probably Ireneus was an Arian or at most a Semi-Arian What Grotius says of the Occasion of St. John's writting this Gospel may be seen in his Annotations The Vnitarians consistently to their System may hold all that he there says of the Word Verse 15. John the Baptist bare witness of him saying This is he of whom I spake He that cometh after me is preferred before me for he is before me As if the Baptist had said Tho' then this Man as it is at the 30th Verse that cometh after me enters upon his Office but when I have almost done mine yet he is called to an Higher Office and Dignity than mine for he is my Superior my Lord and my Prince he is the Messiah the Saviour of the World a most Holy Man the Son of God the designed Sovereign of the Universe and I am but his Servant and Harbinger Whereas the Vulgate has translated This WAS he of whom I spake Beza shews there is no reason but that it may be rendred This IS he In like manner we need not read he WAS before me but he IS Thus it runs more naturally This is he of whom I spake or said He that cometh after me is preferred before me for he is before me Is preferred before me That is then is preferred to an Higher Office and Dignity than mine Which saying the Baptist explains tho' somewhat obscurely as are expressed all the like Mysteries on the infallible understanding of which most credibly Salvation depends not and which seem intended to try our Humility and Moderation as well as our Attention and Industry by adding For he is before me Before me Or as it is in the Original Protos mou Princeps meus My Primate the designed Head and Saviour of the Church and Lord of Men and Angels And this explains and particularizes or intimates how Christ's Office is greater than that of the Baptist's See Erasmus and Grotius upon the Place Verse 18. Which is in the Bosom of the Father Or which WAS or has been namely when immediately before his entering on his Office Christ was taken up into the Highest Heavens See John 3.13 Sometimes that Phrase to be in the bosom signifies to be most Dear See Numb 11.12 Deut. 13.6 By these remarks and hypotheses the Socinians conceive the beginning of St. John's Gospel is made plain and intelligible And they believe that by the same means by using the like care and attention all the other Texts which the Trinitarians object may also be made to appear consistent with the Unity of God with the whole Scripture and with Reason CHAP. IV. The ARIAN System THE Arians do not much dislike the foregoing Exposition excepting that they are persuaded it is short as to these Particulars in that the Socinians do not hold our Saviour's Soul to have prae-existed before its Conception and consequently do not admit it to have been an Instrument in the first Creation of the World But the Arians maintain both these Points It is true say they the Word the Son of God by excellency is a Creature tho' most intimately assisted of God which the Socinians do not deny Christ is a true Man made up of a Body and Soul only and not of an absolutely eternal Hypostasis also or infinite Person of the same numerical Essence with the Father But then say they this Man's Soul was not only before Abraham but even was the first Created Spirit John 17.5 For so the Scripture calls him expresly the First-born of every Creature or the Beginning of the Creation of God and terms him by eminency the Image of the invisible God Col. 1.15 Revel 3.14 c. Moreover it is asserted that by him God made the Worlds Heb. 1.2 And St. John says positively that without him was not any thing made that was made John 1.3 Which expressions seem too extensive to be restrained to the New-Creation only All things then were made by him And therefore the First-born of every Creature must be so transcendently Excellent as incomparably farther to surpass originally all Men and Angels in Excellency of Nature Wisdom and Power than they surpass the meanest of the Brute Beasts In a word the Arians believe that that Holy Spirit whom the Scripture calls the First-Born and who in process of time was made the Soul of the Messiah is originally as Perfect a Being and as like unto God as Divine and Almighty Power could produce and as can possibly be imagined salving the Unity of God seeing it is said he had a Part in the Creation of the World in which God most efficaciously assisted him and it is represented as the highest Liberality to Mankind that God gave his Son to Redeem Men. The Arians then say that the First-Bern is Omâ—â—â—ousian or as like the Divine Essence beside that he is as much assisted by the Divine Nature as it is possible for a Creature to be And they believe he was produced in the Duration of Eternity and before Time that is to say before the Creation of the World And in that sense like the Semi-Arians they will not scruple to say that the First-born is Eternal so it be remembred that he was made and that he is not an uncreated Being it being impossible there should be two uncreated Beings or two Gods in the proper sense of the word But the First-born is a God next to God and as Eternal as it is possible for the Excellentest Creature to be If it be asked how the First-born could be Instrumental in the making of Angels 〈◊〉 may be answered that a Part might be assigned to him therein that we know not 〈…〉 has been held by many that the Souls of Men are produced by the Parents Iâ— so it cannot be thought impossible but that God might have endued the most excellent created Spirit with Power to Produce other Spirits But perhaps Angels have fine Vehicles which are Part of their Being as a Human Body is Part of a Man And then the First-born might be assisting in the preparing of these Vehicles when God had Created the Substance thereof When the First-born was created then was also another eminent Spirit or other eminent Spirits according to some Modern Arians produced but inferior to him and called in Scripture the Holy Spirit Thus far the Arians hold It may be that by this or these last not only an Archangel or the Archangels 1. Tim. 5.21 but the whole Body of Angels is to be understood for they often seem to be meant when the Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit And if so they also were instrumental in the Creation of the World as well as the First-born tho' not so eminently as he but under him Which doth not import that the Angels or the First-born produced Creatures into being out of Nothing But the Chaos being created or prepared by Almighty God then for reasons not perfectly known to us God thought good to set the First born and the Holy
is to know them to know the Father will do them for him and to desire them of the Father For tho' it be said that Christ did and is to do most wonderful Works yet the Scripture is very far from saying that he doth them of Himself or by his own Power Himself says the quite contrary John 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself John 14. â—0 The Father that dwelleth in me He doth the Works Matth. 12.28 I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God And John 11.41 42. Father I thank thee that thou Hearest me always How could Christ have declared more expresly that he doth not the Supernatural Works by his own Power but by the Means which have been said Namely By knowing that the Father will do them for him and By desiring the Father to do them by his Divine Power and by what Means He pleases to use Seeing that the Father has promised our Saviour to hear him always he may truly say that all things which the Father has are his And therefore it is certain that not only there never was such another Prophet as Christ but also that he is the most Excellent and most Dignified Creature that can be But yet we see it doth not follow that because he doth what none but God can do he is therefore hypostatically united with a Divine Person and that distinct from the Father The Scripture shews us How Christ doth all Supernatural Things he himself tells us he desires the Father to do them and the Father always grants his requests and doth what he desires and he desires nothing but what he knows the Father will grant and the Father has promis'd and constantly gives him whatsoever is necessary for the Discharge of his Office Christ then may truly say that as the Father has Life in himself or at his disposal so has he given to the Son to have Life in himself For as the Father doth all things by Willing them so Christ doth all things by Desiring them As God has put Power in the Natural Sun to vivify all Seeds in the Earth so he has in an infinitely more excellent way invested Christ the Sun of Righteousness with Power to quicken the Dead But still the Power of the Lord Jesus is the Divine Power And we see that as we have said God makes Christ to be Partaker thereof So that as the Father has Divine Power in him so has He given to the Son to have Divine Power in him insomuch that when the Father has shewn him a Miraculous Thing the Son can do the same likewise by the Assistance of the Divine Power which dwells in him and which he constantly has the use of by Willing and Asking or affectionately Desiring Thus Christ knows the Hearts by the same Means by the Divine Power that is in him or annexed to him and that reveals them to him See the Brief History of the Vnitarians on John 2.25 and Revel 2.23 So that as Dr. Sherlock himself says at the top of the 196th Page of his last Book the Knowledg of Christ is from the Father's dwelling in him And by that Means Christ Governs the Vniverse and will Judge the World As to Christ's Efficacy in obtaining Forgiveness for all those Sinners whom he persuades and excites to forsake their Sins and to become Obedient and New Creatures it is the strangest thing in the World to imagin that God cannot grant that which is altogether agreable to the Propensions of his own Nature to his most beloved Son even upon that Act and Submission of his which argues the most perfect Obedience and makes the most solemn Reparation to the Divine Justice and Authority As Dr. Whichcot expresses himself upon this Subject Pages 62 d and 63 d of his Select Sermons We are in the hands of him that is Primarily and Originally Good And He will certainly commiserate every Case so far as it is compassionable Now the Case of a Sinner is compassionable if he be Penitent God might then surely accept of Christ's Sacrifice as as sufficient Attonement seeing that it so fully confirms God's Hatred to Sin and his Good Will to those that Obey him and is consequently the powerfullest Motive and the likeliest Means to engage those for whom that Sacrifice is offered and who are not yet incorrigible to forsake their evil Ways to accept the Offers of Grace and to be reconciled to God Christ's Death is the fullest Confirmation of God's Good Will to those that obey him seeing that upon the account of his Son 's perfect Obedience He has exalted him to the highest Glory even of being Partaker of the Divine Nature and Power And it is also the fullest Confirmation of God's absolute Hatred to Sin seeing He would not pardon the Sins of Men without this Consideration Condition that he who was Innocent the most Perfect Excellent Creature pleaded for the Fallen Race of Mankind should as their Advocate suffer in their stead expiate their Sins with his Blood and thus exhibit a most solemn Demonstration of the Demerit of Sin But this no where is represented in Scripture as a perfectly equivalent Satisfaction in the most rigorous sense And neither Scripture nor Reason shew that God can Pardon but upon such Terms See the aforesaid Sermons of Dr. Whichcot Pag. 301 c. on Act. 13.38 As the Bishop of Gloucester observes at the 85th and following Pages of his aforesaid Reflections on the Book of Dr. Sherlock against him Christ's meriting of God the Father cannot be understood in the highest sense of meriting as we may merit of one another that is by doing acts of Kindness and Beneficeace from mere Good Will or no antecedent Obligation to the Person to whom the Kindness is shewn 'T is nothing but the wretched Popish Doctrin of Merit that has made it an offensive word in relation to God But taking Meritum and Mereri in the Fathers sense there is no offence to be taken at it as respecting God For they meant no more than having a right to be rewarded by him from the performance of that Obedience or Service to which he has annexed the reward by a most gracious Promise But as it is impossible to do God Almighty a Kindness or Benefit so I cannot understand how the Son of God himself could in this sense merit of his Father the Redemption of Mankind since he did or suffered by vertue of the Union nothing but what the Will of his Father obliged him unto Lo I come said he to do thy Will O God And his perfectly complying with this Will was his meriting our Redemption of his Father as He willed to make him the Author thereof upon that Condition And therefore Mr. Calvin says well Totum Meritum Christi pendet à Voluntate Divina Now will any Man say that Christ as Man did not thus merit Then by the most wonderful Submission and Self-Resignation of the Man Christ Jesus who was most
rendered determined may be translated judged or condemned and so Erasmus has interpreted it as if St. Paul had said to declare that actually he did not rely on the force of Eloquence but on the Power it self of the Gospel which he knew was attended with sufficient Evidences without setting it forth with the Ornaments and Advantages of an Elaborate Oration as he might have done which declaration is incontestably the scope and whole intent of the Apostle's reasoning I have condemned my self to be among you or I have judged it fittest to be among you as knowing nothing but Christ Crucified lest the Testimony of the Cross and Sufferings of Christ and the Demonstration of the Spirit should be thought insufficient Evidences therefore when I came unto you I came not with excellency of Speech but barely contented my self most simply to set before you the Testimony of God The current of the Discourse shews that St. Paul did not deny his knowing any thing besides Christianity but only asserted that he judged a Demonstration of all his other Learning unnecessary in comparison of that and in order to the end which he proposed to himself namely the Conversion of the Corinthians wherefore according to our Version he determined to be or determined to appear as knowing nothing else but Christ Crucified and wholly neglected to make a shew of his Eloquence It is undeniably evident that this is his meaning But it is as evident that there is no such restriction in our Saviour's expression and that he fimply denies his knowing at all the Day of Judgment and expresly asserts that none but the Father knew it This Argument it seems therefore will remain to the end of the World such a one as the Dr. desired a positive Proof that Christ properly is not God Almighty himself And the Vnitarians hold that to deny it is to fly wilfully in the face of Evidence For as to the Knowledge of that Day the Son puts himself into the same rank with the Angels and all other Creatures and says that he knows it no more than they which is as express a denial of his knowing it as it is possible to be To this Head and for a further Illustration of this Argument we may add the Saying in the first Verse of the first Chapter of the Revelations that God gave that Revelation to Jesus Christ For by those words it appears that Jesus Christ had not that Revelation of himself and consequently that Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God tho' yet he be God or a God and God's Representative in whom the Father in an extraordinary manner dwells as was said If that Person designed or signified in Scripture by the Name of Jesus Christ were literally the Supreme God that Verse would bear this Sense that the Supreme God gave to another Person who is also the Supreme God a Revelation which he had not till then that it was given him otherwise if he had it before it needed not to have been given him On the other hand if he had it not 't is plain this is an indigent God not the same with the Giver and consequently not the Supreme God To this some answer that this Person received the whole Godhead from all eternity from the Father and therefore whatever he enjoys at any time or whatever knowledg he has he may be said to receive it from God there by God meaning the Father But we reply this visibly is precariously said For if from all eternity Christ had all knowledg from the Father what occasion was there for taking notice here that he had this particular knowledg from God There appears not to be here any particular reason for it Therefore the last refuge is in the distinction of the two Natures And so either the Meaning is that the Father gave that Revelation to the Man Christ But then we reply that was not necessary if another All-knowing Person was hypostatically-united with that Man Or else it only remains the Meaning must be supposed to be that the Second Person of the Trinity gave that Revelation to the Man Jesus Christ To this we reply The Name Jesus Christ denotes the whole Person and according to the Trinitarians that Person implies the Supreme God as well as the most highly dignified Creature and therefore God then could not be said simply or in general terms to give any thing to Jesus Christ III. The Vnitarians do very much wonder that any one who has read the Scripture should ask for a Text where it is taught that Christ is not literally the Almighty God himself seeing that in Two Hundred and Seventy Three distinct Passages of the New Testament Christ is expresly distinguished from God Whence rationally we ought to infer that Christ is not literally and expresly that God from whom he is distinguished and that therfore when he is called God it must be understood in an infeferior Sense according to the Significations we have mentioned in which that Title is used As in a Country as it is in France where the King 's Eldest Son when he is spoken of either singly or together with other Princes or Lords is by way of eminency called My Lord it is obvious that then another Lord who is also tho' in an inferior sense called My Lord but not simply or as by a distinguishing character but as by a common title to which is and must be added something to notify the Person spoken of or who at least is never simply stiled My Lord when spoken of together with the King 's Eldest Son being thus distinguished from My Lord or from Him that is called My Lord simply and by way of eminency then I say the other Lord is thereby declared not to be that My Lord himself the King's Heir but an inferior Lord. What the Trinitarians then here say that the Title of God tho' most particularly and eminently appropriated to the Father as it is in Scripture does not exclude other Persons thus expresly distinguished from him from being the same God not only is a mere begging of the question and is without grounds but is expresly contrary to all reason That Subtersuge therefore of the Trinitarians is wholly vain And indeed did St. Peter suppose that Cornelius knew of the Evasion of the Trinitarians when preaching the Gospel to him he distinguished in the current of his Discourse Christ from God Acts 10.36 IV. At the 19th Verse of the 5th of St. John our Saviour himself tells us that the Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do Now in good truth could one that were literally the Almighty God say this concerning himself Can the Almighty and All-Wise God be supposed able to do nothing but what he must be taught how to do it Surely it were a monstrous Supposition to reckon He needed to be taught any thing Whereas if God's Only-Begotten Son be not properly God Almighty himself but the Word Incarnate according
15. 16. The Arian Notion of the Creation of the Material World by the Word and the Spirit or according to some the Holy Spirits under God p. 16. 17. That Christ in his Agony was strength'ned by an Angel is no Argument against the Arian System p. 18. In CHAP. V. That the Authority of some Heathens who spake somewhat like the Anti-Unitarians doth not credit the Trinitarian Cause and can be made no Argument against Unitarianism p. 19. 20. That the Jews never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God p. 20. c. The objected Passages in Pliny's Letter and in a Dialogue ascribed to lucian consider'd p. 23. 24. In CHAP. VI. That few of the Ante-nicene wrote and it was not impossible for them to deviate from the truth and therefore it is certainly 〈◊〉 preposterous Way to seek to be tried by the Writings of the Fathers p. 25. 26. That several Books of the Primitive Writers most credibly were suppressed which favoured the Unitarian Sentiment p. 27. That of the few remaining Ante-nicene Writers 't is credible that some are corrupted and that some are suppositious p. 28. c. In CHAP. VII That nevertheless it still appears that the generality of the Primitive Christians were really Unitarians Nazerenes Arians or Semi-Arians p. 31. c. Some Chronological Remarks or the Times in which some of the Chief of the Ante-nicene Fathers lived p. 36. In CHAP. VIII That the prevailing Sentiment of the Nicene and Post-nicene Doctors is of no weight against the Unitarians p. 46 c. In CHAP. IX An Answer to this Objection That the Work of Redemption and what the Scripture ascribes to our Saviour seems inconsistent with the Unitarian System it being impossible even for the most innocent and the most excellent Creature to reconcile God with those that have forfeited his Favour to know the Hearts to forgive Sins to govern the Universe to raise the Dead to judge the World and to do whatsoever the Father doth p. 50. c. An Appendix to the IXth Chapter being a Consideration of the Controversy concerning the Invocation of Christ p. 56. In CHAP. X. The stating of the third and last general Objection which consists of four Branches to this effect That the Unitarians their too much leaning to Human Reason is the Cause of their Error wherefore they should consider that Reason tho' an excellent Light and Guide so far as its Province and Capacity extends is in some most sublime Points short-sighted and blind and consequently an incompetent Judge then they might discern that the Unitarian Interpretations besides that they imply most unlikely Assertions are forced and unnatural and so remote from the obvious Import of the Words that 't is not to be conceived the generality of Christians when they read the Scripture can find out such Interpretations and imagin that it is to be understood in that Sense and therefore it is incredible that that is the true Meaning thereof moreover in opposition to all Reasonings it is to be observed that there are many Texts of Scripture which make up a strong Evidence of the truth of the Trinitarian Sentiment whereas in fine the Texts that the Unitarians alledge seem not express and positive for their System p. 60 In CHAP. XI That the Unitarians do not lay the whole or chief stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason yet very justly on the other hand they think like all Protestants that Reason ought not wholly to be slighted p. 66. c. In CHAP. XII That none of the Unitarian Assertions are incredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough p. 69. c. Some further Considerations concerning the Creation attributed to Christ in Scripture p. 71. c. What is to be understood by the Holy Spirit more largely shewn something also very particular specified concerning what may be the Nature of what the Scripture calls the Word and the Creation p. 73. c. In CHAP. XIII That it is possible and easy and warrantable to understand in an Unitarian sense all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge for their Sentiment p. 79. Some further Considerations concerning the Worship and Invocation of Christ p. 80. c. In CHAP. XIV That several Texts of Scripture are most express and evident for the Unitarian System p. 88. c. In CHAP. XV. That from the whole Dissertation and the Gospel-Terms of Communion these four things are the least that can be inferrâ—d in favour of the Unitarians p. 96. 1. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Unitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Unitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and intolerable one or a Heresy p. 97. 2. That in our Terms of Church-Communion with relation to this most abstruse and intricate Subject We ought to keep to the Generality of the Expressions of Scripture and not to make any Publick Determinations and Impositions which would drive away the Unitarians out of our Communion p. 100. 3. That therefore First in the Publick Service We ought to address the Current of our Prayers to God in general in the Name and thro' the Mediation of Christ in the conclusion of them beseeching God to hear us and grant us our Requests for the sake of his Dear Son our Blessed Lord Saviour and Redeemer and so when We address some Ejaculations to Christ We ought in general to address to him as to our Mediator most highly exalted and assisted by the Divine Nature dwelling in him as aforesaid Secondly in our Publick Service likewise the Terms of Church-Union We ought to be content with the Apostles Creed which is worded in a Generality agreable to that of Scripture Thirdly no Subscription or Assent ought to be required of Clergy-Men in this Matter and its dependents but to the Expressions of the Scripture it self or to Terms that agree to the Scripture-Generality the Clergy-Mens Declaration being admitted of and accepted that they solemnly subscribe and assent to any of those things proposed to them but so far as they are agreeable to the Generality of Scripture p. 101. 4. That this Generality in Terms of Church-Union is a Safe Method in so intricate a Matter and is incontestably Sufficient all being certainly worshipped when in general God is pray'd to that is to be ador'd with Supreme Worship and the Mediatory Honour due to our Saviour being paid him when our Petitions are put up in the Name of Christ as our Intercessor and Redeemer most beloved of God exalted at God's Right Hand and in whom the Fulness of the God-head dwells p. 102. In the Post-Script I. That the strongest Arguments for the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost are not inconsistent with Unitarianism p. 104. II. An Inquiry Whether the Unitarians may joyn in Communion with a Trinitarian Church Of the Reasons of both
in the stead of God they do in some measure represent Him We see Exod. 23.21 that the Angel that conducted the Children of Israel had that High Name and Dignity for says God my Name is in Him There is nothing more common in Scripture than for those Beings to be said to be what they represent as also what they are figured by As Christ sais that He is the Door and the true Vine and that the Consecrated Bread is his Body So Angels and other God's Messengers are said to be God and are called Jehovah See Gen. 18.1 c. Gen. 19.13 compared with the 18th 24th and 29th Verses Gen. 31.11 and 13. Exod. 3.2.4 and 6. Exod. 4.16 compared with Exod 7.1 Exod. 14.19 and 24. 1. Sam. 3.21 c. Bishop Taylor in his Sermon on 1. Sam. 15.22 observes it is a Saying of the Jews that Apostolus cujusque est quisque every Man's Messenger is himself or is said and may be said to be himself and must be censed and reck'ned as himself The Names of some of the Chief Angels are God or the Great God which shews that God is the same with Prince or Sovereign such as was said As Gabriel which signifies the Mighty God and Michael which signifies Equal to God or Like the Highest Agreably to which Denominations the Samaritans thought they might give to Simon Magus the Name of the Great Power of God because probably they conceited him to be assisted of some Mighty Angel Act. 8.10 This Man is the Great Power of God The Superior Angels are called Gods by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. L. 5. P. 598. The whole Army sais he of Angels and Gods is subjected to the Son Whereby as by many other Passages it appears the Primitive Christians thought it not repugnant to Christianity and the Scripture-stile to call others Gods besides Almighty God The Title of God is particularly given to some Men in Scripture Exod. 7.1 Moses is said to be God or a God to Pharaoh because he was sent on a wonderful and extraordinary Errand to him by God and was enabled to save and to destroy him Behold sais God there to Moses I have made thee a God to Pharaoh and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet This Text may put us in mind or cause us to observe that as we shall see was remark'd by Eusebius Pamphilus De Ecclesiastie Theolog. Lib. 2. Cap. 17. St. John's Expression which we are considering should not be rendered the Word was God but the Word was a God there being no Article here before the Term God as there was in the foregoing Sentence where it was said that the Word was with God which Sentence therefore should have been Translated was with the God by excellency or the Supreme God the Sovereign of all This Passage of St. John would appear more easy to our Apprehension if instead of the term God we did read Lord or Sovereign because in the Stile of our Modern Languages we are not used to appropriate the Title of God to any Creatures as the Scripture doth but are only wont to give the Appellation of Lord in common tho' in divers Senses to God and to some Great Men in Authority Thus then we may conceive the First Verse of St. John's Gospel to run according to its true Signification In the beginning of the New Oeconomy while John the Baptist was Preaching the Baptism of Repentance as the immediate Introduction of the New Dispensation the Messiah himself was then in the World And the Messiah was with the Lord as Moses was with the Angel in the Mountain before the giving of the Law And the Messiah was then constituted a Sovereign Lord or the Chief of those Princely Ministers and High Officers who have the Title of Lord or God communicated to them tho' in an Inferior Sense to what it imports when it is attributed to the Eternal and Supreme Lord of all And the Word was with the God and the Word was a God Our Saviour himself observes John 10.34 that the Title of God was given to Men in the Holy Scripture Is it not written in your Law I said Ye are Gods If He called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came or to whom God gave a High Commission and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of Him whom the Father has Sanctified and Sent into the World Thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God We must needs then ever remember that the Stile of Scripture differs from ours and that we must not Interpret every thing according to the Sound of Words but consistently with the whole Scripture and the clear notions of Reason Verba non Sono sed Sensu sapiunt is an excellent Rule and a Sentence of St. Hilary's quoted in Bishop Taylor 's Second Sermon upon Tit. 2.7 A notable Example of the Title of God being given to Men is that of the 45th Ps at the 6. and 7. Ver. where the Author of this Psalm addresses himself thus to Solomon upon his Marriage with Pharach's Daughter and his being declared King or Heir of the Kingdom by his Father David Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Thou lovest Righteousness and hatest Wickedness wherefore O God thy God has vnointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows Here Solomon is expresly called God It is undoubted that this Psalm in a mystical Sense is applicable to the Messiah and to his Spiritual Marriage with the Church But the mystical and secundary doth not take away the first and literal Sense And it would be most Unreasonable to pretend that this Psalm has no literal Signification It appears to be the usual way of the Holy Spirit under the Old Testament to Shadow the things pertaining to the Christian Oeconomy by real Acts or literal Events then verified or belonging to those times under the former Dispensations And accordingly we find all the reason in the World to ascribe a literal Sense to this prophetical and mystical Psalm and to understand it primarily or originally of the said Wedding of King Solomon We find it has always been generally so understood We find it as sitting for that Solemnity as it could be supposed to have been if it had been made for it and we see it is entituled a Song of Love or a Wedding Poem The Prince is represented as having his Title newly confer'd upon and assured to him and as being preferred before his Fellows or Brethren by his God or King This suits very well with Solomons Case and with the Secinian System But it is inconsistent with the Trinitarian Notions as much as the Trinitarian Interpretation is repugnant to the Truth of the Divine Unity For if there be but one God can it be said to Him thy God has c If the term God be here taken in the most eminent Sense of it there are two Supreme Gods the one spoken to and the other spoken of and said to be the God
of him that is spoken to and so a Supreme or Eternal and Infinite God has a God that is his Superior or which implies the same thing has a God that is his God and that confers Honours and Benefits upon him which is an Absurdity no less than that of supposing two absolutely Supreme or Essential Gods Besides a God in the most eminent Sense of the word cannot be said to be anointed For either his Deity is not true or not truely perfect in it self and so not absolutely divine or else it is all-sufficient and can need no anointing Even a Man Personally-United with God if that were possible cannot be supposed to be anointed with the Assisting Spirit seeing he cannot need it for such a Person must needs have in himself all that is Great and Necessary Howbeit it is the God that is here spoken to Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. And God in fine has no Fellows Nor even has a God-Man Fellows except there be more God-Men as there were more Kings Sons besides Solomon For all these reasons therefore those words of this Psalm cannot be understood as the Adversaries of the Vnitarians would understand them and it doth then appear that another is called God besides the Supreme God And so it is to no purpose here to Object that we do not read of any Children by Pharaoh's Daughter and that the Kingdom was not of long continuance in Solomon's Family as we suppose is here promised First these might be the Psalmists Wishes which were very natural on that Occasion and seemed requisite ex Epithalamii lege says Rivetus But besides that there are frequently in Scripture Conditional Promises even when the Condition is but Tacitely understood and not expressed And thus it might be promised to Solomon that his Throne would be for ever or that the Kingdom would be of a very long Continuance in his Family in Case he and his Children remained true to their Duty Ps 132.13 In like manner Pharaohs Daughter might here be promised many Children who would have been accounted Great Lords and Princes in all the Land of Judea and in all the Coasts of Israel And the Reason why that Promise took no effect might be because she revolted to the Idolatry which undoubtedly she had abjured at her Marriage At the 10th and 11th Verses the Psalmist addresses himself thus to the Queen Hearken O Daughter forget thine own People and thy Fathers House so shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty Doth not this Exhortation appear very Suitable to a Princess come out of an Idolatrous Family And at the same time doth it not hereby appear that She is Married to a Prince in whose Country Idolatry was not the National Religion What Country that was is evident And it is added in the following Verse that the City of Tyre famous for her Rich Trading would bring Presents to the Queen Which Suits well with Solomens prosperous Reign It must then be Unreasonable to suppose that this Psalm has not a literal Sense or that that is not the literal Sense thereof which so well Suits with it and which as was observed has always been reputed to be its primary meaning by the Generality of the best and most learned Interpreters in all Parties There is therefore visibly all the Reason in the World to believe that it is Solomon that is here called God And why should any tho' but the least number among the Trinitarians be so averse to own it or what need is there to be at so much pains to put that matter out of doubt Are not Great Men in other Places of Scripture said to be Gods I have said ye are Gods Ps 82.6 Ps 138.1 and 4. c. Why then should not Solomon here be called God that is a Sovereign Prince acting for God by Gods express Commission to that purpose and so in some measure or in some respects representing God Have we not seen that our Saviour himself observed it that they are called Gods unto whom the Word of God came John 10.35 And at what occasion did our Saviour make that Observation That also to the purpose before us is well worth the being noted It was when the Jews reproached to him that he Equalled himself to God and as they judged made himself the Most High God And now what doth he Answer to that Charge Doth he say that he was literally the Eternal God and that a Second Divine Person was incarnate in him or doth he leave any Room for any such conceit or rather do's he not expresly obviate and refute it This is manifestly the whole meaning of his Answer Why should you think that I make my self the Most High God Is it because I am called God or the Son of God And don't you know that in your own Law it is written of some Great Men I have said ye are Gods and the Sons of the Highest Were those Men therefore to be reputed Homousian Sons of God or of the same Essence with the Father No. Neither am I therefore any more to be thought so If we take not that Answer and Reasoning of our Saviour's in this Sense it seems we make of it a mere Shuffling and an Equivocating Discourse nothing to the purpose and absolutely unworthy the Gravity of the Speaker as seems obvious upon an impartial Reading of the Text. (*) John 10.33 34 35 36. The Jews answered him Saying For a good Work we Stone thee not but for Blasphemy and because that thou being a Man makest thy self God Jesus answered them Is it not Written in your Law I said Ye are Gods If He called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came and the Scripture cannot be Broken Say ye of Him whom the Father has Sanctified and Sent into the World Thou Blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Howbeit it doth here suffice us that we see there is no necessity to take always the term God in the most eminent Sense seeing that some Men in the Scripture stile are called Gods For if we can take that term in an inferior sense when applied to Men we can shew that there is a great deal of Reason to understand it in that sense when appropriated to our Saviour who is the Word or High Officer of God and Chief Interpreter of the Divine Will and who as to his Person and Being and Constitution was in all things like unto us yet without Sin Heb. 2.17 and 4.15 It is to no purpose therefore for the Trinitarians to alledge any Text where they think Christ is called God unless they can expresly shew that he is the Supreme God actually equal to and of the same Essence with the eternal God and that the Father is not greater than he I shall only add concerning the aforesaid Answer of our Saviour's that if he had been the Most High God it seems he dissembled it at an occasion that required the speaking it out
Primitive Doctrin and that 't is most credible it is agreeable to the true sense of Scripture it being the general Sentiment of the Disciples of the Apostles and their Successors in the following Ages And further to evince the Antiquity Vniversality and Credibility of the Trinitarian Doctrin some add that the ancient Jews and the Heathens have believed a Trinity in Vnity to which purpose they quote Plato Philo's Works the Cabbala or Tradition delivered from Father to Son since the time of Moses and the Chaldaïck Paraphrase wherein the Word of God seems to be represented as a Person To all this the Vnitarians answer in the following Particulars 1. The Jews have never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God And as for the Authority of the Heathens it cannot much credit the Trinitarian Cause 2. The Passages in Pliny's Letter and in the Dialogue entituled Philopatris are incontestably invalid Arguments 3. No very considerable Argument can be drawn out of the Ante-nicene Authors because they were but few that wrote and it was not impossible for them to deviate from the Simplicity of the Gospel 4. Many excellent Works of the Primitive Writers have been suppressed and destroyed which were most express for the Vnitarian Sentiment 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are corrupted and some supposititious 6. Howbeit it still in a great measure appears that the generality of the Primitive Christians were Vnitarians and even that the generality of the remaining Authors of the first three Centuries were far enough from being of that Opinion which now is called Orthodox it being evident that they incline more to the Vnitarian than to the Trinitarian Sentiment of the latter Ages 7. The prevailing Sentiment of the following Ages is of no weight against the Vnitarians 8. The Prevalency in general of an Opinion is no Argument that it is agreable to Truth and acceptable to God 9. The only Authority therefore that we can and ought to rely upon is that of the Bible 1. The Jews have never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God and as for the Authority of the Heathens it cannot much credit the Trinitarian Cause The Vnitarians readily grant the Trinitarian Sentiment to be Heathenish seeing it effectually sets up a Plurality of Gods or several supremely and really Divine Persons And they think it very probable that at first some Christians took this Doctrin out of Plato's School whose Philosophy was generally studied and admired tho' perhaps the original meaning of it as to this Point was little understood or considered by the generality of his Disciples For there is much reason to believe that Plato and those of the same Sentiment with him who believed but one God at first personalized the essential or chief Attributes of the Deity to accommodate themselves to the Theology of the Heathens to hide and take off the Odium of their own Notions of the Divine Vnity which otherwise would have been looked upon as next to Atheism wherefore they would seem to hold more Divine Persons or more Gods than one it being reckoned essential to Religion to own a Plurality of Gods These Philosophers therefore so reasoned about the Divine Attributes as if they really held several distinct Gods Indeed 't is very credible that many of 'em afterwards were induced to Error by those Expressions and Philosophized so high about them that they lost themselves and understood not what they said But as for Plato 't is very likely that he meant by his several Persons but the several Attributes of the same Divine Being only he was willing to vail his Sentiment for fear of exposing himself to Socrates his fate having no mind to suffer for his Opinion This appears in his Letters to Dyonisius wherein he tells him It is difficult to find out the Father of the Universe and when you have found him it is not lawful to divulge it to the People I shall then speak of this subject enigmatically that every one may not be able to understand me He sets up therefore a Trinity above all other Gods or Angels and as may be gathered from his Cautiousness from his Sentiment and that of Socrates of one God and from the Current of his Expressions by this Trinity he understood infinite Goodness infinite Wisdom and infinite Love or Power but to wrap up his Doctrin under mysterious terms he represents this Trinity as being three Divine Hypostases or Persons He says the first is the Origin of the other two the Good Being or the first Principle is the Father of the Reason or Wisdom which he has begotten and made and produced and so it might be considered by some as a Creature God and the First-born of the Good Being and the Love or Power is the third most excellent God and the second Production of the Good This Theology most obscurely expressed Plato's Followers have explained according to their own Imaginations till they made it by their Explications still more obscure and more unintelligible But of what Authority are these Philosophical Fancies and Heathenish Mysteries Tho' it seem to some that they may be accomodated to some Expressions in Scripture yet there is no reason to interpret Scripture by that fanciful and fantanstical Rule as is well observed by Beza who calls those Philosophical Conceits Platonica Deliria in his Annotations on John 1.1 Whether or no some Heathen Sages before Plato may then have had the like thoughts and design with him so that he was in some measure but an imitator of them what is that also to Christians What if Parmenides had learned of the Pythagoreans and Pythagoras of Pherecides the Notion of three Hypostases so that the accommodation of Polytheism to a dissembled Unitarianism was perhaps older than Plato by an Age or two And what if the Authors of this Theology whoever they were took these Hypostases to be real Deities Ought such an Egyptian Darkness to be of any weight with Us And can we make it a Question Which is the best either to regard these Heathenish Philosophical Whimsies or to be guided by the clear Light of Reason and the most express Texts of Scripture After all the Platonick Cant is so obscure that for ought that can be pretended to the contrary all that Platonism implies of a Trinity may amount to no more than Semi-Arianism or even Arianism As for the Opinion of the Jews Tho' it be certain that the People of God were Vnitarians yet it is not impossible but that a few of their Metaphysick Wits might Philosophize after the way of Heathen and be infatuated with Plato and conceive as well as many Christians that those strange and admired Speculations might agree with Scripture and be reconciled with the Doctrin of the Unity of God But of what consequence is the Particular Fancy of three or four Visionaries to the whole Body of the Jews Because these
Eusebius tho' he professed the Nicone Trinitarianism was a Semi-Arian and favoured the Arians and perhaps he thought good to excuse Hegesippus notwithstanding what he himself professed as several learned Men in the Church of Rome defend Jansenius at the same time that they openly abjure Jansenism 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are Corrupted and some Suppositious For instance the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in Easecius's time were reckoned to be Supposititious Euseb Hist. Eccl. L. 3. C. 25. And Dalaeus has particularly concended that the Epistles of Ignatius deserve no credit Indeed those Sentiments have been thought by some and in particular by the Socinians to have been foisted therein which the Semi-Arian Fathers did afterwards openly maintainâ— Yet some contend that those Writings expresly contain the same Doctrin that was originally Apostolical and afterwards defended by Arius when it had been disguis'd by the Platonists Howbeit it is certain those that had either particular Opinions of their own or particular interests to serve made often no scruple to forge some Writings favouring them which in order to gain them the more credit they ascribed to some Great Men. Several Apocryphal Books were put out under the Apostles's Names How much more then says Dalaeus would they make bold with others Nay he observes that the Fathers themselves have been guilty of such Frauds See the third Chap. of his first Book De usu Patrum And you need but read his following Chapter to see that the genuine Writings of the Fathers have been corrupted St. Jerom complains of the Impudence of Copists in corrupting of Books Ep. 28. ad Lucin. T. 1. p. 247. And yet he owns that himself in translating Origen omitted what was noxious or dangerous that is what suited not to his own Sentiments and says that St. Hilary and others did the like You may see the Quotations and many more Allegations to the same purpose in that Chapter of Dalaeus where he quotes Epiphanius his Saying that the Catholicks scrupled not to correct or put out some things in the Scripture it self fearing the use that the Hereticks might make of those Passages Dalaeus determines not whether Epiphanius spake true or not herein but he infers from thence that those ancient Catholicks would have made no difficulty to correct in like manner as much as they could the Writings of the Primitive Fathers where they widely differ'd from the Sentiments that had prevailed and where those that were reckoned Hereticks might have found too undeniable Authorities for their Opinions After this can those be blamed who will be determined by nothing but the Current of Scripture and the most incontestable Axioms of Reason Such Catholicks as Dalaeus represents to us we may think made no great scrupse to invent Stories that might favour them or to give easily credit to such tho' upon the weakest Grounds and to use such like shifts to defend what they took for Truth Witness the Book of Hermas and what Jerom owns of himself and of the freedom he thought in such cases lawful to take A Man says he argues as he pleases He may make a shew of presenting you with Bread as says the Proverb and all the while he may hold nothing but a Stone He may say one thing and think another Consider the Arguments made use of by Origenes Methodius Eusebius Appollinaris They are often forced to alledge many things which they did not believe but which were necessary to support their Sentiments I say nothing of the Latin Authors Tertullian Cyprian Minucius Victorinus Lactantius Hilary lest I should seem to accuse others rather than defend my self Ep. 50. ad Pamm T. 2. p. 136. When I write my Books says he I call for my Copist or Amanuensis and I often dictate the thoughts of others that I have read tho' I don't believe 'em my self and sometime don't very well remember their Sense Ep. 89 ad Aug. T. 2. p. 304. and 525. After this found your Faith not on Scripture and Reason but on a History concerning Simon Magus related in Epiphanius or another concerning Cerinthus which Irenaeus had heard Those Stories or Traditions after all might be true and not prejudice the Vnitarians as it might easily be shewn For the Vnitarians do not believe as Cerinthus is reported to have done that a Divin Person and that distinct from the Father dwelled in Jesus Besides he is said to have had many other grievous errors If it were true therefore that St. John would not be in the same Bath with him what is that to the Vnitarians And if Simon Magus believed three Divin Manifestations or Powers why should it be thought that he believed nothing that is true But if he asserted three distinct Divin Persons as Dr. Sherlock thought must be inferred from Epiphanius his monstrous Story that he pretended he was both the Father and the Son and affirmed his lewd Woman Helena to be the Holy Ghost why may we not think he might be among corrupted Christians the first Founder of the Dr's Notion or that which now passes for Orthodox that is that of the Platonists and Realists It may be indeed Simon Magus pretended that the Father and Son were manifested in and by him c. But if it be as Dr. Sherlock would have it the Matter is of no importance to Us but rather concerns the Platonick Trinitarians For those ancient Fathers Ireneus and Eusebius who evidently incline more to the Vnitarians then to the Scholastick Trinitarians assert that Simon Magus was the Father and Author of all the Heresies and particularly the Homousian See Sandi Nuâ—l L. 1. Secul 2. De Gnostic Iren. L. 1. C. 20. 30. L. 4. C. 58. Euseb H. E. L. 11. C. 13. Howbeit pin who will his Faith on Simon Magus or Cerinthus his Sleeve who if not misrepresented were thorow-pac'd Platonists or even Improvers of Platonism Yet the Stories themselves reported concerning their Heresies may perhaps want a little Confirmation considering the Humor of some of those times as we have seen and what Eusebius H. E. L. 1. C. 1. testifies that he had a World to do to compile his History finding so little Light in any Writing before him the continual Persecutions having caused that Confusion as to the Ecclesiastical History the generality of Christians contenting then themselves with the Writings of the New Testament Dalaeus towards the beginning of the fourth Chap. of his said Book seems to intimate that we have nothing much to be relied on but the Holy Scripture which says he has always been preserved with much greater care than other Writings which all Nations have learned which all Languages have translated and which all Sects have retained the Hereticks as well as the Orthodox the Schismaticks as well as the Catholicks the Greeks and Latins Muscovites and Aethiopians c. We may then conclude this
purpose The Church says he dispersed thro' the whole World has both from the Apostles and their Disciples received that Faith which is in one God the Father Almighty and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnated for our Salvation and in one Holy Spirit who by the Prophets published the Dispensations of God Jesus Christ is our Lord and God and Saviour and King according to the good Pleasure of the Invisible Father advers haeres L. 1. C. 2. He who has no other God above him is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Ib. C. 19. And in speaking of that Saying of Christ that he knew not the Day and Hour of Judgment he says The Father is above all things for the Father says Christ is greater than I Wherefore in knowledge also the Father is declared to have the Preeminence Ib. L. 2. C. 49. The Apostles would not call any one of his own Persor Lord but him that exerciseth Lordship over all even God the Father and his Son who has received from the Father the Lordship of all the Creation Ib. L. 3. C. 6. The Apostles confessed the Father and Son to be God and Lord but neither named any other God nor confessed any other to be Lord. Ib. C. 9. I invocate thee O Lord the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who art the only true God above whom there is no other God who rulest over all and dost in domination besides our Lord Jesus Christ rule also over the Holy Spirit Ib. C. 6. By these Passages it appears that Irenaeus held the Father alone to be God in the most eminent sense of that word and the Son to be Lord and God under the Father but the Holy Spirit to be neither Lord nor God Yet he might hold the Holy Spirit to be above the Angels and 't is probable he understood thereby what the Vnitarians do These Matters being left in a great Generality in Scripture the Fathers explained them as they thought best That liberty of inquiry and examination must be allowed of so those explications and interpretations be but offer'd as Opinions and Conjectures but be not Magisterially imposed by any Man on other Men. For to follow the Design and Intention of Scripture Christians must Unite in the Generality of the Terms of Scripture as we see it in the Apostles Creed If these Measures had always been observed Platonism had done but little harm It seems that Platonism made the Platonizing Fathers differ from the strict Vnitarians and Arians I mean the Ancient and Primitive Christians that held the Sentiment that Arius revived or improved For it seems he believed after them that the Word like other Creatures was made out of Nothing But it seems Plato as after him his Christian Disciples of the Number of whom Irenaeus seems to be taught that the Word was created out of the Substance of God Dalaeus observes in the last quoted Place of his aforesaid Book that Tertullian tho' the most thorow-stitcht Platonist of his time had much the same Thoughts and held that God the Father produced the Word out of himself and made him his Son but that the Father is the whole Substance and the Son a Portion and Derivation of that whole In another Place the same Tertullian says expresly that there was a time when the Son was not Adv. Hermogen C. 3. and it seems that by the Holy Spirit-he means only the Vertue and Power of God De Praescript C. 13. Novatian says that the Holy Spirit is less than Christ De Trin. C. 24. moreover that once the Son was not and that before him was nothing besides the Father C. 11. Whereby he positively asserts that the Father alone is from all Eternity and consequently that the Father alone is God in the eminent Sense of that word Which is very different from the Sentiment of the rigid Platonists and the present Trinitarians who hold the Son and Holy Spirit to be from all Eternity as well as the Father and to be equal among themselves and co-equal with him as it is in the Creed of Athanasius Now those that do not assert the Son and Spirit to be eternal and consequently not to have a necessary Existence nor unlimited Perfections nor unborrowed Powers or Powers that they have not received freely from another may very well pass for Vnitarians seeing they make not the Son and Spirit to be God like the Father but the Father's Creatures Dalaeus in the Place we last quoted remarks that those expressions which afterwards were so much found sault with in Arius were used by these Antenicene be mentions Dionysius Arexandrinus who expresly calls the Son the Father's Workmanship which is the same as to say the Father's Creature They expresly say that the Father Made the Son and they even use the very term that the Father Created him Nay Dalaeus in the same Place forgets not to take notice that the 80 Platonick Bishops who at the latter end of the 3d. Century so violently condemned the famous Patriarch of Antioch yet at the same time did expresly declare that the Son is not of the same Essence with the Father Now therefore by the Acknowledgement of the Trinitarians themselves the Post-Nicene Trinitarians cannot with any Modesty pretend that the Ancients were of the same Opinion with them and consequently there can be nothing more vain than for them to plead Antiquity Origen like the foregoing Authors not only called the Son a Second God Contr. Cel. L. 5. p. 258. but a Creature and the oldest of the Creatures Ib. p. 257. And in his First and Second Books concerning Prayer he has so many Arguments against Praying to any but the Father and so blames those that would also direct their Prayers to the Son plainly calling them Fools for so doing that it clearly appears that according to him the Supreme or true Divinity belong'd to the Father only This is so notorious that many have believed that Origen was of the same Opinion that Arius afterwards was of and Epiphanius did well observe that in many Places Origen makes the Son and Holy Spirit to be of another kind of God-head or of another Nature and Essence than that of the Father Epiphan adv Haer. L. 2. T. 1. p. 531. Now since so antient so renowned and learned a Doctor as Origen was of this Sentiment that alone is a sufficient Argument that the Notion of the present Trinitarians was not then known to be the Apostolick Doctrin that at least the Tradition about that Point is uncertain and consequently that the Determination thereof ought not to be sought for by this Means Indeed in reason so Abstruse and Intricate a Matter ought to be Magisterially determined by no Means if they are not attended with greater evidence but every one must be allowed to judge the best he can for himself and Men must Unite in the use of the terms and expressions themselves of Scripture if they appear to be susceptible of a
Psalms wrote from the beginning by the Brethren which speak of Christ as the Word of God and attribute to him Divinity Upon this Famous Passage these Remarks may be made 1. Whereas these Ancient rigid Vnitarians said that the Primitive Doctrin was adulterated in the Times of Victor their Meaning without doubt was not that before him there was never a Platonick Christian but only that the Platonick Christians then prevailed and grew violent and began to discountenance the Truth 2. All those Writers whom this Author or Answerer and Antagonist of the rigid Vnitarians mentions as the Ancientest Assertors of the Divinity of the Word after the Platonick System were except Justin but Contemporaries to Victor and Zepherin or after them As for those Hymns which he speaks of we shall see that no stress can be laid on them or that they conclude nothing against the Vnitarians Hereby then the Novelty of the Platonick Christianity appears seeing no vouchers for it can be produced before Justin Martyr and it is therefore evident that what the Vnitarians said could not be disproved that the Times of Victor and Zepherin were the Fatal Epoche of the violent Opposition and Oppression of Vnitarianism seeing that the Crowd of fierce Antagonists then began and it cannot be shewn that the Vnitarian Doctrin was before then persecuted and discountenanced or that it was not during all the first Century the current Doctrin of the generality of Christians 3. It is probable that some of the Writers whom that Author opposes to the Vnitarians were but of that Sentiment which was afterwards so unjustly condemned in Arius Why else had their Writings been suppressed by the Platonists Perhaps also by the Word and the Spirit they understood two Divine Powers or Influences which God communicates in divers manners and degrees It was easy for the philosophizing Doctors following Plato's Notions and accommodating them to the Expressions of Scripture by those two Powers or Influences to understand so many Persons or Hypostases and so to alter insensibly the Primitive Doctrin which if they had not done they would not have suppressed the Writings of their Predecessors but they judg'd that to be the only way effectually to compass their design 4. As to those Hymns or Psalms in question which he says spake of Christ as the Word of God and which attributed to him Divinity nothing can from thence be concluded against the Vnitarians for the following reasons First taking those terms in a right sense the Vnitarians will by no means deny that Christ is the Word of God and that Divinity may be attributed to him We have seen that very eminent Doctors among the Primitive Christians called the Angels Gods much more then might they give that Name to Christ It would indeed have been somthing to the purpose if that Author could have pleaded that those Psalms of which he speaks ascribed to Christ the same or an equal Divinity with that of the Father or expressed that he was absolutely Eternal and of himself Omniscient like the Father But merely in general their attributing Divinity to Christ decides nothing not only considering the improper way of speaking of those tho' so early Times after the Apostles but also considering that the Scripture gives the Name of God to some Creatures And in Ch. 5th we observed the Vnitarians ever thought it their Duty to Sing Hymns in Honour to Christ Howbeit Secondly that Author produces no grounds for the Authority of those Psalms which he mentions He only affirms that they were wrote from the beginning by the Brethren but that is precariously said without any Proofs If he had had any evidence for his assertion no doubt he would have offered it and would thereby if that could have done it have convinced or confounded the Vnitarians But surely it was not fit for them to take things upon trust Satan then chiefly made it his particular business by his Emissaries to bring in what confusion he could by forg'd Writings If those Psalms had not been spurious and counterfeit the Authors or Primitive Abettors of them had been named It is probable that these were the Psalms that were censured by the Church of Antioch as new and dangerous See Eusebius's Eccles Hist. L. 7. C. 29. 5. The Assertion of the Unitarians that Victor and Zepherin were the first Oppressors of Vnitarianism is undeniably confirm'd by this consideration that the Platonists before those Popes looked even on the most rigid sorts of Vnitarians as their Brethren suffered those among them and owned them as Christians who not only believed Christ not to have pre-existed before his Conception in his Mothers Womb but who also held that he was a mere Man begotten like other Men and that Joseph was truly his Father God as they thought having only removed for that once some Obstacles which hindred the Virgin from being a Mother Notwithstanding the reputed grosness of this Error we see that Justin Martyr the Patriarch of the Platonists acknowledges that it is not destructive of Christianity For he thus argues with Trypho the Jew If I do not demonstrate that Jesus did pre-exist and according to the Counsel of the Father endured to be Born a Man of like Affections with us being endued with Flesh it is just and fit to say that I am mistaken in this only and not to deny that he is the Christ if he appear to be a Man born of Men and to have become the Christ by Election For there are some of our kind who confess him to be the Christ yet hold him to be a Man born of Men. To whom I assent not no not tho' very many of the same Opinion with me should speak it c. Col. cum Tryphon Jud. P. 207. One may perceive how wary or artificial Justin here is in his Expressions as if most Christians in his time were already Platonists It is credible that they were not the greatest number who held that Jesus was Josephs Son 't is certain many of the Ebionites were of another Opinion Euseb L. 3. C. 24. most probably the generality of Christians believed like our Socinians and the rest of the present Christians that Christ had no other Father but God and if that was the Apostles Sentiment which Arius afterwards defended at least we may imagin that it did then still prevail with many But Justin as we have seen seems to have held somthing more than this tho' very different from the Nicene or Post-Nicene Platonists and it is not impossible not only that his Sentiment was confounded or generally taken for much the same with that which afterwards Arius was of the which it is credible was then in Justin's time the most current Standard of Orthodoxy but also that several others Platonized then like him a little above Arianism Nevertheless Justin dares not be too positive for his Opinion he proposes it only as probable and he insinuates that very many were not of his Sentiment which one would be
Kind and Extent or ascribe more to Reason than Protestants do then in God's Name shew it and don 't declaim against or invalidate your own Principles play not at fast and loose or sometime hold the same Principles of Reason and anon reject them and dispute against them This is what the Vnitarians answer in general But more particularly they represent The Vnitarians do not lay the whole stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason For a Proof of this the Reader may be referr'd to Crell's Book Touching One God the Father where there are many Arguments from Scripture for one taken from the Topick of Reason If the Vnitarians did not appeal to Scripture and offerred not to put the Controversy upon that Issue and were not willing to be decided chiefly by that but proposed wholly to set the Divine Revelation aside and resolved only to hearken to what Human Reason can inform us of the Matter controverted the Trinitarians would have some grounds to blame them and to assert that they gave too much to Reason But the Vnitarians expresly acknowledge as well as the Trinitarians both that Reason's Sphere and Reach is not unlimited that there are many Truths above Reason and attended with inextricable Difficulties and incumbred with seeming Contradictions and that therefore what is credibly demonstrated to be is not to be rejected upon the account of such Reason-Objections as these where Reason is short and doth not see clearly and distinctly and then expresly the Vnitarians do hold that in Matters of Revelation the Holy Scripture is primarily to be consulted and followed as the Supreme Rule What will then the Trinitarians have or what can they require more and what is there here that they can justly blame It is true indeed that hereby the Use of Reason is not wholly discarded For On the other Hand the Vnitarians think like all Protestants that Reason ought not to be wholly Slighted For indeed what Reason shews clearly and distinctly no Man in his Senses that duely considers will contemn it or reject it And in reason We ought not lightly to take any Thing in a Sense that seems contrary to Reason when there is no absolute Necessity for it or when that Thing may be taken in another Sense It is certain that Protestants allow as much to Reason and hold that Scripture is to be understood consistently and agreably to these Natural Principles so that when the Words of Scripture in their literal Signification imply something manifestly contrary to Reason they must be taken in any other Sense that they may be susceptible of In short Protestants doubt not but that the whole Scripture perfectly agrees with Right Reason and therefore they take it as much as possible in Senses evidently agreable to Reason and they expresly reject those Senses which are plainly inconsistent with it Upon that account all Protestants hold that We must necessarily make Vse of Reason in interpreting of Scripture if We will understand it right Accordingly they consult and use Reason both in expounding the Text of Scripture and in drawing the natural and necessary Consequences from it And agreably to these just Measures they take in a Figurative Sense those Texts which according to the Literal Sound of the Words manifestly appear to our Reason to be unworthy of God and to be expresly contrary to Reason Upon that account they understand figuratively for instance that Saying of our Saviour's that the Bread of the Eucharist is his Body and that except We Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood we cannot have Eternal Life as also those Expressions which ascribe to God a Body or bodily Parts the Saying of Moses that God laboured and rested the Term which imports that Jeptha Sacrificed his Daughter c. Now the Vnitarians desire not to make any other Vse of Reason But then they maintain that by no means they ought to be hindered to make the like Use of it that Protestants so justly do or so justly plead for for instance in the Controversies with the Church of Rome What Reason shews clearly and distinctly they esteem ought not to be unregarded They hold therefore that We are not rashly to understand or interpret Scripture in Senses manifestly contrary to Reason when especially that Scripture appears susceptible of some other Sense And they affirm that this is nothing but what is not only most evidently just and rational but also expresly agreable to the Protestant Principles and Practice as has been shewn So that We must needs conclude God surely will not take it ill but on the contrary He cannot but require that We should thus reason or make use of Reason and Consideration as the Vnitarians here would do so as to have some regard and make some inquiry Whether things agree or disagree with the Common Notions of Human Vnderstanding Indeed where Reason doth not see clearly and distinctly seeming Difficulties ought not to be looked upon as wholly conclusive and most particularly Difficulties then ought in reason to be reck'ned of no weight against a thing which manifestly or most credibly appears to be But the Vnitarians assert as has been shewn in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno that this is not the Case with the Trinitarian Doctrin They humbly represent that the Trinitarians cannot say that the Doctrin of three Persons in one God is most credible and manifest in it self nor incontestably express in Scripture But the Vnitarians assert on the contrary it is most clearly and distinctly evident that that Doctrin is inconsistent with several Texts as well as implies many most express Contradictions and manifest Impossibilities The Trinitarians then have no just grounds to compare this Point with some Things that are Incontestable or absolutely out of our Sight For tho' the Whole of God cannot be perfectly comprehensible yet in general some things of God may be clearly discerned and therefore God is unanimously acknowledg'd in that sense to be an Object of Reason and all Parties affirm or deny some things of God upon the account of their being evidently agreable or disagreable to Reason There is no reason consequently why the same Measures should not be followed with respect to the Trinitarian Controversy And plainly then that is very unreasonable which the Trinitarians so earnestly desire that no account at all should be made of the so many so express and so obvious Contradictions and Impossibilities which appear to be implied in the Trinitarian Doctrin If they were only obscure and uncertain Difficulties and if the Trinitarian Doctrin were most manifest and certain or unavoidable and not contradicted by any Scripture-Evidence the Vnitarians would be to blame to insist on this Plea of Reason But as was said the Case will be found to be quite otherwise if it be duly considered And if so the unjust and unreasonable Measures that are taken will be a Shame to the present and a Wondering to future Times The Arguments of the Trinitarians in
them and concurrs with them at their Working and which properly doth the Wonders or the Chiefest Part of them in the effecting of Super-natural Works They are as it were but the Bearers of the Divine Virtue or the Disposers of it which God entrusts to them because in that Employment they reap the glory delight of Serving God and of being Instrumental in the good of Others They dispose therefore of that Portion of Divine Power as they dispose of their own Faculties That which was alloted to a Prophet was called his Spirit 2 Kings 2 15. and 5.26 1 Cor. 5.3 4. But the Word especially since his Exaltation has the Disposition of the Divine Power as was said of all the Holy Angels whom he sends whensoever he will on Errands to do what He pleases and so he is said to have received the Spirit without Measure whereas no Prophet before him had and that but at sometimes the Share but of an Angel or at most the Assistance it may be of two or three Angels and the Power accompanying them or annexed to them That by the Holy Spirit something like this Viz some Angel or Angels together with a certain Concurrence of God's Acting or a certain Influence of the Divine Power is to be understood and not altogether and expresly God himself or a literally and properly Divine Person is evinced by the Vnitarian Arguments in the Brief History in the Apology for the Irenicum Magnum and in Crell's Book Of one God the Father It is certain that in Job 32.8 the Spirit and the Divine Inspiration are manifestly put as Synonyma or as Terms that imply and explain one the other the Original Words Rouak in the Hebrew and Pneuma in the Greek being undoubtedly susceptible of that Sense not only signifying Spirit but properly signifying Breath or Breathing which is likewise the import of Afflatus the Expression Metaphorically also us'd in Latin to imply Inspiration which is represented as a Spiritual Breathing or a certain Acting of the Divine Power figured by Breathing And on the other hand in John 1.32 compared with John 1.51 Acts. 8.26.29.39 Revel 8.3 compared with Rom. 8.26 and several other Places the Spirit and an Angel or the Angels John 1.51 Hebr. 1.7 compared with Acts 2.3 4. are also put as the same or synonymous terms From whence it seems it follows that by the Spirit we must understand the Divine Inspiration carried and communicated by the Means of a Holy Spirit or Holy Angel that is to say an Acting and Influence of the Divine Power communicated to or performed on some Men at the Presence and Acting of an Angel or which is the same a Holy Angel acting according to the Direction of the Divine Inspiration and together with the Assistance and a certain Instuence of the Divine Power Thus the Spirit is both a Creature and not a Creature an Angel and also the Spiritual Breath of God or a certain Virtue of God or an Influence of the Power of God which is Something belonging to the Father or a certain Acting of the Father but appears not and need not be concluded and in reason cannot be thought to be a particular real Divine Person distinct from the Father As by the Word is understood both the First-Born the Word-Bearer and the Chief of all Creatures and a Divine Word or an Influence of the Father's Wisdom and Divine Nature dwelling in and as intimately as possible united with the First-Born The Father according to these Notions may then truly be said to be the whole Godhead or the only true God and to know alone all things but then by the Influences of his Divine Word Spirit he may manifest to others what He pleases that when he thinks fit properly 't is not the Father that is Incarnate but his Word which is agreable to Scripture as well as Reason And the Spirit may be said by a Figure to search the things of God See Crell's Touching One God c. Book 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 14. And indeed who besides God should know or search the things of God but the Divine Inspiration or they to whom it is reveal'd by the Divine Inspiration In the Form of Baptism and in the Creed the Word and the Spirit may well be mentioned after mention made in general of the Father tho' they be not Divine Persons distinct from the Father but be certain Influences of the Divine Perfections or certain Actings of the Father by some Powers or Virtues belonging to his Nature The Form of Baptism thus implies that thereby we are Consecrated the Disciples of God our Father and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Disciples of the Word communicated to Christ who has Redeemed us by his Doctrine and by his Blood and in fine of the Holy Inspiration also which Confirms the Gospel and Sanctifies the Soul of true Believers And in the Creed we profess this Belief Evidently herein is no Tautology nor any thing Superfluous For the Father and his Influences or God and the most eminent Actings of his Powers are things distinct And those Actings and Influences are not therefore known tho' the Father be and tho' they belong to the Father And tho' they were Necessarily in the Father it would not be Impertinent to particularize them after having made mention of the Father As after having said that there is a Sun it would not be irrational to add that we believe and know the Sun produceth Light and Heat Otherwise indeed what could the Trinitarians themselves plead for mentioning the Son and Spirit after the Father when they hold that the whole Son and Spirit are wholly in the Father and that the Father cannot be without them Now according to our System the Spirit implying an Influence and an Acting of the Divine Nature those may well be said to be the Temple of God in whom the Divine Inspiration resides tho' the Divine Inspiration be not a Person or not a Person distinct from the Father Indeed tho' the Divine Inspiration were only the Acting of an Angel commissionated and directed by God Christians in whom the Impiration works might then also be truly said to be the Temple of God and not of the Angel because the Angel works not for himself or on his own account but as sent and ordered by God and Christ and then according to the Jewish Phrase Apostolus cujusque est quisque as when an Embassador Wedds a Princess in his Master's Name She is not thereby Married to the Subject but to the Prince that sent him And the Angels may be called by way of eminence the Breath of God inasmuch as they proceed from him as our Breath doth from us or most probably inasmuch as they carry the Influence of the Divine Spirit or Power as God's-Word Bearer is called God's Word inasmuch as he carries the Commands of God and both acts by Gods ' Power and Wisdom and represents and exhibits God's
honoured with a like Honour with the Soveraign yet it is paid him particularly upon the Soveraign's Account in Honour to Him and in Obedience to his Commands who has so appointed it And thus the Scripture teaches We are to Honour our Lord Jesus Christ as one to and upon whom the highest Dignity Glory and Power that can be bestowed upon one in Commission has been in that manner confer'd and granted Namely to the Glory of the Donor and Disposer of it And this leads us to the last Particular that we have undertaken to speak to which is this CHAP. XIV An Answer to the fourth Branch of the Objection 4. THE Vnitarians produce sevâ—ral Texts of Scripture which seem most express and evident for the Vnitarian System I shall here mention but these few referring the Reader for the rest to the Apologia pro â—â—enico Magno or to Crell's Treatise Touching one God the Father in which Books may be found Several of the most select Arguments out of Scripture besides also several taken from the incontestable Principles of Reason all which of both sorts are there fully enlarg'd upon and do seem manifestly and unanswerably to evince the truth of the Vnitarian Doctrin I. The first Argument I shall mention shall be the last quoted Passage of the 2d Chap. of the Philippians where the Apostle declares that We are to own Jesus Christ as one exalted and made Lord and that we are thus to honour him to the Glory of God the Father So that as was said the Honour we are to pay to Our Lord Jesus Christ is not to terminate ultimately on him but on the Father for whose Sake and at whose Command the said Honour is given to the Lord Christ upon the account of his Exaltation as the inestimable Reward of his Obedience and upon the account of the most High Commission granted to him by God Now who doth not see that this invincibly demonstrates that properly Christ is not God himself For if he were literally God Almighty himself it would be absurd not to adore and honour him for himself ultimately for that would imply that the Divine Nature is not to be honour'd for it 's own sake It were in vain to alledg that the Trinitarians hold the Son has received his Divine Nature from the Father that so they may also worship him to the Glory of the Father They say that the Son had the Divine Nature eternally and not by a free Gift but by absolute Necessity and that it is the same numerical Divine Nature and Essence with that of the Father so that he is as much God and is as necessarily so as the Father from which Principles therefore it would need follow that the Son should be honour'd ultimately for himself or which is the same should be honoured with properly Divine Honour as well as the Father Then if things had been so the Apostle should have said We must honour Christ's Human Nature or the Man Christ Jesus to the Glory of God the Son But the Apostle doth not present us with any such Notions But he tells us that Jesus Christ is to be own'd as a Lord and the greatest Lord under God and is thus to be honoured to the Glory of God the Father What can be more express If the Son be literally God Almighty he cannot be exalted any higher and he must needs be honoured ultimately for himself with Supreme Divine Honour But says the Apostle the Father exalted him c. Whereas if the Son had been himself literally God his whole Person must needs have sat necessarily at the Helm of the Universe as well as the Person of the Father and it could not have been otherwise except a Divine Person could have ceased to be properly Divine that is to say except God could have been annihilated Now the Reader may please to make an application of this as well as the following Arguments to Dr. Sherlock's Rule mentioned before and by which he owns this Controversy is to be tried II. The Second Argument shall be that which the Dr. at the 197th and following Pages of his Book intituled The Scripture Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explained and vindicated has carefully pointed out to us and taken great pains to prepare for us and make us sensible of it's great weight And indeed it seems a most express and decisive Argument It is that which is grounded on the 36th Verse of the 24th Chap. of St. Matthew to which the 32d Verse of the 13th of St. Mark is parallel the import whereof is That Christ declaring he did not know what God knew Namely when should be the Day of Judgment it follows necessariâ—y and most manifestly that he is not God himself The Dr. in the Place aforequoted represents the force of the Argument in these words There is an obvious Objection against the perfect intuitive Knowledge of our Saviour from what he himself tells us concerning the Destruction of Jerisalem c. For were he true and perfect God of the same Substance with his Father he could be ignorant of nothing Now how doth the Dr. solve this Objection as he calls it The common Answer to this says he is by distinguishing between the Knowledge of Christ as God and as Man That tho' as God he knew all things yet there were some Secrets for some time concealed from his Human Nature Well! Doth the Dr. know of some better Solution No. Is he then very well satisfied with this common Answer No. He neither likes this nor can tell what to say more satisfactory These are his words The common Answer to this is c. as was said in the foregoing Paragraph And this says he must be the true Answer or I know not how we shall find a better and yet it seems very hard that the Son who is but one Person tho' he have two Natures should be said not to know that which he did know whether he knew it as God or as Man This I confess is a Difficulty and always will be so while we know so little of this Personal Union that is to say of the Union of the Godhead with the Man Christ Jesus But then Dr if we know so little of it why do you call it a Personal Vnion and that of an eternal Son or an eternal Person with the Spirit of Christ But since you are pleas'd to call it so you must stand to it and must not pretend to evade by saying you know not how far it goes or what communications the Human Nature of Christ receives from its Union with the Godhead This is not the Point nor is it at all to the business in hand from which you ought by no means to be suffered now to flinch away when it manifestly appears to be against you and invincibly shews the solidity of the Vnitarian Sentiment For you have said and the Trinitarian System expresly asserts that the whole Son is but one Person and therefore
tho' you know not exactly how great are the Communications of the several Parts betwixt themselves which constitute this one Person yet you must own that those Communications must needs go so far as to make of it but one Person Even all that pass for Orthodox among the Trinitarians acknowledge that Christ is but one Person and but one Son Now the business is to consider Whether any thing can be in general terms denied of one Son or of one Person which yet is true of some Part of that Person And the Vnitarians maintain that upon the considering of it this ought not to be found a mere Difficulty against the Trinitarian System but an irrefragable Argument of the truth of the System of the Vnitarians The two following Considerations are the utmost that the Dr. offers in order as he says to give a light to this Matter in so much that if both of them are invalid to solve the Difficulty it will appear that the Vnitarian Argument is demonstrative and irresistible 1. The first Reflection is this That notwithstanding the Union the Divine and Human Natures are two distinct Natures in Christ and therefore he may be ignorant of that as Man which he knows as God Now supposing that Possible with the Dr. yet this makes nothing at all to the purpose of the Trinitarians except our Saviour had thus expressed himself The Son as Man does not know that thing which you desire him to inform you of and therefore as Man he cannot inform you of it and as God he will not tell it you tho' as God he knows it very well But every one who can read our Saviour's words in the Evangelists may soon see whether they bear any such distinction 2. The 2d Reflection more to the purpose is That the God incarnate that is to say Christ being but one Person whatever belongs to either Nature may truely be afformed of his Person with respect to that Nature to which it belongs tho' it be not true of him with respect to his other Nature and thus therefore infers the Dr. if Christ as Man was ignorant of any thing which he knew as God he might truely be said not to know what he did not know as Man this says the Dr. is universally owned Now Dr. this is a gross Mistake and most notoriously your inserence is absolutely wrong and is so far from being universally owned that it is indeed owned by no body in the World that considers but the contrary is held by all Men. It is true that what belongs to any Part of a Person may be affirmed of that Person with respect to that Part to which it belongs tho' it be not true of him with respect to his other Parts For instance If a Man be Wounded in the Arm it may truly be said of that Man that he is Wounded tho' he be not Wounded in the Head nor Legg In like manner If Christ be both the Supreme God and a Man Personally-United he may be said in general to know that which he knows as God tho' as Man he know not that thing But because what belongs to any one certain Part of a Person may be affirmed of that Person with respect to that Part to which it belongs tho' it be not true of him with respect to his other Parts it doth not follow that what doth not belong to one certain Part of his may in general terms be denied of his Person when yet it truly belongs to some other Part of him That is so far from being to be inferred from the former way of speaking that every one knows it to be false that what truly belongs to one Part of a Person may in general terms be denied of that Person upon the account that it belongs not to some other Part of his Tho' a Man be not Wounded in the Head or Legg it will not in general terms be said that he is not Wounded when actually he is Wounded in the Arm. Such a denial upon this mental reservation that the Man is not Wounded in the Legg would be looked upon as a shameful Equivocation an express Lye And would the Dr. ascribe to his Saviour such a way of reasoning when he makes him dery his knowing what yet according to the Trinitarian System one of his Natures knew If this be not a Demonstration the Vnitarians think there are no Evidences in the World and it is impossible to discern what are manifest Arguments what not And therefore the Dr. they think should not barely have said as he doth that there is somthing which seems very hard in his common Answer but he should have dared expresly to affirm that it is altogether very invalid and impertinent Let the Reader himself judge of it by considering the manner how our Saviour expresses himself in both the Evangelists Of that Day and Hour knows no Man or no Body or no Person for it is in the Original None knows of that Day and of that Hour no not the Angels that are in Heaven nor the Son but the Father Mark 13.32 And at the 36th Verse of the 24th of St. Math. but my Father only If the Reader please to see any more than what has here been said upon these Texts he may be refer'd to the 24th Chapter of the Apologia pro Irenico Magno and to the 9th Chap. of the 2d Section of Crell's 1st Book Touching one God the Father in both which Places the Argument taken from those Passages of Scripture is more at large treated of and most fully illustrated Here is then what Dr. Sherlock desired Pag. 55th of his aforequoted Book Namely a Text that proves Christ to be properly but a Creature such as the Vnitarians hold him to be After this Argument the Vnitarians do not think any other to be very necessary I shall therefore in a manner but mention the following without much enlarging upon them It need only be added concerning the present Argument that Crellius takes notice of the other Answers to it and that they most visibly appear to be such that they who insist upon them do most evidently shew that they are obstinately resolv'd to defend an old Prejudice and that they will by no reasonable Means be persuaded to acknowledge the Truth which disposition cannot but be criminal To say for instance that Christ considered as God as well as Man said that he knew not the Day of Judgment in the same sense that St. Paul said of himself 1 Cor. 2.2 that he determined not to know any thing among the Corinthians save Christ Crucisied is it not to declare that those Men will take hold of any Evasion rather than yield For doth not that expression of St. Paul that he determined not to know shew manifestly the difference betwixt his Assertion and our Saviour's who says expresly that he knew not the Day of Judgment and that none but the Father knew it The Expression of St. Paul which we have
to the Arians such as we have described who from the beginning was a God in the highest signification of the inserior senses in which that title is used in Scripture and who is assisted of God in the manner we have declared it is very rational and true to say of him that he cannot do the Divine Works of himself but that he doth them only as he is taught and assisted by the Father to do them To which agrees what he says at the 10th Verse of the 14th Chapter of the same Gospel the Father not a Second Divine Person that dwels in me he properly doth the Works inasmuch as it is he that assists me to do them And accordingly Christ declared that tho' he had a vast Power even then granted him and was enabled to do mighty Miracles yet God the free Donor and Disposer thereof had reserv'd infinitely more Prerogative to himself and the Disciples were not to doubt but that God from whom Christ had all that he had was still greater than he John 14 28. V. In like manner a Person that were literally the Almighty God himself could not say to the Father as Christ doth John 17.5 Glorify thou me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was For whatever the Trinitatarians may say or think of it a Person that were literally the Almighty God could no more be at any time without his Glory than he could ever be without his Nature and Essence or could cease to exist For the Highest Glory is inseparable from the Supreme God for as he exists necessarily from all Eternity so he is necessarily All-Perfect and consequently All-Glorious But the Word being such as we have described having received all his Perfection from the mere free Bounty of the Father and holding the Height of his Glory precariously from the Hand of the Supreme God and as but during the Pleasure of the Almighty this Sublime Creature then I say that is called the Word might be divested of the greatest part of his Glory for a time and be reduced to and contracted into the Narrowness and Lowliness of an Innocent Human Soul for the Undertaking and Performance of a peculiar Office during which considering the Anguish and Difficulties attending it this Person may well be supposed to groan and long for that excellent and inestimable Glory and Happiness which he enjoyed with God before the World was being then glorified and dignified with an extraordinary and an eminent and intimate partaking even of the Divine Nature Soveraignty and Power which in becoming Man he in a great measure actually deposited into the hands of God to receive again indeed afterward with Interest whereas as was said it is impossible for the Almighty God at all to deposite at any time his Perfection Power and Glory See the afore-quoted Treatise of Crellius Book 1st Section 2d Chapter 18th on the Argument That all things are given to Christ from the Father VI. The last Argument of the Vnitarians which I shall now take notice of and that also briefly considering all that has been said here and elsewhere is That it is expresly declared in several Places of Scripture that the Father Only is the Supreme God John 17.3 This is Life eternal to know thee only Father to be the true God and Jesus Christ to be thy Messenger It is evident that that must necessarily be the Construction of the words For the Adjective Only when it is employed to exclude other Subjects from the partaking of the Predicate belongs to the Subject and not to the Predicate Now it is incontestable seeing the Reason of the Thing and the Scope of the Argument that is the Resolution of these grand Articles Namely Who is the true God And Which is the Way to eternal Life and indeed it is agreed by all that in this place the word Only is employed to exclude other Subjects from the partaking of the Predicate Wherefore all others besides the Father are hereby necessarily excluded from being the true God For if all others were not so then none could be suppos'd to be hereby excluded and so the reasoning would be insignificant See Crell in the beginning of his afore-quoted Treatise Ephes 4.4 5 6. There is one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Baptism one God and Father of all who is above all The Father only is that God who is above all or who is properly the True and Supreme God 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus That it is the Father only who is that one God is then evident in that Christ is opposed to that one God And the Mediator between God and Men is said to be a Man and not a God-Man See Crell on that Text. 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is but one God the Father To which Place we may joyn the 9th Verse of the 3d. of St. James's That one then who is properly the God is the Father of whom are all things And under him there is but one Universal Lord by and for whom the Father prepared all things that this most God-like Lord might be at the Head of them to the greatest Glory of the Father the eternal and Supreme the only Wise perfectly and in himself and the only one the true God See 1 Tim. 1.17 compared with Rom. 15.6 and 16.27 1 Tim. 1.17 Vnto the King eternal immortal invisible the only wise God be Honour and Glory for ever Rom. 16.27 To God only Wise be Glory thro' Jesus Christ Rom. 15.6 With one Mind and with one Mouth glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ So Jam. 3.9 Thus we see the Vnitarians not only shew some most express or expresly seeming Contradictions in the Platonick or Scholastick Trinity which Contradictions cannot be denied to be most express unless it can be shewn expresly and invincibly that they are not such but they also produce several Texts which appear most express and evident for the Vnitarian System Upon which account they think they are the more authorized and incontestably warranted to consult also as they do in this Matter the Light of Reason which as was said furnishes them with several unanswerable Arguments of the Impossibility of the Scholastick or Platonick Trinity of real Divine Persons in one God as may be seen in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno and consequently of the Reasonableness of the Vnitarian System and the Vnitarian Interpretations They reckon that the Arguments taken from Reason and those taken from Scripture do very much strengthen one another Howbeit they chiefly insist on those taken from Scripture as appears from that Treatise of Crellius which has been so often quoted Here then it is very fit to remember Dr. Sherlock's Words which we quoted before and which are to this purpose That if any Text be produced which proves Christ properly or in his own Person to be but a Creature this ought
know his Benefactor and that he should be in a hearty disposition to express his Gratitude for the Benefit to the best of his power according to the Knowledge he can get thereof In the Revelations 19 12 We find it is said that our Saviour has a Name which no Man understands but He Himself Why then should We be so Decisive Magisterial and Imposing as if We certainly and infallibly understood all these Mysteries As we cannot reasonably imagin that we infallibly understand the most difficult things we ought not in reason to pretend to determine and judge for other Men in the most abstruse and intricate Matters Howbeit it seems the Semi-Arian System is much the same with or not essentially different from this of the Father or God and his two Powers and Influences or Acts. And it seems this is reconcileable with Scripture and Reason God grant Us all to do our Duty in this Inquiry and in all respects that We may discern and follow the things absolutely Necessary to Peace and Salvation A POST-SCRIPT Wherein it is farther consider'd That the Arguments for the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost at most seem not to be inconsistent with the Unitarian System or to destroy the Necessity of keeping with relation to this Doctrin to the Generality of the Expressions of Scripture for Terms of Church-Communion Wherein also it is inquir'd Whether the Unitarians may with a good Conscience joyn in Communion with a Trinitarian Church Of the Reasons of both Sides of which Query the Governors of the Church are humbly desir'd to give their Opinion FROM the whole it seems that these three Points deserve a particular Consideration I. It should be considered that the Arguments for the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost seem not inconsistent with the Vnitarian System II. It should be inquired Whether the Vnitarians may joyn in Communion with the Trinitarian Church III. We should consider that what is inferred from the Vnitarian Arguments remains in force and that it is an indispensable Duty to profess and establish the Gospel-Terms of Communion and to keep to the seeming or apparent Generality of the Expressions of Scripture for Terms of Church-Union tho' the Trinitarians and some Vnitarians should opine that the Vnitarians may with a good Conscience joyn in Communion with the Trinitarians and even tho' there were in God what might truely be called Three Persons I. It should be considered that the Arguments for the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost seem not inconsistent with Vnitarianism For tho' by the Holy Ghost and the Word the Divine Nature be taken to be implied yet it follows not that the Father is not the whole God-head Nay the Scholastick Trinitarians themselves acknowledge that the Father implies the whole Divine Nature Consequently whatsoever is properly and literally Divine belongs to the Father and is a Property or Act of his Essence seeing that it belongs to the Divine Nature and 't is own'd the Father implies the whole Divine Nature St. Basil agreably to this Tom. 1. Pag. 778. Paris 1638. calls the Divine Word and Spirit the two Hands of God founding that Expression on Ps 19.1 and 102.25 compar'd with Ps 33.6 Hands or Arms are the same speaking of a Spirit And we see mention made of the Arms of God Deuter. 33.27 Jâ—b 40.9 Ps 98.1 Isa 51.5 c. Howbeit in speaking of God who is a Spirit or a Spiritual Being it is evident it must be own'd thas these Expressions are but Figurative All then that the Arms or Hands of God can imply must be some Powers Properties or Acts Influences that belong to God Now by God the Scholastick Trinitarians themselves understand the Father or Him whom the Scriptures and particularly the Books of the New Testament ordinarily or frequently stile our Father as well as in general the Father meaning the Common Parent of Men more particularly the Father of Christians most especially the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as all agree And then as was observed the Scholastick Trinitarians acknowledge that the Father implies the whole God head Our Saviour is express that the Father dwells in him and doth the Works in him Joh. 14.10 And the Apostle teaches us that Christ is to be honoured to the Glory of the Father Phil. 2.11 All therefore that is meant and that appears can be meant by the Divinity of Christ or the Hypostatick Union is that the Divine Nature is so intimately united with the Soul of the Man Jesus Christ as the Human Soul is with the Body that the Divine Influence or Divine Indwelling in him and particularly the Divine Wisdom constantly illuminate conduct and assist Christ so as to enable him to represent God at the Head of the Universe to perform all the things necessary for such a Representative of God to do so that what belongs to God may be said to be Christ's all in kind tho' not all in all degrees who sees honours Christ may be said to see honour God what God doth at Christ's desire may be said to be done by Christ who procures it to be done by the God-head dwelling in him as a Human Soul simply and meerly by desiring procures of the Body with which she is united to do many Actions that she willeth that God has subjected to the Soul's Will and Power Holding then that some Texts of Scripture in some sense import the Supreme Divinity of Christ yet it can never be prov'd or with any colour of reason pretended that they necessarily imply any more than this For there are invincible Arguments against the being of more than one real Person in God by a Figure common in Scripture in all Languages Personal Acts may reasonably be attributed to Divine Wisdom or to a Divine Influence tho' it be not a distinct Person but a Property or an Act of the Father Even Charity is represented as a Person 1 Cor. 13.1 And God is said to send forth his Mercy Ps 57.3 Supposing then that by the Word in the beginning of St. John's Gospel be meant the Divine Wisdom produc'd forth and shewn in the Old and New Creation as it is even interpreted in the Brief History in that case it must necessarily be suppos'd to be said by a Figure to be incarnate meaning that it rested upon in an extraordinary most ample manner or most intimately dwelt with and constantly assisted and illuminated the Man Jesus Christ as if it had become Part of him or were his own Soul Christ then the Son of God is a Divine Person in that he is a Man assisted and inhabited by a Divine Influence or Divine Virtue And holding that some Texts of Scripture assert the Supreme Divinity of the Holy Ghost it doth not follow that thereby is meant any thing else than the Divine Inspiration or an Influence of the Divine Power either Directing or Wonder-Working that is commonly annexed to
are not all alike and therefore neither can our Opinions in such mysterious Articles c. P. 45. This Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful Exhortation full of grace and sober councels and such as Hosius himself who was the Messenger pressed with all earnestness P. 46. The Apostles who best understood these Mysteries thought it not fit to use any words in their Creed but the words of Scripture to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that that Faith is best which has the greatest Simplicity If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it P. 47. Concerning the Symbol of Athanasius Nothing there but Damnation and Perishing everlastingly unless the Article of the Trinity be believed as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained Yet I dare not say all that are not persuaded of them are irrevocably damn'd because citra hoc Symbolum the Faith of the Apostles Creed is intire c. P. 53 54. Indeed as was observed Who gave Authority to fallible Men to make and impose New Creeds or Magisterial Determinations in these abstruse Matters See what this learned Prelate says on the account of the Miracles wrought by the Aâ—ians in the 1st Part of his Sermon on John 9.31 If it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed how many People understand it not how contrary to Natural Reason it seems how little the Scripture says of those Curiosities of Explication and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article it self much less for those forms and minutes it had not been amiss if the Final Judgment had been left to Jesus Christ who is appointed Judge of all the World and who will judge righteously knowing every truth c. P. 54. After this Passage no more need be added I shall only point to Page 59 Line 28 c. P. 60 L. 10 c. P. 61 L. 11 c. P. 63 L. 16 c. P. 66 L. 9 c. P. 67 L. 35 c. P. 68 L. 8 c. P. 78 L. 35 c. P. 82 L. 33 c. P. 84 L. 1 c. P. 85 L. 18 c. P. 86 L. 2 c. P. 87 L. 13 c. P. 99 L. 30 c. P. 103 L. 36 c. P. 121 L. 35 c. P. 123 L. 9. c. P. 124 L. 25 c. P. 157 L. 6 c. P. 160 L. 36 c. P. 161. L. 32 c. P. 165 L. 4 c. P. 192 L. 4 c. P. 195 L. 24 c. P. 262 L. 8 c. P. 263 L. 34 c. P. 265 L. 5 c. P. 266 L. 2 c. but for the rest I refer the Reader to the Book it self which I earnestly recommend to his serious perusal May it please the Lord Jesus to have Mercy upon Us and to assist and save Us by his efficacious Intercession and by his Grace for the Sake of his most precious Death and Passion that We may not lose the Blessed Fruits of it but may all become his true Disciples and be of the number of his Redeemed ones being filled with his Holy Spirit and abounding in all Christian Virtues And may Almighty God in his infinite Compassions for his beloved Son Jesus Christ's Sake our Blessed Lord and Saviour grant every sincere and inquisitive Christian to discern and follow so far as is necessary the Ways of Truth as well as of Righteousness that walking in the Paths of Peace and true Piety and Holiness We may serve God acceptably all the Days of our Life and in the end obtain the Salvation of our Souls Amen! FINIS
the Son are but one Person But it is evident that the Father being an intelligent Being and the Son a distinst intelligent Being from the Father the Father and the Son must necessarily be two Persons For a Spirit as long as he exists cannot but have always in himself distinctly from all other Spirits what constitutes a Person and can say some things of himself distinctly from others Thus how strictly soever God and Christ be United Christ can say of himself that he is a Creature so many Ages Old God can say that he is Self existent and never had a Beginning Now here are two he 's or two l's and consequently 2 Persons for these are Personal Pronouns each of them denotes a distinct Person And the Scripture is so far from asserting God and Christ to be one Person that it constantly distinguishes Christ from God Indeed in the Scripture-stile a special Messenger and Representative may beare the Name of him whom he most especially acts for and represents And Christ may moreover be termed a God in an Inferior Sense as Kings and Princes are called Gods in Scripture He may also be called God inasmuch as a Divine Influence most intimately dwells in him But the Scripture not only no where says that Christ is literally the same God with the eternal God or is the Whole of the Father but it teaches the contrary For it all along represents Christ as a Man in whom God dwells and whom God exalts to the highest Dignity over all other Creatures And Christ himself expresly says that the Father is greater than be Which manifestly imports that tho' God dwels and acts in him yet God is distinct from him and still keeps the Supreme Authority to himself reserving to himself the Power to act in him when or so far as he pleases for he was not pleased for instance to enable him to dispose wholly of the Gifts of the Spirit till after his Ascension and he had not revealed to him when should be the Day of Judgment but kept to himself the Times and Seasons c. Thereby then it appears that Christ is but a Man acting for God and to that end assisted of God as was said tho' the Trinitarians generally will not allow him to be truly a Man but only a Human Nature which is but an imaginary Shadow of a Man When they call him God-Man they mean only a Divine Person united with their General Conception of a Human Nature that has no real Subsistence which is not truly a Man For as the Bishop of Gloucester excellently well observes p. 63d of his Reflections upon the late Examination of the Discourse of the Descent of the Man Christ Jesus from Heaven to say that the Man Jesus has no Subsistence of his own is to say that he has no other Subsistence than an Accident has in union with the Substance to which it belongs and this makes him inferior to any Man God ever made Nay this actually unmans him Therefore the Bishop rightly calls this monstrous Doctrine Scholastick Gibberish Whereas the Scripture not only never calls Christ a God Man but in a great many places calls him a Man John 8.40 John 1.30 Acts 13.38 1 Tim. 2.5 c. and expresly says that as to his Person and Human Circumstances he was in all things like unto us Sin excepted Hebr. 2.17 Hebr. 4.15 1 Cor. 15.21 Now if he be a Man he has a Subsistence of his own for so has a Man and if he has a Subsistence of his own he cannot be supposed to be united to the Godhead and to be a God but as the Vnitarians hold he is Namely inasmuch as God constantly guides him and acts in and by him in the High Station in which He has placed him which after all the Trinitarians as we have seen own is all they mean by the Incarnation or Personal Union and so it is most incontestably evident that notwithstanding the Difference that the Trinitarians make between Them and the Vnitarians they can give no reason for their pretence that according to the Vnitarian System the Lord Jesus is Vncapacitated for the Work of Redemption And if he were So according to the Vnitarian from what has been said it manifestly appears he should as much be So according to the Trinitarian Scheme For both found his Capacity upon the In-dwelling or Assisting Godhead in him To this the Trinitarians reply that except the Godhead and the Man Jesus Christ were supposed to make but one Person Christ could not be said as be is to do those things which none but the Divine Power doth Therefore it must be infer'd that this one Person Christ is God-Man and implies a Divine and a Human Nature Personally-united together For the Scripture attributes the Miracles of our Saviour to his own inherent Power and his Revelations and Prophesies to his own Personal Knowledg For it is said that he knew what was in Man that he rebuked the Wind and the Sea that he will raise the Dead at the last Day c. To this Plea the Vnitarians answer that by the same reasoning when our Saviour promised his Disciples John 14.12 that They should Do greater Works than those he had done the Trinitarians cannot avoid concluding that they should do those Miracles by their own Power and that they should then be considered as indeed Personally-united with the Godhead But cannot the Trinitarians consider that Men may be said to do those things which are effected by the Means and Helps which they make use and can dispose of Is not a General said to take a City which his Army storms at his Orders Is not a Physician said to do a Cure that is effected with God's Blessing by the Remedy he has prescrib'd In like manner may not Men be said to do those things which are wrought by the Power which God has invested them with or granted them the disposal of To come then to the objected Particulars Christ works Miracles raises the Dead forgives Sins and doth whatsoever the Father does by desiring God to do these things at his request which the Father alloweth him to ask and to expect of him Therefore all things whatsoever that he sees or knows the Father doth or can do and that are requisite to the fulfilling the Work of Salvation Christ begs the Father to do them and the Father doing them at this his most beloved Son's Intercession Christ is censed or reckoned to do them The way that all Intelligent Beings Do those Things that God has put in their Power is by Willing them and Vsing the Means which God or Reason has shewn they may be effected by For instance For a Man to move his Hands or Feet his Soul needs but to will it to nourish his Body he must take the things and apply them as God has appointed to that end Now it seems all the Means which God has appointed for Christ to do whatsoever the Father doth