him as One single Person except only two or three obscure Passages in Genesis Neither can we have any Idea or Conception of God but Person is included in it taking Person for an intelligent Being so that all plain and clear Scriptures militate for them and the Trinitarians or those that say there are Three Persons in God or that Three Persons are all one God as your Doctor says have no Scriptures left but those that are obscure And that they are obscure appears clearly by this That there is scarce one Text alledged by them which is not otherwise expounded and in consistency with the Unity of the Person of God by their Writers You may see a great number of these Texts and Expositions in a Book entituled Scriptura S. Trin. Revelatrix under the Name of Cingallus Your Doctor proceeds he names but two Texts for he rakes his Opinion for granted as sufficiently proved by others His first Text is 1 John 5.7 There are Three that bear Witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. One would expect now that the Learned Doctor naming but two Texts should cull out those that were strongest for his purpose and yet this Text is so far from being clear and strong That 1. it has not the Authority as other Scriptures have for it appears not in the most ancient Copies of the Greek nor in the Syriack nor Arabick nor Ethiopick nor Armenian Bibles nor in the most eminent Latin Bibles 'T is not urged by the Fathers in their Disputes about this Question It 's wholly rejected by some and counted doubtful by almost all Learned Men. You may see saith he in Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury his second Letter in his Travels how variously and uncertainly that Text appears in Ancient Manuscripts Here my Neighbour crav'd my Pardon went to his Closet and presently brought me a Greek Testament printed at Strasburg by Wolfius Cephalaeus Anno 1524. in the beginning of the Reformation wherein this Verse is wanting Bur 2ly allowing it to be Authentick yet the most Learned even of the Trinitarians understand it not thus These Three are One God but These Three are One in Testimony or agree in Testimony See Beza Vatablus Calvin Erasmus the English Geneva Notes As for his other Text Matth. 28.19 I refer you to The Brief History of the Vnitarians c. in four Letters whereof he gave me a Copy Only I desire you says he to consider how clear a Proof this Text is which must run thus We are Baptized in or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Therefore these Three Persons are One God and each of them by himself God As if the Israelites by being Baptized into Moses and believing in the Lord and in Moses his Servant so Marg. Exod. 14.31 did acknowledg Moses to be a Person of the most high God though he was indeed in some sense a God to them for he was so to Aaron their High Priest for thus it is read in the Margin of the English Bible printed in 1660. He shall be to thee a Mouth and thou shalt be to him a God Exod. 4.16 You may see the Hebrew so render'd Jer. 31.33 and the Greek Heb. 8.10 I must confess to you Sir I could not tell what to oppose to this Argument of his which shew'd the obscurity of our Texts and he now made a Pause and expected my Answer Wherefore to divert him from taking notice of my Convictions I asked him if he had any other Argument to prove that Obscurity He answered Yes And that also is taken saith he from our Adversaries the Trinitarians I mean the Romanists For they are told by Mr. Chilling-worth the Glory of English Protestants and since that by Dr. Tennison in his words thus For Scripture your Men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine of the Trinity can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinal Hosius de Author S. Script l. 3. p. 53. by Gordonius Huntlaeus contr Tom. 1. Controv. 1. de Verbo Dei c. 19. by Gretserus and Tannerus in Colloquio Ratisbon and also by Vega Possevin Wiekus and others Now it is to be observed That these Learned Men especially Bellarmine and Wiekus after him have urged all the Scriptures they could with their utmost industry find out in this Cause and yet after all they acknowledg their Insufficiency and Obscurity whereby they give a clear Testimony to the Doctrine of God's being One Person which to deny were even to deny the whole Bible But besides the current of all Scriptures on our side we have many clear Texts that prove the Father only to be God I 'll name but two Our Lord himself professes in his solemn Prayer to his Father in the presence of his Disciples saying This is Eternal Life that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17.3 And the Apostle St. Paul says in opposition to Gods many and Lords many But to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 Can any words be more express to prove that there is but One true God and One Person of that One God to wit the Father of our lord Jesus Christ who is oppos'd to him by his Names Relations and Characters Again there be a multitude of Texts that deny those things of Christ which cannot be denied of God and that affirm such things of him that cannot agree to him if he were a Person of God In like manner of the Holy Ghost Which of both sorts you may find urg'd and defended in the two Books of John Crellius touching One God the Father and abridg'd in Wolzogenius's Praeparatio ad utilem Lectionem Lib. N. T. cap. 2 3 4 5. So also in your Brief History c. the first Letter I then desired to know of the Gentleman what he could say to the Tradition of the Christian Church for you say that That from the Time of Christ and his Apostles hitherto as well before as since the Council of Nice hath ever held the Divinity of these three Persons and that these three are but One God This also you take for granted He answered 1. It is the Catholick Principle of all Protestants that the Holy Scriptures are a compleat Rule of Faith and Manners and clear and plain in all things necessary Now since this Doctrine of the Three Persons in One God is held a Fundamental and Necessary Doctrine it must consequently be clear and plain to all honest Enquirers which I clearly see it is not therefore I can satisfy my self concerning it without an endless Enquiry into the Fathers and Tradition 2. I am sure it has not been held in the Apostles Time nor I believe in any of the
of excellence that is the Gospel Decree as it is taken also in Titus 1.3 where the Apostle Paul having mentioned the Truth which is after Godliness in hope of Eternal Life goes on and says which God that cannot lye promised decreed to promise or in purpose promised before the World began hath in due time manifested his Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through preaching This Word was with or in God not yet manifested and the Word was God here God being the Predicate must have such a Sense as can agree to the Subject Word either most Divine as Spirit for Spiritual John 6.63 and the very term God Gal. 1.10 for the Doctrine of the Gospel and in the 18th Verse of this Chapter John 1. in the same Sense or as Grotius would have it for the Word of God but die former Sense seems far better All things were made by it to wit as a Rule or chief Design According to this Exposition the Word must not be taken for a Person in the first five Verses nor till the Evangelist had said in the sixth and seventh Verses That the Baptist being a Man sent of God was not the Light which was in the Word mention'd that is was not the Bringer or Preacher of the Light for that must be the Sense when a Man is said to be or not to be the Light But that which is denied of John is affirmed of another to whom he bare Witness and that was Jesus as appears afterwards He was the true Light that is Light-Bringer which coming into the World enlightneth every Man And now having laid a sufficient Ground for taking the Light in an improper Sense for Light-Bringer his meaning cannot easily be mistaken when in the fourteenth Verse he calls the same Man The Word that is the personal Word or Great Gospel-Prophet and says That The Word was was made or was born Flesh that is a Frail and Mortal Man not barely a Man for so the Word Flesh does always signify when it 's applied to Man and Christ is now a Man but not Flesh The Word wets made Flesh does not imply that this great Word Prophet or Messenger of that Word did exist before he was born no more than that Phrase in 1 Cor. 15.45 The first Man Adam was made a living Soul proves or implies that Adam did pre-exist before he was made a living Soul Here Sir I interposed and told my Gentleman That this Exposition seem'd very uncouth and strange I had never heard of it before and therefore it was not easy for me to apprehend it much more to receive it He readily consented to what I said and added That it 's a thing which makes Unitarian Interpretations seem forc'd and unnatural namely because we have imbib'd from our Youth and even from our Catechisms contrary Expositions But if they were both propos'd to one that had never heard of either of 'em before he was perswaded the Trinitarian Expositions would seem far more harsh and forc'd nay contradictious and absurd For to instance in this very Text of John what un-prejudiced Man could ever imagine that this Text should be the Ground of the Doctrine of Two Persons in God when nothing is more clear in Scripture and Reason than the Unity of God which necessarily implies the Unity of his Person I have been the larger in setting out this Exposition saith he because I knew it would be difficult for you to apprehend it There is yet another Exposition of this Scripture which is derived from the Great Grotius and may be found in the Brief History of the Vnitarians which I spoke of But I think I have said enough to convince any Man that is not extreamly prejudic'd that this is an obscure Scripture For as every one of these Senses finds some specious Grounds in the Text so never a one of them can clearly answer all the Objections that are levied against them and that of the Trinitarians least of all Therefore your Doctor writes either unlike a Divine or like a Censorious I will not say Malicious Person when he says If God say The Word was God and The Word was made Flesh shall we say not so only because we cannot tell How As if these Sayings were so clear that they admitted no Sense but his which understands by The Word an Eternally pre-existing Person whereas the term Ho Logos in Greek which we translate The Word Speech or Saying is found I suppose forty times in the New Testament taken impersonally for the Gospel or some Speech It 's Three and twenty times so used in this One Evangelist of St. John and for the most part oppos'd to the Person of Christ and on the other hand there is not one Text except this in 1 John 1.14 where it can reasonably signify a Person except we reckon that in 1 John 5.7 for one which I have shew'd to be uncertain and not to have the Authority of other Sacred Scripture As for that in Rev. 19.13 his Name is called The Word of God that is not the same with The Word simply and though it denote a Person yet it 's one whose Vesture was dipt in Blood which shews him to be a Man a glorious Captain Let all rational Men judge Whether it 's more reasonable to take a term in such Sense as it 's almost always to be found in in the same Divine Author than in the Sense of Philo a Jew or Plato a Heathen So that the Vnitarians have far the most reason to cry out of forc'd Interpretations whereby to deprive God of an incommunicable Attribute even his Unity And they defend these Interpretations with such Distinctions as are either not intelligible or which infer absurd Consequences Such are the Distinctions between the Essence and the Divine Persons of the threefold manner of Existence of God of Circumincession or the mutual Penetration or mutual Inexistence of the Divine Persons among themselves of God taken personally and essentially in Scripture of the Name Father sometimes signifying the Father alone sometimes the Father Son and Holy Ghost of the Eternal Generation or God's Eternal begetting a Son equal to himself and yet not another God of the Divine Operations within and without the Essence whence it is that the Internal are attributed to the Persons distinctly the External to them all Three though One only be named of the Incarnation or God the Son not being made a Man but joyning himself to a Man in an Hypostatical Union hence of two Natures in One Person of the Communication of Properties whereby that which is spoken of Christ's Divine Nature is understood to agree to him according to his Humane Nature and vice versâ and many more confounding Distinctions they use without which the Holy Scriptures cannot be understood in the Sense of Trinitarians but I am weary with reciting them Here he broke off and I rose to take my leave of him I told him as the truth is That I had long
taken the Doctrine of the Trinity for granted and began but now to inquire into it therefore could not readily reply to those things he had urged who I perceived was well vers'd in the Point but I would further consider it He thank'd me much for my Friendly Visit and Patience in hearing him and hop'd to see me again shortly upon this Occasion Now Sir give me leave to tell you that though I was much satisfied with your Letter taking it for granted you had given a true Representation of the Socinians yet finding by this Discourse it is far otherwise with them that they have as high a Veneration for the Holy Scripture as we that they use their Reason no more than reasonable Men ought to do viz. for the finding out the true Sense of Scripture that they reject the Doctrine of the Trinity not only because it 's contrary to Reason but more especially because it 's contrary to most plain and clear Scriptures as they conceive that they have no need of those nice Distinctions that we are forc'd to make use of that the Texts you alledge against them as most clear are notwithstanding very doubtful and obscure For these Reasons and others of this Kind I am more dissatisfied in this Matter than I was at first because I perceive by your Letter that nothing convincing can be urged against them even by them that are most Learned such as you are If you can and will please to take upon you the trouble of another Letter to answer these my Scruples and Doubts you will add thereby much more strength to the many Obligations wherein you have already bound SIR Your much obliged Postscript SIR I Had no sooner finish'd my Letter but you were pleased to send me another which is an Answer to a Letter you received from an unknown Gentleman proposing some Objections against your former Letter My Gentleman hearing of it came to give me a Visit and when he had read this your second Letter he made his Exceptions to two or three Passages in it 1. You say By Personality I mean that Distinction whatever it be whereby the Three are distinguished but what that is I do not pretend to determine And if I should guess for it will be but guessing c. Now saith he our Saviour in the Holy Scripture tells us plainly This is Life Eternal that they might know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17.3 Do not these Names and Characters distinguish the one from the other Does any thing distinguish Two Persons more fully than that the one is Father to the other and the other his Son The one prayeth the other is prayed unto The one is not only God but the only true God the other is he whom the Father the only true God hath sent and he that is sent by him is Jesus the Name of that Man who was the Son of the Virgin Mary and the Name Christ signifies that he was anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power for the performance of that Office of saving Men from their Sins whereunto he was sent by the only true God his Father I challenge the Learned Doctor and the Learnedest Doctor at Oxford if there be any more Learned than he to shew me a clearer or plainer Distinction between God and Moses So that Dr. Wallis's not pretending to determine the Distinction between God the Sender and Jesus Christ the Sent but calling that Determination Guessing is in effect to deny the Authority of Christ's Words and to call his clear and full determination of that which we are to know for obtaining the Eternal Life Guessing In his next Paragraph speaking of the same Matter he Complements some Body craving leave to be ignorant of what the Scripture doth not tell him Now if I did not consider the vast power Prejudice and long Prepossession have over Mens Minds I should determine the Doctor to be wilfully blind But it 's plain he bears false Witness against our Lord and the Holy Scripture whilst he says the Scripture doth not tell him what it plainly tells him and every Woman that can but read it The following Paragraph is Of the damnatory SENTENCES in the Athanasian Creed which seem say you to be annexed only to some Generals which the Author thought necessary as the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ To which he excepted thus This Creed being made as it seems to the Learned many hundreds of Years after the Apostles Creed which contains all General Articles of the Christian Faith and two or three hundred Years after the Nicene Creed which explains the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation more particularly the Author of it was very impertinent if he did not design all his Explication to be believed upon pain of Damnation But if that Argument were wanting who can read the Athanasian Creed and find Damnation in the beginning middle and conclusion and can then have the face to deny that the not believing of every Clause is damnable I am sorry to find so much Daubing in Dr. Wallis Then we came to your further explaining the parallel of the Cube where you say it may be said of it that This long Things is a Cube and so This which is broad or this which is high is a Cube But the saith he he that says This long Thing is a Cube doth in so saying say This long Thing is broad and high consequently in Parallel each Person is Three Persons This is all he took notice of at that time for he was in haste And I having considered what he had said before and finding so much Reason and Suitableness to Scripture in it could not tell how to defend these Passages and therefore remit them to you hoping you will honour with a Return SIR Your Whether Trinity or Unity more dangerous THE Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that there is but one God most High they both agree that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that God most High They differ in this that Jesus before he was a Man and from Eternity and also the Holy Ghost as distinct Persons from God the Father were and are each of them as perfectly God most High as the Father so that each of them is Almighty Eternal All-knowing only Wise only Good Infinite c. equal to the Father The Trinitarians assert these things the Unitarians deny them The Question hereupon is Which of these Parties are in the most dangerous Error supposing them to be in Error now the one now the other If the Trinitarians err they worship two Persons in God equal to one that is undoubtedly God that is they worship three Almighty and only Wise Persons which are not distinguishable from three most High Gods If the Unitarians err they avoid that Error of worshipping three Persons which they cannot distinguish from three Gods but their Error lies in holding so strictly to the Oneness of God as well in Person as Essence that they do not acknowledg besides that One two more Persons to be equally God as well as that One whom both Parties agree to be so that is they err in not acknowledging two unnecessary Persons in God but holding that the God and Father of Christ is God alone only necessary and all-sufficient If the Trinitarians err they err against the common Reason of Mankind and most plain and express Scriptures which assert that God is One or that there is but one Supream God and always speak of him as one only Person If the Unitarians err they err against the doubtful Sense of some obscure Texts which more fairly admit of another Interpretation consistent with the Unity of the Person of God In short the Question is Whether the Term God includes only one Person or three Persons one Almighty Person or three distinct Almighty Persons And whether the former or the latter is the more dangerous Error which soever is found an Error FINIS
Doctor Wallis's LETTER Touching the DOCTRINE OF THE Blessed Trinity Answer'd by his FRIEND Honoured SIR I Read your Letter touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity you were pleas'd to send me with a great deal of Attention and Satisfaction and thereupon went to visit a Neighbour of mine one that is reputed a modest Gentleman but one that is also reputed an Vnitarian or Socinian I shew'd him your Letter and made no question but it would Convince him as it had done me that they who denied the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Three distinct Persons to be each of them God in the most perfect Sense of that Term and yet but One God were in a very dangerous and palpable Errour But I found my self greatly mistaken for be presently told me that you had unfairly represented them charging them with an Opinion which they abhor to wit That how clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be or can be to this purpose they will not believe it as being inconsistent with Natural Reason And therefore though they do not think fit to give us a bare-fac'd Rejection of Scripture yet they do and must they tell us put such a forc'd Sense on the words of it be they never so plain as to make them signifie somewhat else He told me he did very much wonder and was sorry for your sake that a Man of such Reputation for Learning and Piety should be guilty of so much uncharitable rashness against a Party of Men which even some of their Adversaries being Judges are both Learned and Pious though Erroneous If it were not their hearty Zeal for one of the great and clear Attributes of God! the God and Father of our Lord Jesus his Unity What saith he to me with a most compassionate Concern should make them expose themselves to all manner of Obloquy Reproach and Detestation of almost all that go under the Name of Christians in these Parts to the utmost of Injuries and Perfections the loss of their Imployments Estates Liberties Countries and some of them of Life it self by the violent Death of Hereticks Neither do they this from an Enthusiastic Heat nor yet upon the account of some indifferent or next to indifferent things in the Worship and Discipline of the Church it 's no less than the Incommunicable Nature of the only Potentate King of Kings and Lord of Lords that they suffer for hoping for their Reward through the Faith of those Promises revealed by Christ our Lord and recorded only in the Holy Scriptures The Authority whereof none have maintained with stronger Reasonings nor are more diligent in searching out the true Sense of them nor are more ready to submit to their Dictates He said moreover That it was too common for even Learned Men to charge die Vnitarians under the Name of Socinians with such Sayings as their Adversaries charge them with by Consequences without reading their Books Nay it is well known at Oxford that one in an Act there disputing for his Degree in Divinity took a Thesis to maintain to the very same purpose with that which your Friend avers against the Socinians but his Learned Opponent having read their Books did so baffle him that it appeared the Respondent had not read them but took his Testimonies from their Adversaries I would fain think otherwise of Dr. Wallis but he gives me here too much cause to suspect him I will appeal to you saith he whether he does not Then he fetch'd me Socinus de Authoritate S. Script and read in pag. 16. Quod enim ad Rationes attinet haec nimis fallax via est in re quae ex Divina patefaction pendeat qualis est Christiana Religion For as to Reasons this is too fallible a way in a Matter which depends on Divine Revelations such as Christian Religion is Next he brought Sclichtingius another eminent Writer that followed Socinus He in his Book Adv. Meifn de SS Trin. p. 68. His Adversary had said That Holy Scripture only is the most perfect Rule of Faith and Life To which Sclichtingius answers That if de rebus clarissimis verbis in Scriptura consignatis c. it be touching Points exprest in Scripture in most clear words so that no Man of a sound Mind can doubt of the Sense of them then he grants it and that chiefly because it is most certain That the Scripture contains nothing that is repugnant to manifest Reason or that implies a real Contradiction But if it treat of obscure Matters every one sees that it cannot be determin'd without Reason which yet is not to be setch'd in as if it could be opposed to Scripture affirming or denying any thing but only to declare whether such a thing be contained in Scripture or not If it appear to be contain'd in it whatsoever Reason may still say in Contradiction it must of necessity be deceived This says my Gentleman is a clear Account of the Socinians Judgment in this Point and is a direct Confutation of what you have read me out of your Doctor 's Letter He added yet another of their great Men Smalcius contr Frant Disp 4. p. 137. Nulla enim est Christianae Religionis particular c. There is not the least part of Christian Religion which doth not accord with Reason and that Opinion which doth not agree with Reason can have no place in Divinity As a small Light to a great one so Reason is not contrary to Holy Scripture Let Frantzius or any body else tells us of any one Sentence of Holy Scripture that is repugnant to Reason and then let Reason be silent in the Church Religion and Holy Scripture hath many things above Reason and therein it highly commends it self but nothing which is contrary to Reason Of these two last Passages the learned and candid Dr. Tennison takes notice in his Book The Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods in Abatement of his Charge against some Socinians for exalting Reason too much Perhaps saith he your Friend Dr. Wallis had read that Book but took no notice of the Quotations in the Margin And if he were put to 't to maintain his Charge viz. That they do and must they tell us put such a farced Sense on the words of it the Scripture be they never so plain as to make them signify somewhat else I am perswaded he would acquit himself no better than the Candidate in Divinity I told you of He was much concerned at the Injuriousness of this Imputation and said He thought there was no sort of Protestants of different Sentiments from the Publick that were so inhumanly dealt with as the Vnitarians for they are so far from denying there are Three Persons in One God and asserting only One in opposition to the plainest Scriptures that they are thorowly perswaded the whole Scripture wherever it is plain is on their side For does not every Text in the whole Bible that speaks clearly of the most High God speak of
People at least if the Athanasian Doctrine be true Divinity Hear O Israel the Lord our God is One Lord And Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all Thine Heart with all thy Soul and with all thy Might Deut. 6.4 5. But how shall we do to love each of Three Persons that are equal with all our Hearts All the poor Labourers with their Wives in the Country and all the Tankard-bearers of London must go to School to Dr. Wallis and he will teach them Metaphysicks and Mathematicks and read a Lecture to them upon the Three Dimensions Long Broad and Tall of One Cube They must love God the Father who is the Length of the Cube with all their Hearts and then God the Son who is the Breadth with all their Hearts too and God the Holy Ghost in the same manner too And if we measure this Cube with the Infallible Rule of Scripture we find that this Long Cube the Father sent this Broad Cube the Son on a Message as far as from Heaven to Earth John 6.38 and anon after sent this tall or deep Cube the Holy Ghost after him Matth. 3.16 in the mean time he abode in Heaven himself Moreover this broad Cube the Son is not commensurable with this long Cube the Father neither Northward nor Southward in Knowledg Mark 13.32 or Power John 14.28 In like manner this tall Cube the Holy Ghost receives of this long and broad Cube to make him taller and deeper John 16.14 I fancy the poor People would apprehend it better by such a Resemblance as this Suppose one Woman Mary to be married to Three Men at once Peter James and John I Mary take thee Peter James and John to be my wedded Husband c. Here are indeed Three Persons but only One Husband the Husbandhood is but One though the Persons are Three each of which is Husband to Mary and Mary is obliged by the Contract of Marriage to pay Conjugal Affection and Duty to each of them Methinks this is a more familiar parallel than that of a Cube I do the rather make use of this Similitude because the Learned and Famous Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity tells us We must allow the Divine Persons to be real substantial Beings Pag. 47. And in Pag. 67. he saith The Father feels himself to be the Father and not the Son nor the Holy Ghost The Son in like manner feels himself to be the Son and not the Father nor Holy Ghost and so the Holy Ghost As James feels himself to be James and not Peter nor John which proves them to be distinst Persons Thus Dr. Wallis may see that his Notions concerning the Trinity are old fashion'd Dr. Sherlock's are of the new Mode But if he desires to hare his Resemblances further displayed I am told he may find them sufficiently expos'd in a Book written in French titled Le Nouveau Visionaire against M. Jurieu Here I did confess indeed that Dr. Sherlock's Explanation of the Distinction of Persons was far more clear and full than yours But I had thought the Orthodox would not hare granted so much and so it seems did you too By this time we came near the end of your Letter in which he said there were still the same Calumnies over and over Only he took notice of one Text of Scripture you insert which you had not before namely John 1.1 14. The Word was God and The Word was made Flesh This saith he I confess were to the purpose if by the term The Word could be meant nothing else but a Pre-existing Person and by the term God nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and if taking those terms in those Senses did not make St. John write Nonsense and if by Flesh could be meant nothing but a Man how excellent soever and not a Mortal Man subject to Infirmities But all these things are otherwise For 1. The Ancient Orthodox Sense at the Council of Nice and afterwards for some Centuries was this In the beginning of the World or before all Worlds the Son of God did exist and that Son was with God his Father and that Son was very God of very God not numerically but specifically as Peter and Paul are of the same Substance Now this Opinion was rejected by the Schoolmen as introducing two Gods And the Modern Orthodox understand it thus In the beginning before all Worlds or from Eternity the Son a distinct Person did exist and that Son was with God his Father and the Son was that God with whom he was But if they be tied to take the terms in the sense of their Opinion they must expound thus The Son was with God that is with the Father himself and the Holy Ghost and the Son was the Father Son and Holy Ghost Or according to Dr. Wallis the Breadth of the Cube was with the Length Breadth and Depth of the same Cube and the Breadth was the Cube And for the fourteenth Verse they say not the Word or Son was made Flesh but God the Son by the Holy Ghost coming upon the blessed Virgin and the Power of the most High overshadowing her was united to a Human Body and Soul The Arian Sense you may see in a late Tract entituled A Vindication of the Vnitarians That God first made a Super-Angelical Being call'd the Son and through that Son and by the Holy Ghost fram'd this World and Man within it This Being was with God and was an Angelical God and this Son call'd The Word became Incarnate The Socinian Sense was thus In the beginning of the Gospel Mark 1.1 was Jesus called the Word because he was the prime and chief Expounder and Minister of the Gospel and this Word was with God ascended into Heaven John 3.13 and descended thence and being anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power being thus sanctified and sew into the World was far more deservedly called the Son of God and God then those among the Jews to whom the Word of God came who yet were called Gods John 10.35 36. or than that Angel who appeared to Manoch Judg. 13.22 And the Evangelist having said in Vers 12. that this true Light as well as Word or Light-Bringer gave Power to those that believed in him to be the Sons of God he says in Vers 14. that He the Word was himself as well as they a Mortal and Frail Man The Sense of Paul Bishop of Antioch An. 262. as I have read somewhere in Melancthon and the Sense of some in our Days was That this term Beginning must be taken for the beginning of the World and the term The Word being the Subject of the History in the very Front of it must be taken properly and by way of eminence for the Gospel Word But a Word according to Aristotle being twofold Internal in the Mind and External in the Speech the Word here spoken of must mean the Internal Word of God by way