Reason tell us That Three Divine Persons cannot be One God if my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it and therefore when the Scripture assures us that there is but One God as Natural Reason teaches and that this One God is Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost this contradicts nothing which Reason teaches but adds something which Natural Reason could not discover which is the proper use of Revelation Scripture teaches that there is but one God and that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God Reason teaches that there is but One God but does not teach that there are Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead nor does it teach that there are not and therefore though the Scripture teaches more then Natural Reason does which I suppose may be allowed by these Adorers of Reason yet it teaches nothing contrary to what Natural Reason teaches nay these men can not graft any Contradiction upon it without perverting the Faith of the ever blessed Trinity as it is taught in Scripture and has always been taught in the Catholick Church that is to find a Contradiction their business is to prove that these Three Divine Persons each of which is God must be Three distinct Gods and then Three distinct Gods cannot be One God this I grant and their Argument is unanswerable to those who own these Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods but what is that to us who teach that they are not Three distinct Gods but One God as the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church always taught and as of necessity we must teach if we believe a Trinity in Unity so that there is no Contradiction is not our Faith for that which they make a Contradiction is not our Faith but a Contradiction to our Faith as well as to common Sense and Reason Well! but if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore it may be either without contradicting the Natural Notions we have of One God and then here is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches that there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which in Scripture have not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God for what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then their Objection against this Faith that these Three Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous for it is demonstrable that if there be Three Persons and One God each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three distinct Gods but One. For if each Person be not God all Three cannot be God unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God and if all Three are but One God they cannot be Three distinct Gods so that whoever believes the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods does not believe a Trinity in Unity and whoever believes a Trinity in Unity cannot believe Three distinct Gods and if there be a Trinity in Unity each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three Gods but One God and now let him go look for his Contradiction in the belief of Three Persons and one God and when he has found it let me hear from him again So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question How can these things be and if I could give him no other Answer I should think it a very good one to say God knows Must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend though it be expresly taught by God himself Must we deny what we read in the Bible to be there because Reason does not teach it and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its Allusion to ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. for there is no other good Reason to be given for any Exposition but that the Words signifie so and the Circumstances of the Place and the apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictates of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it well say they then you must expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must expound Scripture according to the use and signification of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture no no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I perswaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I would not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them to put our own sense on Scripture without respect to the use of Words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to make it is not to learn from Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such Matters as are confessedly above Reason as the infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must expound it as I do other Writings for
Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reason FOR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods and Three Lords By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Persons each of which is by himself Supreme God and Lord and yet all of them together but One God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture which all the Vnitarians and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such Sense that the Vnity of God is preserved and no more than One Person even the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a Sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here whether when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is absurd and contrary to it self to reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarians Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trouble an Answerers thoughts but a great deal to exercise his Patience if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly His first Argument to prove that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confess each Person in the ever blessed Trinity to be God and Lord and yet that there is but one God is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment So he says and has endeavoured to prove it and how vainly and impertinently I leave the Reader to judge but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction as I am perswaded I have evidently proved then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine and require the belief of it but this is an impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it be plainly contained there he would conclude how unintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture we must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every man knows and every man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of a Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand as I shewed before His next Proof That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment is that the Unitarians and some of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts of Scripture which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Sense and easily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only who is God as well as of One God and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece the History of the Unitarians As for examining particular Texts which are alledged on both sides in this Controversie it is too voluminous a Work at present and besides my present Undertaking which is only to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the true Christian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity from the pretended Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes and when that is done and I hope I have done it I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture But as for what he says that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity to their Notion of One God in opposition to Three Divine Persons in the Godhead we must let him say so because he will say it as all other Hereticks pretend Scripture to be on their side but to say that they can easily do this is a little impudent when all Men who understand this Controversie see what Art they use and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations they put on Scripture to reconcile it to their Opinions especially when some of the most learned Socinians stick not to confess That they will expound Scripture to any sense rather than acknowledge such Doctrines as they think so contradictory to the Reason and Understanding of Mankind which no modest Man would own were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own Expositions for things are come to a desperate pass when they shall resolve upon any sense or no sense rather than that which the words most aptly and properly signifie but lies cross to their Prejudices and pre-conceived Opinions But what thinks he of Socinus's Exposition of that Text where Christ says That he came down from Heaven which he could not do if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary Did Socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and to pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World Whereas our Saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the World when he was born of the Virgin and the whole History of the Gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his Resurrection from the dead I think this was no easie Exposition but of this more presently That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned Trinitarians is as true as the other There are many Texts which all hearty Trinitarians do and must agree in
A VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION OF The Son of God OCCASIONED By the Brief NOTES on the Creed of St. Athanasius and the Brief HISTORY of the Vnitarians or Socinians and containing an Answer to both By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE The Second Edition IMPRIMATUR Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Ian. 9. 1690. LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1691. TO THE READER I Will make no Apology for publishing this Vindication of the Great and Fundamental Mysteries of our Religion for if ever it were necessary it is now when Atheists and Hereticks some openly some under a disguise conspire together to ridicule the Trinity and the Incarnation I confess the Book is too big could I have made it less as at first I intended but when I was once engaged I saw a necessity of going farther and I hope no man will have reason to complain that I have said too much but those who will find a great deal too much said for them to answer My Original Design was to vindicate the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation from those pretended Absurdities and Contradictions which were so confidently charged on them and this I 'm sure I have done for I have given a very easie and intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity and if it be possible to explain this Doctrine intelligibly the Charge of Contradictions vanishes and whether men will believe this Account or not they can't deny but that it is very possible and intelligible and if we could go no farther that is enough in Matters of Revelation But I hope I have done a great deal more than this and proved That it is the true Scripture Account of it and agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers and have vindicated the Scripture Proofs of a Trinity and Incarnation from the pitiful Sophistries of the late Socinian Historian I have not indeed answered particularly the whole Book in Order and Method as it lies which was too tedious a Work and not necessary but I have considered whatever was most material in it and have avoided nothing because it was hard to Answer but because it needed no Answer as I am ready to satisfie the World whenever a just Occasion calls for it for having dipt my Pen in the Vindication of so glorious a Cause by the Grace of God I will never desert it while I can hold a Pen in my Hand I must thankfully own that the writing of this Book has given me clearer and more distinct Notions of this Great Mystery then I had before which is the Reason why the Reader will find some things explained towards the end which I spoke doubtfully of at first as particularly the difference between the Eternal Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost and I hope this is a pardonable Fault The writing this Book has cost me many Thoughts and those who have a mind throughly to understand it must not think much if it cost them some and if they cannot be contented to bestow some serious Thoughts on it it will be lost labour to read it I pray God give success to it and open the Eyes of those Men before it be too late who are so industrious to write or disperse such Brief Notes and Brief Histories as are valuable for nothing but Blasphemy and Nonsense for I will be bold to say That Socinianism after all its pretences to Reason is one of the most stupid sensless Heresies that ever infested the Christian Church THE CONTENTS SECT I. COncerning the Nature of a Contradiction and how to know it page 1. Many Contradictions pretended where there are none as in the Notion of a Spirit and of God 3 How to discover when a pretended Contradiction is not real but in our imperfect Conception of things 4 It is absurd to dispute against the Being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it 5 What the natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are 9 SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true Belief of the Trinity and Incarnation 10 The Dispute between the Greek and Lat. Church about the filioque 17 SECT III. Concerning the necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a Brief History of Athanasius 21 That the Catholick Faith is necessary to Salvation 25 What is meant by keeping the Catholick Faith whole and undefiled 28 The Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith do not make Athanasius's Creed an unnecessary Rule 29 The great usefulness of ancient Creeds 31 Pope Leo III. would not deny Salvation to those who disowned the filioque 33 What is meant by the Catholick Faith 35 The History of Athanasius 37 SECT IV. The Catholick Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity and Unity and Trinity explained and vindicated from all pretended Absurdities and Contradictions 45 What it is that makes any Substance numerically One 48 The Unity of a Spirit nothing else but Self-consciousness ibid. And therefore mutual consciousness makes Three Persons essentially and numerically One. 49 The unity of a Mind or Spirit reaches as far as its Self-consciousness does 50 That this is the true Scripture Notion of the Unity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost ibid. The Unity between Father and Son explained 51 The union of created Spirits an union in Knowledge Will and Love 52 The same union between Father Son and Holy Ghost ibid. But this which is only a moral union between Creatures is an essential union between Father Son and Holy Ghost as it is the effect of mutual Consciousness 55 This proved from Scripture as to the unity between Father and Son 56 This makes all Three Divine Persons coessential and coequal 58 That the Holy Spirit is One with Father and Son by a mutual Consciousness proved from Scripture 64 This Notion contains the true Orthodox Faith of a Trinity in Unity 66 For it does not confound the Persons but makes them distinct ibid. Nor divide the Substance but makes them numerically One 68 This makes the Doctrine of the Trinity as intelligible as the Notion of One God ibid. The material Images of Substance confound our Notions both of One God and of a Trinity in Unity 69 God must be considered as Eternal Truth and Wisdom 70 Wisdom and Truth a pure and simple Act and contains all Divine Perfections 71 Three infinite Minds must necessarily be mutually conscious to each other 74 No positive Notion of Infinity but only in a Mind 75 No infinite Extension 76 What the true Notion of Infinite is that it is absolute Perfection 78 That there are no absolute Perfections but those of a Mind 79 Extension is no Perfection nor to be Omnipresent by Extension 80 The same absolute Perfections of a Mind by a mutual Consciousness may be entire and equal in Three infinite Minds 81 This reconciles the
things not so as to Exclude God from making the World and God made all things but not so as to exclude the Word for without him was not any thing made that was made which is exactly what we teach that Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are One God so they are One Creator who made the World by One individual Act and Operation God the Father made the World and the Creation of all things may eminently be attributed to him as the Fountain of the Deity and of all Energy and Power but he did not make the World without his Word and Spirit All things were made by the Word and without him was not any thing made that was made This Account is very far from containing any thing absurd or contradictious but to have as little dispute as may be with this Author let us take it in that sense he would have us take it in instead of Word put the Son and instead of God put God the Father and I can find none of the Contradictions he talks of for then the words run thus In the beginning of all things was the Word the Son of God and this Son of God was inseparably united to God the Father and the Son was One God with the Father this same Son was in the beginning with the Father for the Father made all things by him and without him was not any thing made that was made But let us consider what Account our Socinian Historian gives of this Chapter He appeals to Grotius's Interpretation of it but has misrepresented Grotius that did an Action of Forgery lie in these Cases many men have lost their Ears for less matters The Account he gives of it in short is this Briefly the Word according to Grotius is not an Eternal Son of God but is here the Power and Wisdom of God which Word abiding without measure on the Lord Christ 't is therefore spoken of as a Person and as one Person with Christ and he with that Whoever will be at the pains to consult Grotius will soon see what credit is to be given to this Socinian but it is no wonder that those Men pervert Human Writings who having nothing else to value themselves upon but perverting the Scriptures But what Agreement there is between this Socinian and Grotius I shall show in some few particulars by comparing their Expositions with each other by comparing Grotius as he is represented by this Historian with Grotius himself Brief History In the beginning That is when God created the Heavens and the Earth Was the Word The Hebrews call that Power and Wisdom of God by which he made the World and does all other his extraordinary works the Word 33 Psal. 6. 11 Hebr. 2. 2 Pet. 3.5 They borrowed this Expression from Moses God said let their be light 1 Gen. 3. undoubtedly Moses is not to be understood of a Word orally spoken for God is a Spirit but his meaning is God put forth his Power Wisdom and thereby created Light and the Firmament c. This is a direct opposition to Grotius whom he pretends to follow and his Reason is as silly as his Authority is counterfeit for why could not an infinite Mind beget a substantial Word the substantial Image of his own Power and Wisdom and by this Word make the World and why may not this be represented by his saying Let there be Light for since he confesses this was not an oral word why should it be represented by speaking or saying if God have not an eternal substantial Word by which he made the World there must be some foundation for such forms of speech and since it is evident God did not create all things by an oral Word or Command there is no pretence for this expression God said Let there be Light unless there be a Divine Person who is the Word and Wisdom of God by whom he made the world especially since this Phrase of Moses is thus expounded both in the Old and New Testament that God made the world by his Word which is every where represented as a Divine subsisting Person The Word was with God i. e. It was not yet in the World or not yet made Flesh but with God So that to be with God signifies nothing but not to be in the world The Word was God i. e. The Word or Divine Wisdom and Power that is not a substantial personal Wisdom and Power but such a Faculty as Reason and Wisdom is in man is not something different from God but being his Wisdom and Power is God as the wisdom of man is man 't is the common maxim of Divines that the Attributes and Properties of God are God which is in some sense true The meaning of that Maxim is that there are no Powers or Faculties in God as there are in created Minds but God is a pure and simple Act and therefore what are and must be distinct Powers and Faculties in created Minds must be distinct Persons in the Godhead And thus whatever is in God is God as each Divine Person is But if there be distinct Powers and Faculties in God as there are in men then the Wisdom of God is not God nor the Power of God God no more than the Understanding is the Man or the Will the Man or the Memory the Man He adds That those Persons whether Angels or Men to whom the Divine Word hath been in an extraordinary degreeCommunicated have also had the Names of Iehovah and God communicated to them Vers. 2. The same was in the beginning with God This is here repeated by the Evangelist to teach us that the Word is so God that it is not all that God is there being other Properties and Attributes communicable as well as the Word So that the Word is but an Attribute of God and a communicable Attribute and but one of God's communicable Attributes So that there may be many Words for the Word as he just now said may be communicated to Angels and Men in such a degree that the Name Iehovah may belong to them and then why does St. Iohn call the Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the only begotten of the Father Grotius So also Grotius But adds was jam tum erat was when all things began and shows that among the Hebrews this was a popular Description of Eternity to be before the World 17 Iohn 5. And to this purpose Applies the words of Iustin Martyr concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was before the Worlds The Word He owns it is called the Word in allusion to what Moses says That God said let there be Light But he calls this Word vim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power Efflux Emanation in the same sense as the ancient Christians used them to signifie a Substantial Word Power Emanation In this sense he shows that it is used in the ancient Books of the Chaldoeans and by the Writer of