that we should explain one obscure place by a thousand that are plain and easy 3. I come now to assign the true Sense of this famous Context Vers 1 2. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God PARAPHRASE When Jesus who is called the Word because he was the Messenger and Preacher of God's Will and Word and as it were the Mouth by which God pronounced his Oracles began to preach the Gospel he was intimate to the most secret Counsels of God like one who is in the very Bosom of his Father and he was in the form of God and like God by reason of the Glory and Majesty that did shine in him 1. That the Man Jesus may be called the Word or the Word of God no Body will deny who reads Rev. 19. 13. where Jesus is thus described He was clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood and his Name is called The Word of God He who is here called the Word of God who is clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood must be the Man Jesus Our Lord calls himself the Way because he teaches us the way to Salvation and the Light in this very Chapter because he is the bringer of it therefore why not also the Word of God because he was the Revealer Bringer and first Preacher of it 2. It appears by the second Verse that the Evangelist did not design to make a real Distinction between to be in the beginning and to be with God for what was distinctly spoken in the first Verse is put together in the second thus The same was in the beginning with God In effect the meaning of the Apostle is not that Christ was when he began to enter upon his Prophetick Office this would be no great wonder but that when he began to preach the Doctrine of the Gospel he was admitted into the most intimate Counsels of God or made partaker of his most secret Will This I think to be the reason of the Repetition contained in the second Verse besides that we may observe that Repetitions are very frequent throughout the whole Gospel of St. John and more used in that Book than in any other of the New Testament Thus when the same Apostle says 1 John 1. 1. That which was from the beginning which we have heard c. he does not pretend really to distinguish those two things and to say that the Gospel was in the beginning of the Gospel but that what he had seen and heard of the Gospel from the beginning of it that he declared unto Men. 3. I have proved before that In the beginning cannot signify the beginning of the World but that it is here used for the beginning of the Gospel the place last quoted and several others do sufficiently prove 4. To be with God and to be in the Bosom of the Father at ver 18. are equivalent Terms If therefore we know the true Sense of the latter Expression we shall have a right understanding of the former The Words at ver 18. run thus No Man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father he has declared him Now to see God in St. John's Stile is to know the Decrees and Will of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel Those words therefore ought to be thus paraphrased No Man knew at any time the Will and Decrees of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel the beloved Son of God who was admitted into his most secret Counsels has fully discovered them to us The Word Only-begotten is put here for Beloved by way of Excellence and so it is used very often both in Profane and Sacred Authors And to be in the Bosom of the Father is not here an Interpretation of Only-begotten that is Best-Beloved but it is brought in as the reason of the full knowledg that Christ had of God's Will and of the discovery he made of it Christ saith our Evangelist here has fully declared the Will and Counsels of God to us How so Because he was intimate and admitted to the most secret and hidden Counsels of God which he expresses by the Son 's being in the Bosom of the Father This is then the true Sense of this Phrase The Word was with God viz. God discovered to him the whole extent of his Will he kept nothing secret from him he filled him up with the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg 5. We may easily understand the true meaning of the Word was God if we compare them with Phil. 2. 6. where Christ is said to be in the form of God and equal with God or rather like God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred Christ was in the form of God and like God by reason of the Power and Authority bestowed upon him whereby he wrought all sorts of Miracles raising the Dead curing the Lame restoring sight to the Blind stilling the Winds and the Sea c. This we may apply to the words of St. John Jesus was not only in the Bosom of God Partaker of his most secret Counsels but he was besides invested with such Authority and Power as made him like God So that Christ is by St. John called God or rather a God by reason of that Power and Authortiy whereby he became in some manner like unto the true and most High God But this Appellation does no more prove him to be the true and most High God than Solomon or the Judges in the Psalms will be the True God because this Name God is given to them Psal 82. 6. and 45. 6. Ver. 3. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made PARAPHRASE All things necessary to the Propagation of the Gospel were performed by him the Author and first Preacher of it And without his Direction there was not any thing performed that was performed That this relates not to the Creation of the World but to the Dispensation of the Gospel is very plain from the following words In him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men c. In these words the Evangelist teaches us how all things were made by Christ because in him was the Life and Light of Men which all Men may discern to be spoken of the Gospel by him taught which is the Light of Men and their Life as it leads them to Eternal Life Ver. 10 11. He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not He came unto his own and his own received him not PARAPHRASE He was conversing among Men to teach them the way to Salvation some of them were reclaimed by him but the greater part rejected him He was sent to his own Brethren but most of them would not receive him It does sufficiently appear by these words and the World knew him not that the Apostle speaks only of
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
Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but one Person But here he takes for granted that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity contrary to the Apostle who speaks only of the Person of God not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son If the Person of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image is only the Person of the Father then the Person of the Father only at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets Ver. 1. for Ver. 2. the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only is not the true God in the Author's Hypothesis therefore he must conclude that the true God spake not to the Fathers which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle who says that God undoubtedly the true God spake to the Fathers Farther by God who spake to the Fathers we must understand either Father Son and Holy Ghost or the Father only If Father Son and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers it could not be here said that Christ is the Image of that God's Person for he is Three Persons If the Father only spake to the Fathers then the Father only is the true God for the true God spake to the Fathers also then God is but one Person Which are the things we contend for He goes on As for his Singular Pronouns I Thou c. They prove indeed that there is but one God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons in all Languages When therefore they are applied to God they show that he is a Singular that is but one Person unless they will say that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others but this is false for being written to Men the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them are the same as in all other Languages and otherways the Scripture would not be given us to instruct us but to pervert and deceive us 5. The fifth Argument Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed He answers Had not the Son been God and also the Holy Ghost they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than the Form of Baptism which is the Original of the Apostles Creed But why not Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God since the Gospel was preached by the One and confirmed by the Other why may not they be put into the Creed as well as the Catholic Church by whom the Gospel is to be believed If our Creed only mentioned God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian therefore a Christian Creed as such must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thô they are not Gods or God A Christian as such must profess in his Creed that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty but also in his Son Jesus Christ who was sent by him to preach the Gospel and in the Holy Ghost by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man He adds That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church 'T is plain our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks And whereas he says there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed 't is very marvellous to me that there should be no reason to express an Article which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed but I say had the Article been necessary or so much as true the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed to make room for a necessary Article an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church and other Articles there expressed Besides what Inlargement would it have been what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory to have added twice this single and short Word God And in God the Son Jesus Christ our Lord c. I believe in God the Holy Ghost c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days It is plain therefore that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost no other but that they believed it not But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 23 24. was it too hot or to heavy for him Lastly he says It needed not to be added because the Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man But must he that is the Son of God be also by Nature God St. Luke says of Adam who was the Son of God Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God in the Language of Scripture Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying that the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man If one had leisure there might be Answers enow made to it all that I say is I pray prove it 6. The Historian concludes That The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible On the contrary our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge 1. It ridicules the Scriptures 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion 4. It justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries If it be so my Masters the Socinians are ill Men indeed but let us do them this Common Right to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment CHAP. VII 1. THE First pretence is That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired He instances in some Expositions of Scripture which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians For Example The Historian in answer to Psal 45. 6 7. which the Apostle at Heb. 1. 8. applies to Christ says In the Hebrew and in the Greek
And why then cannot the Lamb be said to be slain from the beginning of the World meerly because God had certainly decreed it should be so 4. But if he is not satisfied with this Explication here is another for him There is a Transposition in the words of this Verse which also may be observed in many other Texts of Scripture so that the Verse may be read thus Whose Names are not written from the Foundation of the World in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain This reading is confirmed by Chap. 17. Ver. 8. Whose Names are not written in the Book of Life from the Foundation of the World So the sense of the controverted Text is The Names of those who worship the Dragon were never written in the Book of Life of the slain Lamb that is in the Book of the Martyrs and Confessors of Christ who were destined to eternal Life from the Foundations of the World Pag. 237. He desires some of the learned Reasoning Socinians honestly to tell him what account they can give of the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices which is becoming God Why should God he propitiated by a Man subject to the same Sins and Infirmities and very often guilty of them that other Men are Why innocent Beasts must die to expiate the Sins of Men The thing he aims at is to prove that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Jewish Oeconomy How so The Jews Sacrifices says he were Typical of Christ's Sacrifice We grant it for so the Apostle to the Hebrews intimates we say only that this was not the chief and primary end for which they were instituted But what then The Death of Christ was therefore a Sacrifice So it was Then he was not a Metaphorical Priest No more he was Then he was the Divine Word Incarnate How so This he should prove but he takes it for granted I want the Author's Spectacles how to draw this Consequence therefore the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Jewish Oeconomy from that Argument Now to this Question concerning the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices I answer with St. Paul Gal. 3. 19. The Law the Ceremonial Law the Law of Sacrifices and other external Rites was added because of Transgressions i. e. by reason of the Idolatry of the Israelites which could not be restrained but by such a Method Had not the Jews been inclined so much to Idolatry by seeing the Worship of their Neighbours round them God would not have put on their Necks this Yoke which as St. Peter says they were not able to bear God himself says this Jer. 7. 22. I spake not unto your Fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt concerning Burnt-Offerings or Sacrifices But this thing commanded I them saying Obey my Voice and I will be your God and ye shall be my People Here we may plainly see that God at first required nothing from his People but to own him and obey his reasonable Laws the Moral and Political Laws he designed for them but he was as it were constrained to institute Sacrifices and other external and pompous Rites by their Idolatrous Inclination I refer our Author about this matter to Learned Dr. Spencer the best Writer on the Ceremonial Law This then is the true and primary Reason of God's appointing Sacrifices and very well becoming both his Wisdom and Goodness And it hinders not but those Sacrifices might be also Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ they were so secondarily God who appointed Sacrifices to stop the progress of Idolatry did also by them prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ But a meer Man says he can be no more than a Metaphorical and Typical Priest and Sacrifice This I think deserved to be proved A Metaphorical or Typical Priest and Sacrifice are here opposed to a true Priest and Sacrifice yet he tells us that tho the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law were Typical they were true and proper Priests and Sacrifices and made a true and proper expiation for Sin as far as they reached But if the Priests of the Law were true and proper Priests and the Sacrifices true and proper Sacrifices much more will the Sacrifice of Christ be a true and proper Sacrifice tho he also was a Man This Consequence the Author himself has afforded us Now because the Anti-Type as he says ought to be greater than the Type what remains is only to inquire Whether Christ be a more excellent Priest and Sacrifice than the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law The Priests of the Law were but ordinary Men distinguished from others only by the Dignity of their Priesthood but Christ was the Messias the Son of God intrusted with his secret Will indued with an in mense Authority and Power and made as it were God by the unspeakable Gifts of God his Father The Priests of the Law were called to their Priest-hood in an ordinary ways but Christ by God's immediate appointment The High-Priests of the Law entred only into a Tabernacle made with Hands and but once a Year into the most Holy Place but Christ into a Tabernacle whose Builder and Maker is God and is to continue there for ever Surely therefore tho he is a Man only this Anti-Type is more excellent than the Types and Christ a more excellent High-Priest and Sacrifice than those of the Law So that here is no ridiculing the Jewish Oeconomy by the Socinian Hypothesis but our Author by such ungrounded Charges and weak Proofs has written a Book very fit to confirm Socinians in their Opinions CHAP. IX III. HIS Third Charge is Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion makes it a very mean and contemptible Institution He tells us That The Fundamental Mystery of the Christian Religion is the stupendious Love of God in giving his own Son his only-beloved Son for the Redemption of Mankind But how comes this Love of God to be called a Mystery still It was a Mystery or Secret before the Revelation of the Gospel but since it was revealed it ceases to be a Mystery or Secret unless a Secret discovered be a Secret still This says he our Saviour lays great stress on That God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life By this one would have thought that Christ had been the Son the only begotten Son of God before God gave him Now this is a very ambiguous way of expressing himself for he professes to believe that Christ was the Son of God nay the only begotten Son before he gave him but he differs from Us and from Common Sense in this that by the Son of God he means God himself and by before he means from all Eternity This is a very hard Language for who can fancy that the Son of God should be God himself and that before should signify Eternity Yet this is the Sense he puts upon it when he says If Socinianism be true God