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
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
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
how Unintelligible soever it be because we do very clearly conceive that God is able to raise our dead Bodies We don't apprehend the manner of this Resurrection how it shall be performed is a thing Unintelligible to us but however 't is altogether free from a Contradiction Were the Trinity as clearly set down in Scripture and as free from Contradiction we would not disbelieve it how Unintelligible soever it appeared to us no more than we disbelieve the Resurrection But the Trinity being not only Unintelligible but Contradictions we deny it is taught in Scripture which is altogether free from Contradiction Let us hear the Author a little farther We must not indeed saith he expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of them but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of Revelation For 't is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things whose Natures we do not understand We must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of I grant it but what if the Trinity doth contradict the common Reason of Mankind and is of such a Nature as every Man knows and every Man can judge of Then certainly it cannot be contained in Scripture according to this Author himself Indeed we cannot fathom the Essence of an infinite Being no more than as this Author saith the Essence of any created Being yet as we have a distinct knowledg of some Properties of a Finite Being so we have a clear Apprehension of the Attributes of God We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three we are most certain that One is not Three and that Three are not One. The most simple Men have a clear Apprehension of those two Numbers and therefore are able to judge of them Now the Scripture plainly tells us that there is but One God and every one knows that One God is One Intelligent Infinite Person and therefore cannot be Three such Persons He that has an Idea of One and an Idea of Three must needs perceive that it implies a Contradiction that One be Three and Three One that one God be Three Intelligent Infinite Persons or Beings and Three Intelligent Infinite Beings One God This every one can judge of Therefore we must not expound Scripture saith the Author contrary to common Sense and the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of Therefore say I all being capable of judging whether One may be Three and Three One and finding it a plain Contradiction to the common Reason of Mankind all may be assured that it cannot be contained in Scripture But saith the Author in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of 'em but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of Scripture and Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand Now what does the Author mean by the plain and express Authority of Revelation Does he mean that he has found somewhere in Scripture in plain and express Words that there are Three Persons in one Divine Nature or Godhead If it be so let him shew us it I doubt he calls plain and express Authority some false Consequences which he is pleased to draw from Scripture and which none but prejudiced Men would ever think of I wish we could shew a Chinese the Gospel well translated into his own Language and ask him after a serious reading of it what he thought Christ to be It is very likely I think that he would not take him to be the supream God and if any Man should tell him he had overseen so great a Mystery he would undoubtedly answer that he is sure there is no such thing in the Gospel which he read unless there he another Gospel wherein such a Notion is contained I confess there are some Matters of Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of them but what is revealed such is the Resurrection of the Dead But then those Matters imply no Contradiction and therefore ought not to be rejected This first the Resurrection may be discovered to us by the Light of Revelation and discovering no Contradiction in it we ought to believe it The second the Trinity clashing altogether with our natural Ideas can be no Matter of Revelation and therefore ought not to be believed The Resurrection is such a Thing as we could never have discovered by the Light of Nature yet as soon as we come to know it we assent to it because we clearly perceive the Possibility thereof and are sure it implies no Contradiction at all but it is not so with the Trinity such a Mystery can never be revealed to us because Revelation cannot be contrary to Reason and therefore the Trinity being contrary to this cannot be the Matter of that God indeed may reveal to us such Objects as are unknown to Humane Reason but let them be never so much above our Reason they will never contradict it It is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things whose Natures we do not understand Right But we know so much of the Nature of God that He is One and not Three and this is sufficient to show that the Trinity is a Contradiction to the Nature of God What I say is so clear and so notorious a Truth that the Author himself is forced to acknowledg it He saith p. 147. We must not expound Scripture to such a Sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of natural Reason For though God reveals such Things to us as natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth cannot contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by natural Reason can never be false in Revelation All this he grants only he saith that we must be sure there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out by uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge This I grant too But the Author won't allow the Trinity to be such a Contradiction and endeavours to prove it Let us hear him He soon perceives the difficulty and therefore brings it in by way of an Objection Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction But what Principle
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