A DEFENCE OF THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS Against Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER IN HIS VINDICATION OF THE Holy Trinity LONDON Printed in the Year M. DC XCI OBSERVATIONS On Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER TO THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS CHAP. I. Containing some General Observations WHen I see Men arguing against the Trinity methinks I hear a Papist inveighing against Luther or Calvin for questioning the Truth of Transubstantiation Indeed it appears to me very strange that Protestants should stand to the Principles of the Reformation only when they serve their turn and that they should be ready to part with them when they are not otherways able to defend a particular Opinion It cannot be denied that the Christian Church in succeeding Ages fell short of her first Purity in respect of Doctrine as well as Manners Now what other Remedy could be applied to such a Depravation than a sincere and careful Examination of the Points suspected of Falshood according to Reason and Scripture This proved so effectual a Course that Transubstantiation and some other Canonized Opinions were found to be meer Human Inventions and accordingly were rejected as contrary to the two above-mentioned Rules And who can assure us that the Reformation left no Error behind and that the Trinity is such an Opinion as ought neither to be doubted of nor to be reformed Shall we trust Men barely on their Word Or was it impossible that the Trinity should creep into the Church as well as several other false Opinions Our Principles therefore allow us to examine it and to inquire whether it be founded on undeniable Arguments especially being of such a nature that it contradicts Reason and by confession of all Trinitarians is no where set down in Holy Scripture in express Words Why should Men call us Hereticks and Libertines because we inquire after Truth and will have our Faith built upon a solid Foundation Was the Reformation so proper to Luther and Calvin c. that it ought no more to be thought of Or were those Reformers so infallible that they purged the Church from all Errors This I think would be an hard matter to prove Let therefore no Protestant be scandalized if having some Scruples about the Trinity we endeavour to free our selves from them by a sincere inquiry into the Grounds of it I begin with Reason and find that the belief of a Trinity does contradict it as much as Transubstantiation According to Transubstantiation the same Numerical Body may be in a Million of different places at the same time According to the Trinity three Divine Persons that is to say three Intelligent Infinite Beings each of which is God make but one God I cannot believe the First because Reason teaches me that one Numerical Body can occupy or be in but one place at one time I cannot believe the other because Reason tells me that Three are Three and not One and that it implies no less a Contradiction that Three Divine Persons should be but One God than that one Body be a Million Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions I come in the second place to examine Whether the Trinity be well grounded in Scripture Indeed Three are there mentioned the Father Son and Holy Ghost but how came Men to fancy that they Three are but One God Who taught 'em so Does the Holy Scripture plainly say that there is but one God yet there are Three Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead One would think indeed that such a Mystery and so necessary in order to Salvation were set down in Scripture in plain or express Words But the Scripture is perfectly silent about it there is not a Word to be found in the Bible of Three Hypostases or Persons in the Godhead The Father is in a thousand places called God distinctly from the Son nay the only true God The Holy Ghost is no where stiled God And the Son is so called in a few places as it were by the way and in such manner as plainly shows that the Title God is bestowed on him upon the same account as upon Moses even because of the Dignity and Power to which he was exalted by the Father's Liberality Indeed it can have no other meaning The Holy Scripture teaches us that there is but one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ But if so How can the Son be that one God the Father Of this we are sure by the whole tenor of the Gospel that Christ was a Man The Gospel is nothing else but the History of Christ's Birth Life Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven Who would have thought that a Man should be accounted the Supream God without any such intimation from Scripture nay against the whole current of it We find in the Gospel that there is one God the Father of our Lord Christ one Son of God sent into the World to be the Revealer of his Father's Will and a Mediator between God and Man even Christ and one Holy Ghost who distributes and works all sorts of Miraculous Gifts for the confirmation of the Gospel The Father of Christ is the One true God Christ is only his Minister and Interpreter the Holy Ghost whether it be God's Power or his ministring Angel or Angels the Instrument which he makes use of to work Miracles None certainly but Men blinded or prejudiced could think that God's Minister and Ambassador were God himself and that two so opposite Beings as God and Christ should be one and the same Thing It is just as if one should say there is one King William and one Vice-Roy in Ireland the Lord Sidney and the Vice-Roy is that one King William Indeed this is a Doctrine so unreasonable and contradictions and so opposite to Holy Scripture that I think had there been no such thing as Platonick Philosophy the Trinity should never have been heard of I desire therefore the Trinitarians to abate a little of their Confidence Let them examine with an unprejudiced Mind upon what Foundations they build the belief of a Trinity and they will soon perceive how weak and frail it is Let them at last confess that the Scripture does not threaten eternal Damnation to those who disbelieve a Trinity And then if themselves won't part with their darling Opinion let them abstain from persecuting others Thirdly Trinitarians lay so much stress upon the Tradition of the Church concerning the Trinity that I think it worth while to undeceive them by shewing that there never was so great a Variation in the Church as about this Point I shall divide into three Periods all the Ages of the Church The First reaches to the Council of Nice The Second from the Council of Nice to the Schoolmen And the Third from the Schoolmen to our time And one that is never so little acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the three first Centuries cannot deny
if he be but sincere that those Fathers follow the Ideas of Plato concerning the three Principles and therefore speak rather like Arians than Orthodox They tell us that the Son and Holy Ghost have each of them his own Nature and Essence whereby they are distinguish'd from each other and that the Son is subordinate and inferior to the Father both in Nature and Power as likewise the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son If any one desires to see some undeniable Proofs of what I assert I refer him to the Quaternio of Curcellaeus whereby he will be fully satisfied The succeeding Fathers finding fault with this Notion brought into the World a new Interpretation of the three Principles They won't have them to be subordinate but equal both in Nature and Power However they acknowledg them to be three Essences or Collateral Beings If you ask them how they can avoid admitting a Plurality of Gods They will answer That those three Beings are but one God as Peter James and John are but one Man If you deny that Peter James and John are but one Man they will tell you that you are mistaken because in Propriety of Speech this term Man ought not to signify an Individual as Peter or James or John but a specifical Nature common to them all so that thô they be three Individuals or three Persons yet they are but one Man being Partakers of the same specifical common Nature This they apply to their three Principles They are indeed say they three Hypostases or Persons yet they are but one God This term God denoting not an Individual Hypostasis but a Nature common to the three Persons of the Trinity whereby thô they are three yet they are said to be but one God Thus they made shift as well as they could It was indeed a very unsufficient way of explaining the Unity of God and did by no means resolve the difficulty They made an abstract specifical God as the Heathens might equally have done but there were still three Individual or Numerical Gods as Peter James and John may be said to be by Abstraction one specifical Man because they have the same specifical Nature but however they are still three Individual Numerical Men. Therefore the Schoolmen disliking this Notion as favouring Polytheism found out a new one more agreeable as they thought to the Unity of God They won't have the three Persons of the Trinity to have each of them his own Essence and Nature No this too plainly destroys the Unity of God There is say they but one Divine Essence Right but then they must not part with three Persons of the Trinity Therefore what are those three Persons They are Three Subsistences Three Modes Three Relations Three I know not what 's This is meer Nonsense for a Person is an Intelligent Being and Three Persons must needs be Three Intelligent Beings So true it is that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead if he takes the Word in its proper sense must admit Three Gods Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid who says they are Three distinct Minds Three substantial Beings Three intelligent Beings therefore unavoidably Three Gods Now is it fair to boast so much of the Tradition concerning the Trinity as if it had been constant and unalterable in all the Ages of the Church when the contrary appears to any sincere Reader The Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice speak like Platonic Philosophers and Arians the Nicene Fathers like Tritheists and the School-men like Mad-men Where now is that unchangeable Tradition so much cried up Considering the ridiculousness of those Men who in their respective Ages set up new Notions of the Trinity I am apt to say contrary to Averroes his Wish Let not my Soul be with the Philosophers To conclude this Chapter those great Boasters of the pretended Tradition should do well to apply themselves to the confuting the Quaternio of Curcellaeus before mentioned which when they have fully and truly performed we may perhaps begin to think of parting with Tradition which indeed is not the Foundation whereon we build our Faith Knowing only the Scriptures which are able to make wise unto Salvation CHAP. II. Containing an Examination of the Doctor 's Answers to the Arguments against the Trinity in the History of the Unitarians HAving premised this general Observation I come to examine what Answer the Doctor returns to the Arguments alledged against the Trinity by the Author of the Brief History of the Vnitarians But I must first consider his Reflections concerning the use of Reason in expounding Scripture This is saith he 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 he plainly contained there he would conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture p. 141. But is this Impudence to say Transubstantiation cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction I hope not Well then if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture I think both Consequences are right But saith the Author A modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not But we have already made such an Inquiry and cannot find the Trinity in Scripture We never could read there that there are Three Persons in one Numerical God Indeed how could we We might as well find there that the Bread of the Sacrament is Transubstantiated into Christ's Body But he goes on And if it be plainly contained there he should conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture I beg the Author's pardon there is a vast difference between Vnintelligible and Contradictions He should not have said How Unintelligible soever but how Contradictions soever And thus his Words ought to run He should conclude how Contradictions soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture I perceive the Author found it too harsh to say that how Contradictions soever a thing appears to be that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture and therefore he puts the word Vnintelligible instead of the word Contradictions In effect we do not say that every Unintelligible Thing contained in Scripture is a Contradiction We acknowledg the Resurrection plainly set down in Scripture does imply no Contradiction
of natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does 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 Is not this an admirable Argument which consists only in an Interrogation and in a meer denial of the difficulty proposed in the Objection What Principle of natural Reason does it contradict Does Reason tell us that Three Divine Persons cannot be one God Here is the Interrogation or Query To which I answer Yes it does contradict a plain Principle of natural Reason even this that Three cannot be One If my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it doth neither affirm nor deny it Here is a meer denial of the difficulty I judge the Author's Reason must needs be very weak and corrupted seeing it likes well this falshood that Three are One and finds no fault with it Those unquestionably have a better sight and a more sound Reason who discern it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One because they perceive and acknowledg that Three is three times One and therefore cannot be only once One. Well saith the Doctor pleading for his Adversaries 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 He may be either without contradicting the natural Notions we have of One God and then there is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which hath in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to him 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 this Objection against this Faith that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous I have transcribed this whole Paragraph because it deserves some particular Reflection 1. I observe that it contains no positive Proofs but a meer denial The Author is extreamly confident and bold and yet all his reasonings may be resolved into I hope not and this we deny Indeed this is a very short way of answering Objections and as easy as to burn Books that are unanswerable There lies an Objection cross in his way that if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons we must believe Three distinct Gods To this he answers I hope not when we profess to believe but one God Is this a direct Confutation must we be satisfied with such an Answer because Trinitarians profess that Three Divine Persons are but one God does it follow that it is true and cannot be doubted of He hopes not and he denies it therein lies the strength of his Argument and Answer 2. I should have added he challenges for this is his third way of confuting Objections He challenges us to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three Gods But we have a plain Principle of Reason at hand to answer his Challenge to wit that it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One. 3. Here is a most absurd and ridiculous Paradox as I ever heard of Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of God or the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not What If Reason tells us that there is One God He must be One Intelligent Being Now according to Reason we have no other Idea of Unity but such as we have of a Man a Beast and a Tree Therefore as Reason teaches that a Man is one Person because he is one Intelligent Being so it follows that according to Human Reason God is but one Person being but one Intelligent Being Reason does not tell us that the Unity of God is different from the Unity of a Man it produces in our Minds the same Idea of both which being applied to God as well as to Man must needs denote One Person or Intelligent Being in opposition to Two or Three Nay if Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead which the Author does not think fit to prove what Idea can we have of the Vnity of God by Reason As long as we are ignorant whether God be one or three Persons our Idea of him must needs be more imperfect than of any other Being in that very Notion which is so familiar to us and which God himself has so much urged viz. his Unity This is so false a Principle and so contrary to the Dictates of Reason that there never was any Man taught by Reason that there is but one God but did believe at the same time that He is but one Person The Author should not have ventur'd abroad such a Philosophy contrary to the Reason of all Mankind but ought to have kept it for himself Now I find that the Scripture doth perfectly agree with Reason This tells me that there is but one God who is but one Person That teaches me the same and also that the Father of our Lord Christ is that one God both of them contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity 4. He saith that there are Three Divine Persons each of which have in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them But where is the Holy Ghost called God in Scripture He is indeed called the Spirit of God but never God himself and being the Power of God 't is no wonder that such things are ascribed to him as are ascribed to God himself Thus it is ordinary to ascribe to a Man's Courage what he has done himself and yet his Courage is no Person nor distinct from him This I say only by the way to shew the strangeness of his Consequences But I shall say nothing here of the Son and indeed seeing he brings no particular Instances of what he advances there is no need to insist any longer upon it CHAP. III. I come now to examine his Answers to the Objections against the Trinity in the brief History of the Unitarians THE First Objection p. 154. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than He none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Let us hear How the
of Moses Acts 7. 53. Who have received the Law by the Disposition of Angels Ver. 38. This Moses is He who was with the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel who spake to him in Mount Sinai These Texts do more than sufficiently prove that the Son of God is not meant by the Prophets and other Writers of the Old Testament where they mention the Lord God and Jehovah But to return to Christ's Mediatory Kingdom He says pag. 167. The Son has a Kingdom of his own which is peculiarly his and administred in his Name and by his Sovereign Authority But how is this consistent with what we read pag. 168. The Power indeed whereby he administers his Kingdom is the Power of the whole Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost for they being essentially one God have but one Energy and Power and therefore can never act separately How can the Son or the second Person of that Trinity have a Kingdom of his own if whatever he does is also done by the Father and Holy Ghost have not they hereby as great a share in this Kingdom as the Son This therefore is a plain Contradiction and perfect Non-sense Let us hear him further pag. 169 170. The Power is not taken out of God's Hands that is impossible Father Son and Holy Ghost govern the World still by one individual Act and Power but as in the Natural Government of the World the exercise of this Power begins with the Father so in the exercise of this Mediatory Kingdom it begins with the Son and is directed by his Mediation That is God governs the World now not meerly as a Natural Lord by the Rules of Natural Justice but with respect to the Mediatory Power and Authority of his Son and to serve the ends of his Mediatory Kingdom This Chimerical reasoning will not free the Author 's System from Contradiction For as in the Natural Government of the World tho as he dreams the exercise of the Power begins with the Father yet the Son and Holy Spirit acting in conjunction with the Father by an individual Act it cannot be said that the Power or Kingdom is peculiar to the Father so in the supposed Mediatory Kingdom tho the exercise of the Power begins with the Son yet as long as the Father and Holy Spirit act together with him and can never act separately it cannot be said that the Son has a Kingdom of his own or that he is the Mediatory King more than the Father or Spirit Yet by the help of this contrived Mediatory Kingdom our Author undertakes at pag. 173. to overthrow the Fourth Argument in the History of the Vnitarians even this because God doth all things in his own Name and by his own Authority but Christ comes in the Father's Name does his Will and seeks his Glory This only proves says he that he is not the Father but the Son and the King of God For this Mediatory Kingdom as he says at pag. 172. is erected by the Father and by him given to the Son But I ask is not the Son equal to the Father both in Energy and Authority How then can he be said to be sent by his Father to receive his Commands and to seek his Glory Can all this be ascribed to the Supream God Nay if the Father together with the Son and Spirit be but one God is it not absurd to say that the Father sends the Son and the Son does the Will of the Father Why not rather in his own Mediatory Kingdom does his own Will seeks his own Glory I think I could as soon believe White is Black as swallow the Absurdities of our Author 's Mediatory Kingdom But 't is plain to every discerning Reader that he has often not understood what he said Having thus shown the Absurdity of his Hypothesis concerning Christ's Mediatory Kingdom I will set down in a few Words what I take to be the true Notion of Christ's Kingdom God had promised to David that he would establish his Throne for ever and there should never be wanting one of his Seed to sit thereon Psal 89. 3 4. I have made a Covenant with my Chosen I have sworn unto David my Servant thy Seed will I establish for ever and build up thy Throne to all Generations And again vers 29. His Seed will I make to indure for ever and his Throne as the Days of Heaven Again ver 35 36 37. Once I have sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David his Seed shall indure for ever and his Throne as the Sun before me it shall be establisht for ever as the Moon and as a faithful Witness in the Heavens Now that this Promise does not relate only or chiefly to David's Successors in the Political Government of Israel without any respect to the Messias who was also the Son of David does plainly appear by the Event for the Political Kingdom of David has been destroyed for several Ages and the Series of Successors in the Davidical Line is utterly broken off This Promise therefore had its full Accomplishment in our Messias Jesus Christ who is the Son of David and the King of Israel But this Kingdom of Christ is both more ample and more durable than David's was For all Power is given to him both in Heaven and Earth Mat. 28. 18. And 1 Cor. 15. 25 26. He must reign till he has put all Enemies under his Feet the last Enemy that shall be destroyed is Death Thus his Throne shall indure as long as the Sun and Moon He may be called with greater reason than David was Psal 89. 27. God's First-born Higher than the Kings of the Earth for he is Rev. 19. 16. King of Kings and Lord of Lords Rev. 1. 5. Prince of the Kings of the Earth But his Power reaches not only over Men but over Angels too 1 Pet. 3. 22. He is on the right hand of God Angels and Authorities and Powers being made subject to him This is God's Anointed whom he has invested with the Power of enacting Laws for the good of his Subjects When God did not so immediately govern Israel as during the Theocracy but by Kings David as God's Deputy and Vicegerent appointed Musick Singers Porters and made such other Regulations as were fit in the Worship of God So Christ who is a King immediately appointed by God by virtue of the Power and Instructions given to him took away the Ceremonial Law set up a Spiritual Worship and being a King over the Gentiles as well as over the Jews made such Laws as were able to unite them into one Body in the Worship of one God that there might be but one Flock and one Shepherd Christ's Kingdom is not only Spiritual but Temporal I mean he has so much Power over all Creatures as is necessary to enable him to perform the ends of his Spiritual Kingdom Nor is this contradicted by our Saviour's Words at John 18. 36. The Original has it
not My Kingdom is not of this World but from this World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. My Kingdom is not owing to Men but to God's own appointment I am a King indeed but this Kingdom I received from God's own Hands My Kingdom is not from hence as he explains it but from above Acts 2. 36. God has made that same Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ i. e. King And chap. 17. 31. He has appointed a Day in which he will judge the World in Righteousness by the MAN whom he has ordained 1 Cor. 15. 24 28 Then cometh the end when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father Then shall the Son be also subject to him that put all things under him that God may be all in all This I take to be the true account of Christ's Kingdom according to Scripture Thus God performed the Oath which he sware to David even by raising up an Horn of Salvation in his House Luke 1. 69. Thus the Kingdom of Christ who is the Seed of David shall last as long as the Sun and Moon But we no where find in Scripture that this Kingdom is bestowed upon him as he is the Eternal Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity St. Paul was so far from believing that that discoursing of the principal Act of Christ's Kingly Power and Authority viz. his judging the World he says that God has appointed a Day to perform this by the MAN whom he has ordained Acts 17. 31. In a Word as Christ has been exalted by God and has received a Kingdom from him So when the appointed End cometh he shall deliver it up to God and remain SUBJECT to him as St. Paul expresly teaches 1 Cor. 15. 28. These two things demonstratively prove that Christ is a King barely as a Man and that his Mediatory Kingdom so much spoken of by our Author is a Chimera I proceed now to his other Answers to this Objection That Christ knows not the day of Judgment He replies pag. 177. Christ in that Text speaks of himself as Man St. Matthew does not mention the Son which shews that the Son is included in St. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None or no Man and therefore these Texts must speak of Christ only as a Man I answer so they do for he is no more than a Man St. Mark tells us that Christ as the Son of God knows not that Day and Hour Now our Author will have Christ's Sonship founded in his Eternal Generation from the Father and that he is the Son not as he is Man but as he is God so he saith at pag. 166. and elsewhere This is indeed a very easy distinction were it but true but Trinitarians are the Authors of it not Scripture In St. Mark 's Gradation Christ is named after Men and Angels to shew his present Excellence and Exaltation above them but in St. Matthew that very Son of God who is above Men and Angels is included in the None or no Man Thus this glorious Title of the Son of God denotes here Christ Man As the Father in St. Mark is God so the Son of God who knows not that Day and Hour is Christ Man who is so stiled in all the New Testament without any respect to a second Nature CHAP. IV. THE sixth Argument in the Brief History runs thus God giveth what and to whom He pleases He needs not the aid of any other He intreateth not for Himself or his People He cannot die and deriveth his Power from none but Himself But 't is certain that the Lord Christ could not himself without the previous Ordination of the Father confer the prime Dignities of Heaven or of the Church He placed his Safety in his Father's Presence and Help he prayed often and fervently to the Father both for himself and for his Disciples he died and was raised from the Dead by the Father after his Resurrection he received from another all that great Power which he now injoys To this he answers Christ interceeds with no Creature receives Authority from no Creature c. nor from any God neither who is separated from himself For he is One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost That he interceeds with the Father proves indeed that he is a distinct Person from the Father not that he is not one God with him But why I pray does it not prove that he is not one God with the Father For if he intercedes with God can he be that very God with whom he intercedes if he is what need is there for him to intercede Besides this Author says before pag. 167 169 170. The Three Divine Persons can never act separately they have but One Energy and whatever is done they do it by one Individual Act. Now I hope he will grant that Prayer and Intercession are real Acts or Actions I infer therefore when the Son intercedes the Father and Holy Spirit must intercede too Thus Intercession and Prayer are not peculiar to the Son but there are in the Godhead three Intercessors three Beseeching Persons Whom what Person or God does this Trinity beseech Good God! how long shall it be that Men will love Darkness rather than Light and prefer a Novel and Unintelligible Gospel before the old plain and easy One Pag. 183. He says For God to make a Creature Advocate and Mediator is to give a Creature Authority over himself which cannot be for it is a Debasement to the Divine Nature and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom it is as if God did not better know how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy than any Creature does But why so has our Author forgot or is he to learn that Moses thô a meer Creature was a Mediator between God and his People I am sure St. Paul calls him so in these Words at Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator And at Deut. 5. 5. He stood between the Lord and them to shew them the Word of the Lord. And the same Apostle tells us that the MAN Jesus Christ is a Mediator between God and Men. Does not the Scripture mention Moses his Intercession with God and that God was moved by his Intreaty Why then does this Author affirm that to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator is above the Nature and Order of Creatures To the next Argument viz. That Jesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and described to be the Son of God and the Image of God He answers This we own and he had no need to prove it This is a wonderful Argument to convince those who acknowledg Three distinct Persons in the Godhead that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father for so according to the Language of Scripture God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit as
all Men grant Let the Author abate a little of his Confidence Is an Ironical Answer sufficient to confute a good and a strong Argument This is a wonderful Argument says he to prove that Christ is not God When St. Paul says in his Salutations Grace be to you and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ who would guess that Jesus Christ is God as well as the Father he nor any other sacred Writer ever says that there are Three Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost he calls only the Father God and distinguishes the Lord Christ from him If the Lord Christ is God as well as the Father the Apostle should have framed his Salutation thus Grace be to you and Peace from God the Father and from the God Man Jesus Christ But according to the Language of Scripture says he God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit I answer that is a Demonstration that the Father only is God else the Title God could not be appropriated to him when he is distinguished from the Son and Spirit And to discern so much a Man can lack nothing but common Sense But I observe farther to this Answer that supposing Christ were but a Man the Apostle could have expressed himself no otherways from whence it follows that either the Apostle did indeed so think and so teach or this Author must charge him as not knowing how to speak correctly and properly 'T is impossible saith the Brief History that the Son or Image of the One true God should himself be that One true God as impossible as that the Son should be the Father or the Image that very Thing whose Image it is This is meer Sophistry saith our Author for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God they are the same One true God and yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father I appeal to the Reader whether this be not a mear denial of the Difficulty not an Explication or a Solution of it The Son saith the Historian can't be the One true God because he is the Son and Image of the One true God for the Son cannot be the Father nor the Image the very Thing whose Image it is Yes says our Answerer God and the Image of God are the same One true God The next Argument of the History is that Many Texts expresly declare That only the Father is God In answer to this says our Author This would be a Demonstration could he produce any one Text which asserts that only the Father in opposition to the Son and Holy Ghost is God for then the Father must signify the Person of the Father in opposition to the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost But has not the Historian produced such a Text John 17. 3. Father this is Life Eternal to know Thee the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or Jesus Christ thy Messenger Here the Father to whom the Son directs his Prayer as appears by Ver. 1. is called the only true God and the Son Jesus Christ whom he hath sent or his Messenger Here the Father as the Sender is opposed to the Son as the Messenger and the First called the ONLY true God the Other an Apostle or Messenger Our Author adds But when the Father is called the only true God only in opposition to all the false Gods which the World then worshipped there Father does not signify Personally but that one Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source the Fountain and the Original So soon has this Author forgot his own Observation and Rule of Interpretation that according to Scripture God signifies God the Father whenever he is distinguished from the Son or Spirit Is not he to whom Christ here directs his Prayer called God and is he not distinguished from the Son who is called the Messenger why then should he not signify here Personally God the Father as well as in other places why must Father here signify not the Father but one Godhead of which the Father is the Source Thus either his Observation is false and then he is overthrown by the Texts to which he opposes it or it is true and then in this Text the only true God is affirmed by our Saviour himself to be the Father only in opposition to all other Persons whomsoever I cannot but admire this Author's way of expounding Scripture One while he founds Christ's Sonship on his eternal Generation so that the title Son denotes begotten Wisdom the second Person of the Trinity as soon as this notion will not serve the turn as when the Son is in St. Matthew and St. Mark denied to know the Day and Hour of Judgment then the Son shall signify Christ Man Again when God is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit he signifies Personally God the Father this Notion shall serve us against many Socinian sayings of Scripture against all the Texts in the seventh Argument of the History But when John 17. 1 3. and the like Texts are urged then on the contrary God the Father must not signify the Father Personally but one Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source Certainly were his Hypothesis true there would be no need he should thus turn himself into all Shapes to defend it When the Father is called the one God and the only true God in opposition to all false Gods is he not so called in opposition to the Son also Most certainly he is In these two Texts John 17. 3. 1 Cor. 8. 6. we have no warrant from Reason or Scripture to understand by the Father Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Is it not absurd and senseless to say That the Father signifies also the Son and Holy Ghost in those very Texts where he is distinguished from them I always thought the Father signified the Father only and the Son the Son only and Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost only I always thought that the Language of Scripture was agreeable to the Language of Men because otherways it cannot be understood by Men and therefore that Father must not be understood to be Father and Son and a third Person distinct from both But Trinitarians better sighted than other People have found it may When we read in Scripture 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father It sounds as if the Apostle had said There is but one numerical infinite Being the Father of Jesus Christ and of all the World because this is the natural Idea we have of one God the Father But this Author tells us we are grosly mistaken for one God signifies three infinite Minds three substantial intellectual Beings or Persons Again we should think that the Father here signifies the Father only but this is it seems another foul Mistake for it signifies besides the Father a Son
and an Holy Spirit different from both Nay we must not think that the very express Words at Mat. 24. 36. the Father only do indeed signify the Father only but the Father the Son and another Person even thô the Son is there expresly said not to know the Day and Hour of Judgment and that the Father only knows it These are some of the Illuminations with which our Author and his Party has blest the World He goes on and says the Dispute must end here whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost for if so when the Father is said to be the only true God and the one God the Son and Holy Spirit are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead I answer the Dispute may be soon ended for when the Father is called the one God and the only true God even in those places where the Son is mentioned This alone is a clear Demonstration that the Scripture does not teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost Were the Son and Holy Ghost God with the Father the Prayer of our Lord at John 17. 1 2 3 c. must have been thus framed This is Life Eternal to know Thee Father and Me and the Holy Ghost to be the only true God And Paul to the Corinthians should have said But to us there is but one God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But this is the Language of Scripture no where Pag. 186. His other Texts saith our Author prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God not that Christ is not one God with the Father Let us hear the Texts themselves 1 Cor. 15. 24. Then cometh the end when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father James 3. 9. Therewith bless we God even the Father Rom. 15. 6. That ye may with one Mind and one Mouth glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is an affected blindness and perverseness not to discern and own that in these Texts God even the Father is as much as to say God that is to say the Father No plainer or more express Words could be used by a Socinian or other Vnitarian to declare his Notion of the Unity of God What hope is there of convincing those with whom the Father only shall not signify the Father only And again God that is to say the Father shall be two others besides the Father CHAP. V. THE next Argument If Christ were indeed God as well as Man or as Trinitarians speak God the Son Incarnate it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature as a Director and Guide for what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did Personally dwell To this he answers The account of this is plain and short for the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra what the Father does that the Son does and that the Holy Ghost does by one Individual Act. But the Sanctification of all Creatures and such is the Human Nature of Christ is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit But if the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power the Sanctification of Christ's Human Nature or of any other Creature can by no means be peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost why to the Holy Ghost rather than to the Father or than to the Divine Word or Son dwelling as they say after a peculiar manner in Christ But the matter is plain the Holy Ghost is the Power of God of which Christ stood in need for performing the Will and Works of the Father and which God bestowed on him for that very end but if Christ had been indeed God there had been no need he should receive any such Gift for as God he would have had it in his own Person Our Author adds He might as well have asked why the Sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Spirit But the Historian had no reason to ask such a Question for no one pretends that the Church is God or is Personally united either to the Father or Son as Trinitarians say the Human Nature of Christ is It is after the same slight and insignificant manner that he answers the next Argument even this The Miracles of Christ are attributed always either to the Father or the Holy Spirit dwelling in him He answers pag. 188. Father Son and Holy Spirit act together I say now supposing this which he says yet if Christ were God why should we never ascribe his Miracles to himself why always to the Father or to the Holy Spirit which is the Power of the Father why has he concealed a matter of so great importance to be known Or why do we seek to make him greater than he ever said he was Besides in the very Texts in which he ascribes the Miracles he did to the Father or the Spirit and Power of the Father dwelling in him I say in those very Texts he denies that he doth them himself which is directly contrary to what our Author affirms that the pretended three Divine Persons have but one Energy and act by one Individual Act. If that were so our Saviour could not have said John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works Let us hear the account which St. Peter gives Acts 10. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed with the Devil for God was with him Here St. Peter teaches that Christ wrought all sorts of Miracles not because as Trinitarians say he was God but because God was with him i. e. God helped and assisted him by anointing him with the Holy Ghost and with Power The next Argument is Had our Lord Christ been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament in which he is promised would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses the Servant and Missionary of God on whom God's Spirit should rest The Historian by a particular Induction of Texts shews this to be the Character of Christ in the Prophecies of the Old Testament Our Author thinks fit to answer this Objection in another place I come now to his Answers which he makes to the Arguments against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost The First Argument in the History is this The Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are in Scripture spoken of as one and the same thing Our Author answers at pag. 189. It is as easy to prove that the Father and Son are no Persons as that the Holy Spirit is none But if he can make good this Assertion erit mihi magnus Apollo The Father has in the New Testament
the Title of God therefore because God is most certainly a Person no Body can doubt that the Father is a Person As for the Son the same Gospel often says he is a Man every Man being a Person the Son being a Man must be also a Person But it is quite otherways with the Holy Ghost for the Scriptures call it the Power of God and Power is a Faculty not a Person Acts 10. 38. God has anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee What is more plain than that the Power of the Highest in these Texts is the explication of the Holy Ghost Again Acts 6. 5. They chose Stephen a Man full of Faith and of the Holy Ghost Ver. 8. And Stephen full of Faith and of POWER did great Wonders Here again the Holy Ghost at ver 5. is explained by Power at ver 8. He says further He is the Spirit of God which searcheth the deep things of God and he who knows all things in God must be a knowing Mind In answer to this I must explain the Text to which he alludes 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. and which he cites too pag. 192. Ver. 10. But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit for the Spirit searches all things yea the deep things of God The Apostle speaks here of the Doctrines of the Gospel its Precepts and Promises which before were hidden but now are revealed to Men as appears by ver 7 8 9. He meaneth this God has revealed to us Apostles these Doctrines this formerly hidden Wisdom by his Inspiration for this Spirit or Inspiration in us searcheth out i. e. finds or discovers these deep or hidden things of God Deep I say and hidden not to us but to the World and the Princes of the World The Apostle illustrates his Discourse with a Comparison ver 11. What Man knoweth the things of a Man save the Spirit of a Man which is in him Even so the Things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God As if he had said As no Man knows the things that belong to Human Life but by his own Spirit or Mind So no Man knows these things of God but by God's Spirit or Inspiration whereby he is enabled to know them This Interpretation perfectly agrees with what follows at ver 12. Now we have not received the Spirit of the World but the Spirit of God that we might know the things that are freely given us of God This is the true Sense of this place For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate no Man must either be understood exclusively of God or so as to include God also If it includes God too it will follow that the Holy Spirit or Third Person of the Trinity knows the Things of God and that the Father and Son are altogether ignorant of them which Consequence I am sure they will not allow But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no Man here as most certainly it does then the Spirit of God is to be understood of the Man who has received that Spirit or Inspiration by assistance whereof he may attain to the knowledge of the most secret Counsels of God as the Apostle explains it in the very next Verse The Author grants that Charity may be said to suffer long and to be kind because a charitable Man does so then the Spirit of God may be said to know the Things of God because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is Spiritual as St. Paul stiles him Ver. 15. he that has the Spirit of God does so This Vorstius rightly understood in his Notes upon this place By the Spirit of God saith he we must understand that Spirit which is given us of God that is our Selves as Spiritual thus John 3. 6. That which is born of the Spirit saith our Saviour is Spirit This I hope may be enough to clear the sense of this Text. But the Author cannot allow of Power and Inspiration distinct from God and yet not God for what are Faculties in us are Persons in God If this be true then there are more than Three Persons in the Godhead for Power is a Faculty in us and being in God too it must be another Person in him Thus not only Wisdom and Love but Power also are Persons in God Nay there being Three knowing Minds in the Godhead each of which is ` God as the Author tells us it cannot be said that the Father only has Wisdom Love and Power The Son and the Holy Ghost must have them too else they should not be God But if Wisdom Love and Power being Faculties in us ought to be Persons in God then there are Nine Persons at the least in God viz. Wisdom Love and Power in the Father who is an Infinite Mind distinct from the Son and Holy Ghost Wisdom Love and Power in the Son who is an Infinite Mind distinguished from the Father and Holy Ghost Wisdom Love and Power in the Holy Ghost who is an Infinite Mind distinct from the Father and Son Moreover he tells us that the Son is a Person because He is the Father's Reflex knowledge But the Son being an Infinite and most Perfect Mind is undoubtedly able to reflect upon his own Wisdom and Knowledg and thus as well as the Father to beget a Son And this second Son in the Trinity may by the same Means and Reason beget another and so onwards to Infinity Thus according to this Maxim that what are Faculties in us are Persons in God there may be nay there must be an infinite number of Persons in God Apage This is certain says he all Personal Acts belong to a Person and therefore whatever has any Personal Acts we must conclude is a Person unless we know by some other means that it is no Person and then that proves the Expression to be Figurative But we know that the Holy Ghost is no Person and therefore we may affirm that whenever Personal Acts are ascribed to it it is to be figuratively taken That the Holy Ghost is not God we most certainly know because the Scripture plainly tells us there is but one God the Father That the Holy Ghost is not a created Person is made probable by several places of Scripture which teach us that it is God's Power and Inspiration by explaining the Holy Ghost by the Power of God and putting one for the other According to these two Principles which the Scripture affords us viz. That the Father only is God and that the Holy Ghost is God's Power we dare affirm that when Personal Acts are ascribed to it it is a Figurative Expression Thus we can easily conceive that the Holy Ghost may be said to work Miracles pag. 190. to raise the Dead to comfort to convince to sanctify the Church to dwell in the Church because God by his Power works Miracles raises the
Dead comforts convinces sanctifies and dwells in the Church Thus we do not prove that the Holy Ghost is no Person only because Personal Acts are sometimes Figuratively attributed to that which is no Person as this Author mistakes But having proved by Scripture that the Holy Ghost is no Person we say that Personal Acts are figuratively ascribed to it as they are to Charity Wisdom and other Things both in Scripture and in Prophane Authors and in common familiar Speech 2. The second Argument against the Spirit 's being God is this A manifest Distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself To this our Author answers pag. 191. This Holy Spirit is either a Divine subsisting Person or nothing but a Name If this Spirit were a Divine Virtue or Power as he would have it then it is not distinct from God but is God himself As the Powers and Faculties of the Mind thô they may be distinguished from each other yet they can't be any thing distinct from the Mind but are the Mind it self and therefore if the Spirit as he says be represented in Scripture as so distinct from God that 't is impossible he should be God himself then he must be a distinct Divine Person and not the meer Power of God which is not distinct from God himself To this I answer the Holy Spirit is neither a Divine subsisting Person nor a meer Name In order to the clearing of this I must observe that the Holy Ghost signifies in Scripture sometimes the Power of God sometimes the Effects of that Power or all miraculous extraordinary Gifts In the first sense we read Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee Here it is evident that the Holy Ghost signifies the Power of God whereby he effected the miraculous Conception of our Blessed Saviour In the latter sense we read Gal. 3. 5. He therefore that ministreth to you the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith Here the Spirit is plainly meant of the miraculous Gifts bestowed upon the first Christians and the meaning of the Apostle's Question is this whether the Galatians had been indued with that Spirit and those extraordinary Gifts by submitting to the Ceremonial Law of Moses or only upon their imbracing the Gospel In the first sense the Holy Ghost is only an Attribute of God and so is not a meer Name nor is it a Divine subsisting Person which to say were ridiculous and contrary to the Notion of an Attribute This Attribute may be distinguish'd from God in such manner as Attributes are wont to be distinguish'd that is God may be said to act by his Power as he is said to act by his Wisdom But he saith If this Spirit were a Divine Vertue or Power then it is not distinct from God but is God himself I answer if this be all our Author contends for that the Holy Spirit or Power of God is God in such sense as other Vertues and Faculties of God may be called God himself the Socinians never denied it and this is all that his Argument proves Secondly He ought to know the Holy Spirit is not distinct from God as one Person from another but is distinguished from God as his Attribute This is easy and plain and agreeable to Reason and Scripture and is a full answer to what he adds in these words A Power which is distinct from God and is not God himself as he says the Holy Spirit is if it has any Personal Acts must be a distinct Person and if these Personal Acts are such as are proper only to God it must be a distinct Divine Person He goes on He says this Spirit is the Inspiration of God be it so This Inspiration then is either within God himself or without him in his Creatures who have this Inspiration If it be within God himself it must be a Person or else it cannot be distinct from God and a Divine Person unless any thing be in God which is not God If this Inspiration be without God in the Creatures who are inspired by him how is it the Spirit of God For the Spirit of God must be in God as the Spirit of a Man is in a Man I answer If every thing that is in God be a Person then there must be as many Persons in the Godhead as there are Attributes or Immanent Acts in God which to say is too sensless and ridiculous to need Confutation God's Inspiration as 't is an Act is in God as 't is an Effect 't is in Creatures and is called the Spirit of God because 't is an Effect of that Spirit Energy or Power which God uses to make his Will known to Men by inward Suggestion or Inspiration He desires to know pag. 192. how the Spirit of God differs from his Gifts and Graces I answer As the cause from its effects so that there are Diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 4. The same Cause produces several effects out of the same Power spring several Gifts 3. The next Argument is The Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers therefore it self is not God This he pretends to answer by his Old Sophism that One Divine Person may send and give another which has been already confuted He adds The Spirit gives himself and is asked of himself for the Divine Persons in the Trinity do not act separately but as the Father and the Son give the Spirit so the Holy Spirit gives himself in the same Individual Act. But how can this be the same Individual Act The Father and the Son says he send the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost gives himself Can sending another and giving one's self be one and the same Act Farther If the Father Son and Holy Ghost cannot act separately when the Holy Ghost gives himself Father and Son must give themselves too or else it will not be the same Individual Act. But were it so this would not be made peculiar to the Holy Ghost who only is said in Scripture to be given and obtained of God But the thing is plain and easy if by the Spirit we understand God's Power and Inspiration which with their Effects are communicated to those that pray for them CHAP. VI. 4. THE next Argument is against a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead Which saith the Historian is contrary to the whole Scripture For that speaks of God but as one Person and speaks of him and to him by Singular Pronouns such as I Thou Me Him c. He cites also Heb. 1. 2. where Christ is called the express Image of God's Person Our Author returns this Answer It is plain that the Person of whom the Son is called the express Image is the
Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but one Person But here he takes for granted that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity contrary to the Apostle who speaks only of the Person of God not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son If the Person of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image is only the Person of the Father then the Person of the Father only at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets Ver. 1. for Ver. 2. the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only is not the true God in the Author's Hypothesis therefore he must conclude that the true God spake not to the Fathers which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle who says that God undoubtedly the true God spake to the Fathers Farther by God who spake to the Fathers we must understand either Father Son and Holy Ghost or the Father only If Father Son and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers it could not be here said that Christ is the Image of that God's Person for he is Three Persons If the Father only spake to the Fathers then the Father only is the true God for the true God spake to the Fathers also then God is but one Person Which are the things we contend for He goes on As for his Singular Pronouns I Thou c. They prove indeed that there is but one God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons in all Languages When therefore they are applied to God they show that he is a Singular that is but one Person unless they will say that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others but this is false for being written to Men the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them are the same as in all other Languages and otherways the Scripture would not be given us to instruct us but to pervert and deceive us 5. The fifth Argument Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed He answers Had not the Son been God and also the Holy Ghost they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than the Form of Baptism which is the Original of the Apostles Creed But why not Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God since the Gospel was preached by the One and confirmed by the Other why may not they be put into the Creed as well as the Catholic Church by whom the Gospel is to be believed If our Creed only mentioned God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian therefore a Christian Creed as such must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thô they are not Gods or God A Christian as such must profess in his Creed that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty but also in his Son Jesus Christ who was sent by him to preach the Gospel and in the Holy Ghost by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man He adds That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church 'T is plain our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks And whereas he says there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed 't is very marvellous to me that there should be no reason to express an Article which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed but I say had the Article been necessary or so much as true the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed to make room for a necessary Article an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church and other Articles there expressed Besides what Inlargement would it have been what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory to have added twice this single and short Word God And in God the Son Jesus Christ our Lord c. I believe in God the Holy Ghost c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days It is plain therefore that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost no other but that they believed it not But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 23 24. was it too hot or to heavy for him Lastly he says It needed not to be added because the Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man But must he that is the Son of God be also by Nature God St. Luke says of Adam who was the Son of God Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God in the Language of Scripture Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying that the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man If one had leisure there might be Answers enow made to it all that I say is I pray prove it 6. The Historian concludes That The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible On the contrary our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge 1. It ridicules the Scriptures 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion 4. It justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries If it be so my Masters the Socinians are ill Men indeed but let us do them this Common Right to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment CHAP. VII 1. THE First pretence is That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired He instances in some Expositions of Scripture which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians For Example The Historian in answer to Psal 45. 6 7. which the Apostle at Heb. 1. 8. applies to Christ says In the Hebrew and in the Greek
Christ And if this be so to be baptized into John 's Baptism must also signify to be baptized in the Name of John John indeed made Proselytes to the Messias but he preached the Doctrine of Repentance and he who was baptized by him was baptized into the Profession of the Doctrine taught by him and therefore whoever profest in his Baptism to follow the Doctrine of John might be said to be baptized to the Doctrine of John or in the Name of John Lastly He asks Whether it be not very absurd that the Power or Inspiration of God which is not a Person should be joined in the same Form with the Father and Son who are Persons I answer I see no absurdity in being baptized into the Profession of a Doctrine which not only comes originally from God the Father and is revealed by his Son but is confirmed by the Power or Spirit of God The next and last Place of the New Testament which our Auther considers is the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel Which says he pag. 215. gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ and a plain Demonstration of the incurable Perverseness of Hereticks I will examine this High Pretence and shew these three Things 1. The Absurdity of the Author's Explication of this Chapter 2. The Inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the Context 3. The true sense and meaning of this so much controverted Place 1. The Historian said that the Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictious and that it is this In the Beginning i. e. from all Eternity But How saith the Historian can in the Beginning be from all Eternity From all Eternity is before the Beginning or without Beginning not in the Beginning To this our Author replies That No Man expounds in the beginning of Eternity But he should not be so bold in his Assertions for Mr. Calvin expounds it so He adds When St. John tells us In the Beginning was the Word we say this proves the Eternity of the Word for that which was when all things began which had a beginning was it self before the beginning and without beginning I answer had the Evangelist designed to teach us the Eternity of the Word he would undoubtedly have done it by the same Characters that are used in Scripture to express the Eternity of God Now this Expression in the Beginning is so far from denoting Eternity that it is never applied to God in that Sense We read in Scripture That In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth Gen. 1. 1. Heb. 1. 10. a plain Demonstration that In the beginning cannot be applied to him that is God but only to Creatures and as plain a Demonstration that God himself is from all Eternity for he who created all things must needs be not only before all things but from Eternity But we never read God was in the Beginning in all the Descriptions which the Scriptures afford us of his Eternity nay they rather declare it or describe it by Before the beginning Psal 90. 2. Before the Mountains were brought forth even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God Here Eternity is described by before the beginning This is the Scripture-Notion of Eternity therefore if St. John had intended to shew the Eternity of the Word he should not have said In the beginning was the Word but as 't is said of God In the beginning the Word created the Heaven and the Earth Nor will it avail any thing to say The Word was so in the beginning that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made For as the foregoing Words In the beginning was the Word are no true Description of Eternity in Scripture so neither are these All things were made by him c. the Scripture-Description of the Creation There is no mention here made either of the Heaven or the Earth or the Sea which are never omitted in the Descriptions we have in Scripture of the first and true Creation a I shewed before and therefore there is no need to insist longer on this Phrase in this place The Historian goes on Was the Word i. e. was God the Son But where in Scripture says he is the Word called God the the Son Our Author replies This Word indeed is God the Son but we do not paraphrase it so in this place In the beginning was God the Son but In the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word But I pray what is the meaning of this For if the Word is indeed God the Son one may paraphrase it here In the beginning was God the Son as well as In the beginning was that Divine Person called the Word the one is as fit and as good Sense as the other But it seems our Author is asham'd to paraphrase the Word by God the Son this is a Modesty in him which is but seldom found in his Book Histor The Word was God i. e. The Son was with the Father Answ It seems then that God in this Clause is the Father But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost and is not he too according to Trinitarians God or a God If he is why does St. John only say the Son was with the Father and how comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost To avoid the strength of this Argument our Author replies By God the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom that Supream and Soveraign Being whom all Men called God without making a Distinction of Persons in the Godhead But if God in this place does not signify the Father only but the Three Persons of the Trinity he should not tell us that the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom but those Three Minds whom all Men called God for we are taught all over his Book that God is Three infinite Minds and consequently Three Wisdoms for an infinite Mind cannot be without Wisdom Neither should he say That Supream and Soveraign Being whom all Men call God but those Three Supream and Soveraign Beings for he often tells us that God is Three infinite and substantial Beings therefore he is Three Supream and Soveraign Beings It is a plain Contradiction to say in one place God is Three Minds and Three Beings and in another that he is but one Mind and one Being Furthermore when the Evangelist says The Word was with God if by God he means not the Father only but the Three Persons who are that God this will make a very trifling sense For then the Word was with God must signify thē second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity and consequently with himself which is not only trifling but ridiculous The Apostle adds And the Word was God Our Author to serve his Hypothesis puts here another or a new sense on the word God for he saw it was inconsistent with
his Opinion that in this Clause God should be interpreted as it was in the foregoing Indeed it would be strange Non-sense for then the Word was God should signify the second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity Therefore in his Hypothesis the Word was God signifies the Word was a Divine Person in the Godhead pag. 216. But this Interpretation is no less absurd than the other for by the Word he understands a Divine Person who is called the Word and by God too he means a Divine Person in the Godhead Therefore his Interpretation of these Words the Word was God amounts only to this the Divine Person who is called the Word was a Divine Person But to give us a right and full understanding of this place he thought sit to paraphrase it thus In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God that is In the Beginning of all Things was the Divine Person whose Name and Character is the Word this Word was inseparably united to that Supream Being whom we call God and was himself God a Divine Person subsisting in the Unity of the Godhead not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man I hope the Author will not take it ill if I paraphrase his Paraphrase to make it clearer to vulgar Understandings In the Beginning of all Things was the second Divine Person of the Trinity whose Name and Character is the Word this second Divine Person of the Trinity was inseparably united with the Three Persons of the Trinity whom we call God and consequently with himself and this second Person was a Divine Person not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man Our Author was so taken with this sense of the Words of St. John that he could not for bear breaking out into these Words Can any thing be more easy and obvious and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity I confess 't is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity 2. Thô I have shown already the inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the First Chapter of St. John's Gospel by confuting the Author's Explication yet I intend to make it appear farther by these few Considerations 1. That to be in the Beginning cannot here signify to be from all Eternity has been proved already because the Scripture does never describe Eternity by such an Expression nor does the Expression in its own Nature denote Eternity St. John would not have expressed so great a Mystery and so necessary to be believed by All in improper and unsuitable Words 2. For the Word to be with God and to be God can never bear the sense which the Trinitarians put upon it When John says the Word was with God if by God we must understand the Three Persons of the Trinity and by the Word a Divine Person in that Trinity this Interpretation makes as I have shewed this absurd sense The second Divine Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity and consequently with himself But if by God we must understand the Father only why does St. John omit the Holy Ghost who is God as well as the Father and with whom the Son was no less than with the Father In a word as the Historian speaks How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost 3. The Word was God must signify in this Hypothesis That Divine Person who is called the Word was a Divine Person 4. All Trinitarians confess that St. John in the Beginning of his Gospel speaks of the New Creation wrought by the Gospel as well as of the Old and thô they do not agree among themselves about the place where he begins to treat of this New Creation or Regeneration yet they do all grant that he discourses of it before Ver. 14. And the Word was made Flesh They all take those words He came unto his own Ver. 11. to be meant of Christ's conversing among Men and teaching them the way of Salvation But if the Word was made Flesh at Ver. 14. signifies Christ's Incarnation as Trinitarians pretend it is unaccountable that St. John writing the History of Christ's Life should first tell us what Christ Incarnate has done and then that He was Incarnate This is just as if one writing the Life of Alexander should say he overcame Darius and then that he was begotten by Philip King of Macedon Or that Christ was tempted of the Devil and then that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost Indeed it cannot be denied that the Evangelists do not very much observe the order of time in relating several Discourses and Miracles of Christ but this is of no great moment and does not destroy the proper and essential order of History The former has been done by the Evangelists as well as by other Historians but never the latter They never tell us that Christ went about to preach the Gospel and then that he was born or that he was raised from the dead and then that he died This would be to invert the true order of History and make Non-sense of it And therefore it sufficiently proves that these words The Word was made Flesh coming after He came unto his own cannot be meant of Christ's Incarnation Thus Ver. 6 7. John is said to bear witness of Christ and then that he was Incarnate The like we may observe on Ver. 10. He was in the World and the World was made by him if those Words The World was made by him are to be understood in a proper sense of Creation the Apostle should have said first that the World was made by him and then that He was in the World 5. This Evangelist plainly tells us Chap. 20. Ver. 21. the design he aimed at when he wrote his Gospel These Things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have Life thrô his Name It was not therefore to teach the Divinity and Consubstantiality of Christ as Trinitarians pretend He wrote that we might be sure that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God not that he was God How comes he then to forget the most essential Thing which induced him to write and publish his Gospel viz. the asserting of Christ's Divinity No no it is plain he only designed to teach and prove that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God And the Son of God can no more be God than a Son can be his Father Thus I think it appears clearly that this Beginning of St. John's Gospel does not favour the Trinitarian Opinion but from Ver. 1 to Ver. 15. is only an Abridgment of his whole Book Were the Trinitarian Hypothesis clearly set down in other places of Scripture I would not wonder to see Men lay so much stress upon this place but since the Scriptures throughout teach us that Christ was but a Man it stands to reason
did not give any Son he had before but made an excellent Man whom he was pleased to call his only begotten Son When our Saviour says God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son c. I desire our Author to tell me what is meant by the Word God Whether the whole Trinity or the Father only If the whole Trinity the Sense will come to this The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost so loved the World that they gave their only begotten Son Which is false for in the Trinitarian Hypothesis the Son is not the Son of the Second or Third Persons in the Trinity If by God be meant the Father only How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Son and the Holy Ghost How is he only said to love the World for the Son and Holy Ghost love it as well as the Father Thus they are not the Socinians but the Trinitarians that ridicule the Christian Religion by putting on it an absurd and unnatural Sense But says he God's Love in giving his only-begotten Son for our Redemption which our Saviour fixes on as the great Demonstration of God's Love is not so wonderful if this giving his Son signifies no more than making a Man on purpose to be our Saviour What then Does it follow from thence that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion It only follows that the Socinian Doctrine makes the Love of God less wonderful than the Trinitarian For in it self it is a wonderful Love that God should raise up a Saviour to Apostate and Rebel Mankind tho this Saviour was not God himself But why should we call a Chimera a more wonderful Love for the Son of God cannot be God himself and therefore God could not shew his Love by giving such a Son To conclude as the Love of God in redeeming Offenders is wonderful be the means what they will So his Love in giving for them his Beloved Son tho but a Man cannot without Impiety be denied to be wonderful to a Miracle The ridiculing is only on the side of our Author not on the Vnitarian and I am apt to think that if I were not an Vnitarian already his Book made up of bold Charges inconsequent Reasonings and arrogant Definings of what he understands not would make me one In the next place says he at pag. 239. the Apostles mightily insist on the great Love of Christ in dying for us and his great Humility in submitting to the condition of Human Nature and suffering a shameful and accursed Death even the Death of the Cross He cites 2 Cor. 8. 9. and 5. 14. and Phil. 2. 5 6 7 8. And goes on thus Supposing Christ to be but a meer Man who had no being before he was born of the Virgin who knew nothing of his own coming into the World or for what end he came whose Undertaking was not his own voluntary choice but God's appointment Where is the great Love where is the great Humility of this The meaning of all this is that were not Christ the Supream God whatever he has done on our behalf would be no great Argument of his Love or his Humility If Codrus and Decius devoting themselves to Death for the Good of their respective Countries have been accounted by all Men great Lovers of their Countries Shall not Christ's dying for the Eternal Salvation of Mankind pass for an Argument of wonderful Love Is it nothing for Christ to lead a wandring poor and miserable Life to expose himself to all the Injuries and Fury of Implacable Adversaries to undergo a painful and infamous Death and all this to make Men partakers of everlasting Life Must all this be accounted nothing unless the Person so doing be the Supream God How did he become Poor says he who was never Rich But I ask him How the Supream God can become Poor How God can make himself of no Reputation or humble himself and become obedient unto Death all which things he imputeth to a Person who is God I would know How it comes that Christ's Love and Humility is described by such Characters as can only be applied to a Man if we must not be allowed to believe that the Love of Christ-Man was wonderful He insists much on 2 Cor. 8. 9. where our Translation says Christ became Poor But he might know that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to become Poor but to be Poor and so Castalio renders it So the Sense of that place is this Tho Christ was Rich and Glorious by reason of the Authority and Power conferred on him yet he was willing to lead a poor Life that by his Poverty as by one means we might obtain Eternal Riches and Glory The Historian explains being in the Form of God at Phil. 1. 6. by being made Like to God by a Communication to him of Divine and Miraculous Power over Diseases Devils the Grave the Winds the Seas c. To this our Author replies This dwindles the Form of God into just nothing for according to them he had no power to do this but God did it at his Word as he did for other Prophets And therefore this is no Form of God no likeness at all For Christ did not work Miracles as God does by an inherent Power but God wrought Miracles for him Christ indeed could not work Miracles by an inherent or proper Power of his own since he was not God but to conclude that therefore there was no form or likeness of God at all in him is a very bad Consequence When we say that Christ was in the form or likeness of God we exclude thereby an equality with God and we mean only that he was in a manner like God This may be explained by a Comparison It may be said that a Vice-Roy is like a King but this does not signify that he is the King himself or is equal to the King but only that by reason of the Power and Authority conferred on him he is in a manner like the King So that thô he does not act by a Power of his own yet he may be truly said to act like a King To conclude from hence that this dwindles the likeness of the Vice-Roy with the King into just nothing would be meer Impertinence for then a Porter would be as like a King as the Vice-Roy himself which no Man in his Senses will affirm When therefore Christ by the Power bestowed upon him cast out Devils cured all sorts of Diseases raised the Dead commanded the Winds and the Seas He was indeed in the likeness of God and it was a great Humility in him that he was so far from making an ostentation of his Glory and Greatness that he became like a Servant humbled himself and underwent all sorts of Sufferings even the Death of the Cross But says the Author pag. 241. How did he take this Form upon him which signifies his own
this ought to be the Interpretation of this Passage if the Author's Assertion be true Now I think the true meaning of this Phrase the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity should be this the Father is the first God as the Son is the second God and the Holy Ghost the third God This Author may say so if he pleases I shan't contradict him for that 's the Consequence that flows naturally from his Principles But I shall deny that the Father may be called the God of Christ if Christ be the supream God as well as his Father how can the supream God have a God over him The term God relates only to Creatures God cannot be said to be the God of any but Creatures this common Sense and the whole Current of Scripture teaches Yes you 'l say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I answer therefore you may in your Hypothesis call him the first God but by no means the God of the Son or Spirit to whom He is not Superiour in Power Authority or other Divine Attribute The Author speaks an unintelligible Jargon in his following Paragraph which I think there is no need to insist on Therefore I shall here leave it to every rational Man to judge whether we ought to rest satisfied with such a trifling Answer to the propounded Objection The second Objection p. 155. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without Blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that He is the Creature the Possession the Servant and the Subject of God To this the Author answers thus That Christ is called a Creature he proves because He is the First-born of every Creature Col. 1. 15. But here he should have remembred his Absolutely and without Restriction for Christ is so the First-born of every Creature that He is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature Surely an absurd Consequence I say on the contrary Christ is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore a Creature Let us see which of us is in the right Every one may plainly see that when St. Paul calls Christ the Image of the Invisible God he means that He is a Visible Image of an Invisible God and therefore he added the Epithet Invisible which otherways had been useless not to say ridiculous For then the Sense of the Apostle's Expression must be this Christ is the Invisible Image of the Invisible God Now the Nature of an Image is to be visible to every ones Eye or else it is no Image But if Christ is called the Image of the Invisible God because He is the second Person of the Trinity this second Person being as Invisible as the first it follows that Christ is an Image of God as Invisible as the Original which is ridiculous No no the Man Christ is the Image of the Invisible God by reason of his unspotted Holiness and of the supream Power and Authority conferred on him He is the Brightness of God's Glory and the express Image of his Person but such an Image as was Visible while He lived upon Earth and may now be seen of all the Inhabitants of Heaven Besides it does plainly appear by the Context that St. Paul calls Jesus Christ Man the Image of the Invisible God Who the Father saith he at Ver. 13. has delivered us from the Power of Darkness and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Ver. 14. In whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood even the forgiveness of Sins Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature There you see that He who is the Image of the Invisible God is that dear Son in whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood but He who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men must be Jesus Christ Man therefore Jesus Christ Man is the Image of the Invisible God Now let any unprejudiced Man judge which of these two Consequences is right either this of the Author Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore no Creature or mine Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore a Creature He goes on He is so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies that by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and He is before all things which is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Begotten before the whole Creation and therefore no part of the Creation and by him all things consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things were not only made by him but have their Subsistence in him Now let us suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to signify born before all Creatures I deny that therefore Himself is no part of the Creation The plain meaning of born before all Creatures is that Christ was born before any other Creature As these Words Adam was born before all Men do not signify that he is no Creature or no Man but only that he was the first Man created Therefore I say supposing that these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are well translated by born before all Creatures I may with great reason draw a Consequence contrary to the Author's thus Christ is born before all Creatures therefore He is part of the Creation Himself The Author is very unhappy at drawing Consequences Here is another as false as the former That this does not relate to the New Creation as the Socinians would have it is very plain For 1. In this Sense Christ if He were a meer Man was not the First-born of every New Creature For I hope there were a great many New Creatures that is truly Good and Pious Men before Christ was born of his Virgin Mother What supposing the New Creation by the Gospel is here meant can't Christ as a meer Man be the First-born of every New-Creature being the Messias the Author and first Preacher of the Gospel the Head of the Church the Fountain from which the Holiness of every New Evangelical Creature does spring In a Word being the Author of this New Evangelical Creation can't He also be the First-born of every New Evangelical Creature Those Socinians that he speaks of by the New-Creation mean nothing else but the New-Creation wrought by Christ and his Gospel and therefore either this Author imposes on them or is not fully acquainted with their Opinions or has no great Skill in Reasoning I see the Author does not understand the above-cited place Therefore I think it worth while to explain it the rather because 't is one of the strongest Holds of the Trinitarians and to show that instead of favouring their Opinion it overthrows it In order thereunto 1. I will prove that the Old Creation that is the Creation of the World is not intended in that Text. 2. I will set down what I take to be the true Sense of that whole Context 1. That the Creation of the World
to govern Ireland so this they do in compliance with the King's Will and to shew thereby that they are his loyal and faithful Subjects and he who bows to the Vice-Roy may be said to bow to the King because the Vice-Roy represents the King and acts in his Name So that it would be non-sense to say the Vice-Roy is King because they pay him that Honour Let us apply this to Christ we must bow to him and confess him to be the Lord and by so doing God's Oath is accomplished Vnto me every Knee shall bow c. Does it follow from thence that Christ is that God who swore in the Prophet Isaiah Not at all because when we pay this Honour to Christ it is to obey God's Commands and to acknowledg his Power and Authority over us He who honours the Ambassador honours him that sent him he who honours Christ God 's Anointed honours God who anointed him In a word He who bows to Christ tho a Man bows to God also The next place is Rom. 9. 33. As it is written Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-Stone and Rock of ossence and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed Part of these Words are taken from Isa 28. 16. and because they are spoken of God in the Prophet and applied to Christ by St. Paul and St. Peter as several other Texts of the Old Testament are They conclude Christ must be that God spoken of in the Prophet But the Historian answers that Neither Peter nor Paul cite the Words of the Prophet as spoken of Christ but only as in some sense applicable to him namely because Christ also was to many a Stone of stumbling To this our Author replies like a Man very little acquainted with Scripture that This is nothing else but to charge the Apostles with abusing Scripture and producing Proofs which are no Proofs This I have answered before But he tells us that Paul alledges this Prophecy to prove that the Infidelity of the Jews and the Offence they should take at Christ was foretold in Scripture Here I must tell him he is mistaken For the Words are no such Prophecy but are spoken of the Times of Sennacherib who was to make War against the Inhabitants of Jerusalem whom God promises to protect and defend if they will but keep within the Walls of the City and stick close to his Law The Author adds a considerable Reflection And thus these Men rather than they will allow the Scripture proofs that Christ is God destroy all the Old Testament proofs of the Truth of Christianity and yet if such Texts as these must pass only for Accommodations and Allusions I know not where they will find any proofs Alas I perceive the Author would be a very unfit Man to convert Jews When I read first this Passage of his Book I could not but wonder how it came from a Christian He knows not where we may find any proofs of Christianity besides those of the Old Testament Are then the Miracles of Christ and of his Apostles nothing Is Christ's Resurrection no Proof or but a weak one of his being sent by God and the truth of his Message Must we account as nothing the Purity of the Gospel and its swift Propagation thrô the whole World I always thought with other Christians that these were invincible Arguments for the Truth of our Religion So they are indeed and by them we ought to convince the Jews and then we are able to give them a reasonable Account of all the Texts of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New The first place in the New Testament quoted by our Author is Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This the Author of the Brief History explains after this manner To be Baptized in the Name of a Person or Persons is a Rite by which one delivers himself to the Institution Instruction and Obedience of such Person or Persons So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is to prosess to be led and guided by them or as Grotius expresses this matter 't is to declare we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion but what proceeds from these that is Nothing but what is commanded by God or the Father and has been delivered by his Son the Lord Christ and consirmed externally by the Miracles and internally by the Witness and Testimony of the Spirit that is of the Power and Inspiration of God Now all this our Author grants only he says that Baptism being a Religious Rite it is a Religious Profession of this a Religious Devoting our selves to them and therefore we give up our selves to their Institution and Guidance not as Creatures but as to God who is both the Author and Object of our Faith and Worship But what is the meaning of all this We do not deny that Baptism is a Religious Rite and a Religious Profession of our Faith we only deny that because we are Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost as well as in the Name of the Father that therefore the Son and Holy Ghost are Two Divine Persons and God as well as the Father We religiously profess in Baptism to believe no other Doctrine but what is derived from the Father taught by his Son and confirmed by the Holy Ghost and the being Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost is so far from proving that they are God that supposing they are not yet we must of necessity be Baptized in their Name When the Apostles made Proselytes had they Baptized them only in the Name of the Father such a Eaptism had been no distinction of Christians from Jews for the Jews believed in the true God as well as the Christians So that supposing Christ and the Holy Ghost are not God yet since the Gospel was first preached by the One and confirmed by the Other it was necessary that he who imbraced the Gospel should be Baptized in the Name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost to profess thereby that he was neither a Jew nor a Pagan but a Christian and that he admitted no other Doctrine but that delivered by the Son and confirmed by the Holy Ghost This was so essential to the Baptism of a Christian that we never read in the Acts of the Apostles that Proselytes were baptized in the Name of the Father but only in the Name of the Son of which we can give a reasonable Account for all that believed in God did not believe in Christ but whoever believed in Christ believed in God too One might believe and trust in God without being a Christian but whoever believed in Christ and was Baptized in his Name was both a Worshipper of the true God and a Christian He who was Baptized in the Name of the Son did publickly profess
this Belief that he was sent from God and had his Doctrine from him and by such an Acknowledgment he profest at the same time that God bare testimony to this Doctrine by the plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to be Baptized only in the Name of the Son are one and the same thing I shall conclude this with the Words of the Learned Mr. Limborck Theol. Christ pag. 645. Dominus Jesus ritui c. In English thus To this Rite before practised by John Baptist the Lord Jesus added another Signification viz. the Profession of his Name and the Publick Reception of the Doctrine he had preached Therefore he ordered that Baptism should be administred in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. That those who should receive the Rite of Baptism might thereby give up themselves to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and profess themselves Disciples of that Doctrine which is originally derived from the Father revealed and preached by the Son and confirmed by the Holy Ghost with divers Miracles Signs Prodigies and Distributions of Gifts So that the Reception of Baptism was a publick Profession of the Doctrine of Christ Therefore it is that the Faithful are said every where to be Baptized in the Name of Christ that is to profess by their being Baptized that they receive his Doctrine as Divine and will be called by his Name as being their heavenly Master and only Saviour The Historian adds that 'T is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or thing is God because we are Baptized unto it or in the Name of it For then Moses and St. John Baptist also would be Gods 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized unto Moses Acts 19. 3. Vnto what then were ye baptized And they said unto John 's Baptism that is say the Generality of Interpreters unto John and the Doctrine by him delivered He replies pag. 212. I confess he had answered this Argument could he have shewn us that the Jews were baptized in the Name of God and in the Name of Moses for that had joined Moses with God as our Saviour joins the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father in the form of Baptism But if the Jews were baptized in the Name of Moses who can doubt that they were baptized in the Name of God too as those who are baptized in the Name of Jesus are thereby baptized also in the Name of God as has been before shewed It is plain the Apostle compares Moses with Christ and tells the Corinthians that as they were baptized in the Name of Jesus the Son and Messenger of God so the Fathers had been baptized in the Name of Moses the Servant of God But we can afford the Author some places of Scripture wherein Creatures are joined with God Thus Exod. 14. 31. it is said And the People feared the Lord and believed the Lord and his Servant Moses In the Hebrew 'tis in the Lord and in Moses his Servant Here Moses the Man is joined with God and the Jews are said to believe in him as they believed in God So 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things c. Here elect Angels thô Creatures are ranked with God in so great and important a Matter and act of Religion as an Obtestation Again Rev. 1. 4. Grace be to you and Peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his Throne If Moses and Angels may be joined with God in Acts of Faith of Obtestation and of Benediction why not the Son and Spirit in Baptism thô neither of them is God himself We plainly see by St. Paul's Words to the Corinthians that to be baptized in the Name of One does not import that he is God 1 Cor. 1. 14 15. I thank God says he I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius lest any should say that I had baptized in my own Name He plainly intimates that a meer Man may baptize in his own Name and if any of the Corinthians had thought so of the Apostle I hope they would not have concluded from thence that he was God or made himself God He adds It is plain that to baptize unto Moses is a Figurative and Allusive Expression and does not and cannot signify that they were baptized in the Name of Moses because it is not true Indeed the Jews were not baptized as Christians are but still they were baptized Let the Author call it a Figurative and Mystical Baptism or what else he pleases it was still a Baptism as St. Paul assures us And to be baptized into Moses is the same with being baptized in the Name of Moses as in the New Testament to be baptized into or unto Christ is the same with being baptized in the Name of Christ This was rightly understood by Vorstius who paraphrases this place thus Scitis etiam c. i. e. You know also that they were all baptized in the Doctrine of Moses as the Messenger of God as the Cloud and the Passage thrô the Red-Sea were designed for a Confirmation of the Ministry of Moses But he denies that to be baptized into Christ and baptized in the Name of Christ signify the same thing But he mistakes as grosly as he uses to do for any one may observe it that compares the Texts where these Phrases are used Thus John 3. 18. He that believeth on him in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or into or unto him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God So at Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. to be baptized into Christ and at Acts 2. 38. and 8. 16. to be baptized in the Name of Christ are used as equivalent terms Indeed the plain meaning of Rom. 6. 3. is this Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized in the Name of Christ and profest to obey his Doctrine lay thereby under an Obligation of a Spiritual Conformity to his Death in dying to Sin as he is dead and living to God as he is raised from the dead and lives with God So that the first words contrary to our Author's Assertion relate to the form of administring Baptism in the Name of Jesus and the latter to the effect of it This we may apply also to Gal. 3. 27. He further denies That to be baptized unto or into John 's Baptism signifies to be baptized in the Name of John for says he John did not baptize in his own Name but made Proselytes to the Messias But I hope he will not deny that to be baptized into Christ's Baptism is all one with being baptized in the Name of
Doctor answers this Objection Now saith he this Argument is fallacious for tho Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the God-head the Equality and Sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of the Persons A Son is Equal to his Father by Nature but Inferior to him as his Son Now where is the Fallacy but in the Author's Answer His Comparison of a Father with his Son is short of his purpose for tho a Son be equal to his Father by Nature yet he is not equal to him in Authority and Power and therefore a Father is truly greater than his Son is his Head and can command him This is not meerly a Subordination of Order but of Power and Authority also But it is not so with the Father and Son in the Trinity they are not only equal by Nature in the Author's Hypothesis but in Power and Authority as they have the same Nature so they have the same Attributes whereby they are equal to one another in all Things Now if it be so how can the Father be said to be greater than the Son who is as great as himself How can he be called his Head which imports some Authority over Christ As appears from 1 Cor. 11. 3. But I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God It appears by this place that God is the Head of Christ as Christ is the Head of every Man and the Man the Head of the Woman Now Christ's being the Head of every Man imports some Power and Authority over every Man as the Man's being Head of the Woman imports a Power and Authority over the Woman and consequently God's being the Head of Christ must import an Authority and Power over Christ else the Comparison would be unreasonable fallacious and impertinent But I say how can God be called the Head of Christ in such a Sense if Christ be as Great and have as great Power and Authority as God has how can God be called his God To be ones God is as much as to be his Benefactor and his Protector according to the stile of Scripture but Christ being All-mighty and self-sufficient how can the Father be stiled his God that is his Benefactor and Protector I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God John 20. 17. My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Mat. 27. 46. How could Christ say these things on the Doctor 's Hypothesis for being God as well as the Father He must no less forsake himself than the Father forsook him and he might as well call himself his own God and complain of himself that he had forsaken himself Nay being himself Almighty God as well as the Father and being able to comfort himself in his Sufferings how comes he to invoke the Father or to call him his God for those Words plainly shew that He expected and desired from the Father the Assistance which He could not perform to Himself Furthermore how can we forbear conceiving Two Gods according to this Hypothesis Christ who invokes the Father is God the Father whom He invokes is God also consequently there are Two distinct Gods Can he that invokes and he that is invoked be one and the same Being I always thought that this supposed two several Beings Lastly If our Lord Christ were himself God how could any command him He has all the Power and all the Authority that the Father has He is no more subject to the Father than the Father to him nay the Father and He are but One God The Author goes on If the Father as I have explained it be original Mind and Wisdom the Son a Personal subsisting but reflex Image of the Father's Wisdom thô their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son And therefore thô I know such Texts as he alledges My Father is greater than I The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's humane Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to the Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and therefore the Father may be called his God Let us consider this Paragraph The Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom What Gibberish is this Has the Doctor found any where in Scripture that the Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom Why does he not speak the Language of Scripture If his Words have any Sense he means that the Father reflects upon his own Knowledge and Wisdom but how comes he to fancy that a reflected Wisdom or to reflect on ones own Wisdom is a Divine Person and an Intelligent Being One would think it only an Act of God to reflect upon his own Knowledg or other Perfections without dreaming of a Divine Person but Metaphysicians it seems have a clearer Sight than other People what is to others only an Act of God the Metaphysician discerns to be a Divine Person 2. The Original saith the Author is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son But the Superiority in the Trinity is only a Superiority of Order which can admit of no such Expressions as Greater than Christ the Head of Christ the God of Christ as I shewed before He sees he saith no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to Christ's Divine Person and his Relation to his Father because the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I will shew more particularly the ridiculousness of this Assertion by insisting upon the first of the Passages before cited as I have done upon the two others Our Saviour seeing his Disciples sorrowful because He had told them that He was going to his Father and being willing to comfort them and to lessen their Sadness tells them John 14. 18. If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go unto the Father For my Father is greater than I. One would think that Christ's meaning is That the Disciples should be glad to hear that he leaves the World to go to his Father because his Father being greater than He would undoubtedly crown his Obedience with an immortal Glory and a Name which is above every Name But this Author has found out another Sense which is worth the observing If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go to the Father for the Father is greater than I that is to say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity This would have been a very unsignificant Comfort Be not sorrowful for my leaving this World and going to the Father For the Father is the first Person of the Trinity Yet
chief of the Orthodox Interpreters have thus explained this Context of the Colossians Among the Ancients St. Cyril Fulgentius Procopius Gazeus and even Athanasius himself Of the Moderns Salmero Montanus Grotius and many more Before I put an end to this I must observe that our Author is greatly mistaken in his Explication of Col. 1. 18. The Apostle says he proceeds from Christ's Creation of the natural World to his Mediatory Kingdom Which proves that He did not speak of that before I see the Author does not observe his own rule p. 146. To consider in expounding Scripture what goes before and what follows It was no hard matter to see that the Apostle at Ver. 16. speaks First in the general of Things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth Visible and Invisible but then afterwards he explains what he meant by the Things that are in Heaven viz. all the Orders of Angels this he doth in the latter part of the same Verse and what he means by Things that are on Earth He tells us fully at Ver. 18. viz. the Church The 18th Verse being an Explication of some part of Ver. 16. it appears not to have been Paul's Design to proceed from Christ's Creation of the World to his Mediatory Kingdom Thus I have done with the famous Context of Col. 1. 15 16 c. The Author of the Brief History had proved that Christ was God's Minister and Servant because He was appointed or made by God the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession To this the Author I am now considering Answers But here is a Restriction to his being High-Priest and therefore no danger of Blasphemy tho He be God For we may observe that thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet he was a type of an High-Priest who is more than Man even the eternal Son or Word of God as some of the Learned Jews acknowledge This is indeed an admirable Answer Christ has been appointed by God an High-Priest which seems to prove that Himself is not God No says the Doctor you are mistaken for thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet He was a Type of an High-Priest more than Man of an High-Priest who is the eternal Son of God How does he prove it As some says he of the Learned Jews acknowledge And what then if some Learned Jews have spoken non-sense must we speak non-sense too One would expect the Author should prove by Scripture and not by Jewish Writers that the Jewish High-Priest was a type of an High Priest who is the eternal Son and Word of God The Jewish High-Priest being a Type of Christ was a Type of an High-Priest more eminent and greater than Himself in all respects thô he were not God He goes on For the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father If you ask him why he will answer Philo Judaeus who often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest says so and shows that the Garments of the High-Priest were Figures of Heaven and Earth Which seems to signify that the eternal Word which made the World is the true High-Priest Here comes upon the stage one of his Learned Jews Philo by whose Testimony he proves that the second Person of the Trinity is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father But Philo being Plato's Follower did not believe such a Trinity as the Doctor teaches Sure there is a great difference between Plato's three Principles and the Doctor 's Trinity But if there were not must we believe Philo Judaeus rather than St. Paul who plainly tells us in direct opposition to Philo that as there is One God so there is One Mediator between God and Men the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. As for the Garments of the High-Priest which Philo will have to be a Figure of Heaven and Earth and our Author's Story about Jaddus both which our Author alledges as Arguments at least as Congruities whereby to prove the Divinity of Christ I shall so far trust the Judgment of the meanest Reader as to take no notice of them That which follows is no less ridiculous I am sure says the Author the Apostle distinguishes Christ from High-Priests taken from among Men and makes his Sonship the Foundation of his Priesthood Heb. 5. 1 6. The contrary to both these is true and evident also in the Text he cites The Priesthood is the Foundation of the Sonship and Aaron and Christ are there made Instances of High-Priests taken from among Men. The Objection therefore remains still that Christ being an High-Priest appointed and made by God cannot Himself be God He goes on As for his next Objection from 1 Cor. 3. 23. Christ is God's I know not what he means by it for there is no doubt but Christ is God's Son God's Christ God's High-Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory and what then Therefore he is not God by no means he may conclude that He is not God the Father because He acta subordinately not that therefore He is not God the Son The Author of the Brief History meant I suppose this that as you are Christ's in that Text signifies Men are subject to Christ so Christ is God's must signify Christ is subjected to God and therefore not Himself God This I think is good Sonse and a good Argument But can it be said that the second Person of the Trinity who is the supream God nay One God with the First is God's Son God's Christ God's High Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory All these Titles denote a dependance upon the Father and a real subjection to Him which cannot agree to any Person who is indeed Himself a Supream God Here is another sensless Answer to a good and strong Objection P. 158. His next proof is That God calls Christ his Servant in the Prophet Isaiah But it is his Servant in whom his Soul was pleased which is the peculiar Character of his Son and is that very Testimony which God gave to Christ at his Baptism This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased I desire here the Reader to observe the Doctor 's accurate way of reasoning This is the Objection Christ is called God's Servant therefore He is not God No this is a mistake says He for Christ is God's beloved Servant P. 159. He says in answer to the Objection from Phil. 2. 8 9. Because He voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature does He forfeit the Dignity of his Nature But I ask can it be said of the Supream God with whom is no Variableness neither Shadow of turning that He has condescended below the Dignity of his Nature P. 159 160. He goes on in a florid way of Speech to show how inconsistent it is that Christ were He a meer Creature should be advanced to that Power and Authority whereunto He has been promoted Hereupon I observe
1. The Dignity conferred upon Christ ought not to be called the Supream Government of the World as this Author has stiled it For He acts and governs in Subordination to his Father 2. When the Scripture speaks of this Advancement of Christ it extends it especially over Angels and Men. 3. It is no Indignity to Angels as our Author pretends to be ruled and governed by a Man whom God has exalted above them Angels indeed have some natural Prerogatives above Men whereby they are more excellent Creatures than Men but if it pleases God of his free Gift to invest a Man with greater Dignity Power and all other Excellence than any Angel has why can't He be set over them as their Lord and Ruler in Subordination to God There is no Incongruity in it 4. That contrary to the Author's Assertion a meer Creature may be a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal and Prerogative Acts of Government or Power Thus Saul and David were set over the Israelites to govern and rule over them by God's Appointment in Subordination to him Nay we do commonly say That the King is the Lieutenant and Representative of God 5. God communicated to Christ such Wisdom and Power as is necessary to enable him to exercise the Dignity conferred on him In all this there is not the least Inconsistency But notwithstanding his foregoing Objections he confesses the Difficulty remains P. 161. If He be by Nature the Son of God and Natural Lord of the World how is He said to be exalted by God and to receive a Kingdom from him as the reward of his Righteousness and Sufferings He was before possessed of it ever since the Foundation of the World being natural Lord of all his Creatures He had no need to receive that which was his own or purchase what was his natural Right by such mean and vile Condescension as suffering Death on the Cross Now to reconcile this he makes a long Discourse concerning the Mediatory Kingdom of Christ which saith he hath been bestowed on the second Person of the Trinity and is peculiar to Him and distinguished from the Natural Government of the World which He has in Conjunction with the Father This Chimerical System I may overthrow I think by that single Text of St. Paul already cited There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the MAN Christ Jesus If Christ is a Mediator and has the Mediatory Kingdom as He is the second Person of the Trinity that is as He is God why does the Apostle tell us that He is a Mediator bearly as He is Man At least he should have told us that the Mediator is the God-Man Jesus Christ It is unaccountable that the Apostle who in all his Epistles sets forth the Excellency and Glory of Christ in the most expressive Terms should tell us that the MAN Christ Jesus is the Mediator between God and Men if the Mediatory Kingdom is exercised by the Divine Person or Nature and if not Christ Man but Christ God is the Mediator But let us examine the Grounds our Author goes on He tells us ibid. A Mediatory Kingdom was necessary to reconcile God and Men to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature and this Power and Dignity God bestowed on his own Son who had the most Right to it and was the best qualified for it being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father Now one would expect he should cite some Texts of Scripture to prove this Assertion but he could find no place to rely on But Christ must says he first become Man and perform the whole Will of God and then He shall be exalted Whereupon he makes this Observation pag. 162. All the Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church God has put all Things under his Feet and given him to be Head over all Things to the Church which is his Body the Fulness of him that filleth all Things Eph. 1. 22 23. That is saith he God has made him Governour of the World as Head of the Church I observe two Things upon this place 1. That this Text is not well interpreted The first part of it relates to the foregoing Verse and ought to be explained by it God saith the Apostle at Ver. 21. Set Christ at his own Right-Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come Ver. 23. And hath put all Things under his Feet What Things Those that are before mentioned all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Powers And then follows And gave him to be Head c. This is the sense not that Christ was made Governour of the whole World as Head of the Church 2. But what if all the Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church Will it not follow that all the Power He is invested with is as a Man not as God And this also I prove by Col. 1. 18. And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the Dead He who is the First-born from the Dead can be no other but the MAN Jesus Christ but He who is the First-born from the Dead is the Head of the Church as that Text expresly saith therefore the MAN Christ Jesus is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle very plainly telling us that the Mediator and Head of the Church is the Man Christ Jesus destroys our Author's Notion of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom or that it is grounded on and exercised by his Divine Nature or Person Further if Christ God is the Mediator if the Mediatory Kingdom belongs to and is managed by the second Person of the supposed Trinity I don't see how the Government of Israel can be a Type of this Kingdom as this Author says at p. 162 163. For the King of the Israelites was between God and his People and was really diverse from both but Christ in our Author's Hypothesis is God himself One with the Father and the Holy Ghost so that he must be a Mediator between himself and Men which besides that it is contrary to the Notion of a Mediator does wholly destroy the Parallel He says at pag. 164 165. that We certainly know from the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles that the Prophets spake of Christ under the Names of Lord God and Jehovah But I desire him to reconcile these Texts with his Opinion Heb. 1. 1 2. God who at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these Last Days spoken unto us by his Son Heb. 2. 2 3. For if the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator i. e. by the Intervention