; for , all the other Scripture , to which he appeals , do , as to his present purpose , signify nothing .

And indeed , even this Text , rightly understood , as to his Design , signifieth as little ; for our Lord doth not here say , as this man thinks , that his Father only is the true God ; but that he is , which we readily grant , the only true God . Now , there is a very wide difference betwixt this Proposition , which the Text contains , the Father is the only true God ; and this , which the Text contains not , the Father only is the true God ; the former Proposition excludes from the Godhead only the false Gods of the Heathen World , but the latter , were it contained in the Text , would exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost , whose Deity we do justly own , and religiously adore .

This heretical Inference , which this man would force from this Text , is diametrically opposite to the Interpretations of such learned Men , whose Judgments are far to be preferred before that of an illiterate Mechanick . St. Austin expounding these Words of Christ , infers his Divinity from them ; for , thus he tells us , Ordo verborum est , Aug. de Trin . l. 6. c . 9. p. 75. Tom . 3. ut Te , & quem misisti Jesum Christum , cognoscant unum verum Deum : i.e. The Order , in which these words are to be understood is this , that they may know Thee , and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent , to be the one true God ; so that great Man .

To the same purpose writes Tertullian ; Tert . citatus à Maldonato in loc . Si Christus noluisset se etiam Deum intelligi , cur addidit , & quem misisti Jesum Christum ? nisi quoniam & se Deum accipi voluit ? quoniam si se Deum intelligi noluit , addidisset , & quem misisti hominem Jesum Christum ; nunc autem nec addidit , nec se nobis hominem tantummodo Christus tradidit , sed Deo junxit , ut & Deum per hanc conjunctionem , sicut est , intelligi vellet — . If Christ would not have had us understand him also to be God , why did he add these Words ; and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ? — for which addition there could be no other reason , save only this , because he would have himself took for a God ; for were it not so , he would have added , and the Man Christ Jesus , whom thou hast sent ; but he added no such thing , but here joyned himself to God , that by such a Conjunction we might underderstand him to be , what indeed he is , the true God : So Tertullian .

And by this very Text , from which the Socinians draw their chiefest Argument against the Divinity of Christ , doth St. Ambrose prove it ; for , our Lord here saith , This is life eternal , that they may know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent ; from whence 't is evident that our eternal Life depends as well upon our knowledge of Jesus Christ , as upon our knowledge of God the Father ; but how can that be , were Jesus Christ no more than a mere Man ? So argues St. Ambrose .

To the same purpose do the Greek Fathers understand this Text ; when our Lord calls his Father , the only true God ; Chrysost . in loc . St. Chrysostom tells us , that he calls him so , {αβγδ} , to distinguish his Father from the false Gods of the Heathen World , into which he intended shortly to send his Apostles . Theophyl . in loc . Theophylact expounds the same Text thus : {αβγδ} ; and again , {αβγδ} ; i.e. Our Lord here calls his Father , the only true God : not to exclude himself from being so , but to distinguish his Father from the fictitious Gods of the Grecians ; and whosoever shall say , that Christ is not God , because his Father is the only true one , speaks like a very Fool : So Theophylact .

Concerning the same matters , that excellent Divine , Gregory Nazianzen , Nazianz . Or. 36. pag . 586. delivers his Opinion thus ; I judge , saith he , that these Words , That they may know thee the only true God , were spoke by our Lord , {αβγδ} . To remove from the Deity those Idols , which were then esteemed to be Gods , but really were not so ; for , saith he , our Lord would not here have mentioned himself , had he not , by the only true God , intended himself , as well as his Father . And therefore he thus concludes ; {αβγδ} ; the addition of these Words , And Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent , doth evidently declare , that by the only true God , our Lord meant not his Father only , but himself too .

For , as the same Father in the same Discourse doth argue well ; if this Expression , the only true God , must be so restrained to the Father , as to exclude the Son ; Why might not some other like Expressions , by a parity of Reason , be restrained so too ? 't is said , that God , Rom. 16.27 . is only Wise , the only Potentate , He who only hath immortality ; and our Lord saith , 1 Tim . 6.15 , 16. There is none good , but one , and that is God ; shall we now from these Expressions , which ascribe Wisdom , Dominion , Immortality , and Goodness to God alone , conclude that our blessed Saviour is neither Wise , nor Powerful , nor Immortal , nor so much as Good ? If such an Inference from these Texts would be blasphemous , Why should it not be equal Blasphemy from this Expression , the Father is the only true God , to say , that the Son is not so ?

And yet such was the Opinion of Arius , who , in the Nicene Council , objected this Text against the Divinity of Christ , saying thus ; {αβγδ} ; i.e. you see that Christ here calls his Father , the only true God ; intimating thereby , that he himself is not so . Athan . in disp . adv . Arium . p. 126 , 127. To this Objection Athanasius quickly made this just reply , {αβγδ} ; i.e. These two Clauses of our Lord's Speech , That they may know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent , are knit together by the Copulative : And , being so conjoyned , the Sense of them must be this , {αβγδ} ; that they may know thy Son to be the true God , even as they know thee the Father to be so . Thus Athanasius .

In the same manner doth great St. Basil expound the same Text ; Basil . M. adv . Eunom . l. 4. p. 106 , 107. {αβγδ} ; i.e. Our Lord calls his Father , the only true God ; not as if his Person alone were so , but in opposition to those Idols , who were then thought to be Gods , but really were not such . But the Title of the True God , doth in this Text equally belong both to the Father and the Son . So thought Great St. Basil .

To these Authorities we may add that of Ignatius , who , Ignat . in Epist. ad Magnes . p. 151. mentioning our Lord and this Expression of his , saith of him thus ; {αβγδ} ; i.e. Our Lord declared his Father to be , the only true God , to such , and for their sakes , who had or might fall into Polytheism . But did our Lord here deny his own Divinity ? No such matter , for even Erasmus and Grotius , Grot . in locum Erasm . in who favour the Socinians in what Texts soever they can , do expound this Text against them : For , saith Grotius , the Father is here called , the only true God ; Exclusis omnibus iis , quos falsa Gentium persuasio introduxerat : To exclude all those , whom the false perswasion of the Gentiles had introduced for Gods . But did not our Lord here exclude himself too ? No , saith Erasmus , Cum solum dixit , non excludit filium ; sed separat verum Deum à diis Gentium . When our Lord stiles his Father , the only true God , he doth not shut out himself the Son , but distinguisheth the true God from the Idols of the Heathens .

And indeed , that these fore-named Authors were not at all mistaken in their Interpretation of this Text , is evident from that assertion of St. John , who positively saith of Christ , 1 Joh . 5.20 . This is the True God , and Life Eternal . Certainly , St. John , being an inspired Apostle did not , could not leave the World a false Character of his Master , and by representing him as the true God , if he were not so , seduce the Catholick Church throughout all succeeding Ages into an Idolatrous Worship , against which he himself hath left us this friendly Caution , and that in the very next words , Little Children keep your selves from Idols .

Now then , if we dare rely upon the Judgment of these and many more learned Interpreters , Men famous in their Generations ; nay , if we dare trust the Authority of St. John himself , who was our Lord's most beloved Disciple ; we must acknowledge , that when our Saviour called his Father , the only true God , he meant it only in opposition to the many false Gods of the Pagan World , but as for his own Divinity , his whole Expression took together doth rather confirm than disprove it .

And if from this Text our Author can find no Countenance for that ill Opinion of his , with which he seems to be enamoured , if he shall turn his Bible over and over , I am confident , that if he will not strain and force the Scriptures , but permit every Text plainly to speak its own Sense , and according to the Analogy of our Christian Faith , he will not find , after all his Scrutiny , so much as any one Text , from which he can fairly infer this Conclusion , which he owns as a Truth , but can never prove it such ; namely , that the True God , who was the God of Israel , and is the Father of Christ , is but one in Person .