A brief declaration and vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity as also of…

Of the Person of Christ.

THE next Head of Opposition made by the men of this conspiracy, against this sacred truth; is against the head of all truth, the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Socinians indeed would willingly put a better face, or colour upon their Error, about the Person of Christ, then it will bear, or endure to lye on it. For in their Catechism unto this Question, Is the Lord Jesus Christ, purus Homo, a mere man? they Answer; by no means. How then? hath he a divine nature also? which is their next question: To this they say, by no means, for this is contrary to right reason. How then will these pretended Masters of Reason reconcile these things? For to us it seems, that ⟨p. 133⟩if Christ have no other nature but that of a man, he is as to his nature, purus Homo, a mere man, and no more. Why, they answer, that he is not a mere man, because he was born of a Virgin; Strange! that that should be an argument to prove him more than a man, which the Scripture and all men in their right wits grant to be an invincible reason, to prove him to be a man, and as he was born of her, no more. Rom. 1. 3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom. 9. 5. Whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made under the Law. But say they; he was endowed with the Spirit, wrought Miracles, was raised from the dead, had all power given in Heaven and Earth; for by these degrees, he became to be God. But all men see that the inquiry is about the nature of Christ; and this Answer is about his state and condition. ⟨p. 134⟩Now this changeth not his nature on the one hand, no more than his being humbled, poor and dying, did on the other. This is the right reason we have to deal withal in these men. If a man should have enquired of some of them of old, whether Melchizedek were purus Homo, a mere man? some of them would have said, no, because he was the Holy Ghost; some no, because he was the Son of God himself; and some no, because he was an Angel; for such foolish opinions have men fallen into. But how sottish soever their conceptions were, their Answer to that enquiry would have been regular, because the Question and Answer respect the same subject, in the same respect.