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
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
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
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
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