is not there meant This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. He who is the First-born of every Creature is the same who shed his Blood ver 14. for the Redemption of Men as I noted before Now he who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men can be no other but Jesus Christ Man but this very Jesus Christ Man is there stiled the First-born of every Creature by whom all things were created c. as we translate the Words Therefore this cannot be meant of the Creation of the World which is the Work of God not of a Man Yes you 'l say for He is God as well as Man and therefore may be said to have created the World I answer Where have you found in Scripture that Christ is God as well as Man I know He is called Man in the Writings of the New Testament but I could never find him there stiled God-Man as He should have often been if He was both Does the Apostle make a distinction between his two Natures does he say we have Redemption thrô his Blood as He is a Man and that He is the First-born of every Creature and has created all Things as He is God Not at all but only tells us That the same Jesus Christ in whom we have redemption thrô his Blood is the First-born of every Creature and by whom all Things were created c. Why should we contrive a distinction of our own when the Apostle makes none But 2. I cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ since we have no Warrant from Scripture for it I mean that the Scripture does never say in express Words that Christ has created Heaven and Earth which is the proper Description of the Old Creation or of the Creation strictly and properly so called and the Description usual in Scripture when it speaks of that Creation as it is said that God the Father of Christ has I do observe so great a difference between the Expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning the Creation of the World by God and those Expressions which are supposed to import the same Creation by Christ that I cannot forbear alledging some places concerning both I omit those of the Old Testament which are so many and will insist only upon some taken out of the New God saith St. Paul Acts 17. 24. that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands And Acts 4. 11. Lord thou art God which hast made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all that in them is Acts 14. 15. We preach unto you that ye should turn from these Vanities unto the Living God which made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all things that are therein And Rev. 14. 7. Fear God and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Water This is the true and proper Description of the Creation of the World Were it ascribed to Christ in such express Terms we could not doubt that Christ had created the World which if the Apostles had believed they would undoubtedly have taught us so great a Truth and that both in express and plain Terms and often No Christ is never said to have created Heaven and Earth the Sea and all that is therein In this very place the Apostle does not say that the First-born created Heaven and Earth but All things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and the All Things of which he speaketh he limiteth to all Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers visible and invisible which shall be explained hereafter This second Reflection that this Text contains not the proper Description of the Creation of the World used in Scripture being added to the foregoing that this Context speaks of Christ as Man ought to perswade any unprejudiced Man that the Creation of the World is not here attributed to Christ The Primitive Christians were so far from believing that Christ created the World that as the Father only is called God in the Apostles Creed so He only is stiled Maker of Heaven and Earth 3. As the Epistle to the Galatians is an excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans so the Epistle to the Ephesians must be made use of for the right understanding of the Epistle to the Colossians The Design and Scope of those two Epistles is the same so that we must look into the Epistle to the Ephesians to find out the true Sense of this controverted Text in the Colossians Now he that seriously compares these two Epistles with one another will find that Coloss 1. 15 16 17 18. must be interpreted by Ephes 1. 20 21 22. and Ephes 1. 10. is a true Commentary on Coloss 1. 20. Coloss 1. 18. runs thus And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence To which answers part of the 22d verse in the Ephesians in these Words And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Col. 1. 15 16 17. runs thus Who is the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature for by him were all things created as we translate the Word that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all things and by him all things consist To these Verses do answer the 20 21 and part of the 22d verse of Chap. 1. to the Ephesians in these Words He God raised him from the dead and set him at his own right Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and Might and Dominion and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come and hath put all things under his Feet Now in the Epistle to the Ephesians we see there is not the least intimation of the Creation ascribed to Christ but only of his exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and all earthly Powers which plainly shows that the Apostle meant not the Creation of the World in the forecited Verses of the Epistle to the Colossians Nay were it so he would speak Non-sense In the Epistle to the Colossians he would tell us that Christ has created all the Orders of Angels the visible and invisible Thrones c. which plainly shows that He is thereby as far above them as the Creator is above his Creatures but in the Epistle to the Ephesians he would tell us that Christ has been exalted far above all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Thrones and Powers which undeniably proves that He was not so before Now what is a Contradiction if this be not to say that Christ created them and that the Father set him far above them We must therefore of necessity explain
the Context of the Colossians by that of the Ephesians and put such a Sense upon it as imports no true and proper Creation 4. Coloss 1. 19 20. being interpreted by Ephes 1. 10. is a Confirmation of what I have said hitherto The former Coloss 1. 19 20. runs thus For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made Peace through the Blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Earth or things in Heaven To which answers the other Text Eph. 2. 10. in these Words That in the Dispensation of the fulness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in Heaven and which are in Earth even in him No Man I hope will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistle to the Colossians which we render to Reconcile ought to be interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text of the Ephesians which signifies to gather together in one or to sum up So that the meaning of both places is this that it pleased God in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head even Christ whom he set up Lord and King over them Now this does perfectly agree with what St. Paul says to the Ephesians concerning Christ's exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and his being Head of the Church for his Argument runs thus God has exalted Christ above all the Orders of Angels and made him Head of the Church for he had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ But if the Text of the Epistle to the Colossians is meant of the Creation of the World this will be perfect Non-sense for thus it ought to run Christ has created all Orders of Angels and all Powers on Earth and was made Head of the Church for God had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ. No Man in the World can speak greater Non-sense than this would be were the Creation of the World ascribed to Christ in the controverted Text. I desire the Author to reconcile his explication of these Words that in all things he might have the preeminence with what follows That is says he at p. 157. that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the dead So the whole Argument according to the Author must run thus Christ was the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the Dead for God was pleased in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under Christ as their Head Could any thing be said more absurd and ridiculous The Author's Skill in Scripture and Reason is I think alike 2. Having thus proved that the Old Creation or the Creation properly so called is not ascribed to Christ in this Context of the Colossians I come now to explain its true Sense as clearly as possibly I can Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature The meaning of these last Words is not that Christ was begotten before all Creatures as this Author would have it but that He is the Lord and King of every Intelligent Creature in Allusion to the First-born of a Family who is Heir of all Things This I prove by the 17 and 18th Verses Ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And He is before all things is the Explication of the First-born of every Creature and signifies not that He is before all Creatures in order of time but of Dignity and Power being by God set over all the Orders of Angels and over the Church as their Head and King But if you don't rest satisfied with this parallel Place the 18th Verse will afford an undeniable proof of what I say There you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rightly rendred in our Bibles That in all things He might have the Preeminence both in Heaven and in Earth among Angels and in the Church I say now these last Words ought to be the Explication of the two before-mentioned Expressions to be the First-born of every Creature and to be before all Things ought to be interpreted by his having the Praeeminence in all Things so that He is the First-born of every Creature is this He hath the Preeminence over every Creature Thus by the Context it self we find out the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the English we translate First-born of every Creature And thus too are these Words interpreted by the principal Critics among the Orthodox as they are called Gomarus Camero Piscator Drusius Vorstius Davenant Dally Grotius for they will have him also to be Orthodox Hammond I come now to the next Verse For by him were all Things created I have fully proved they cannot be understood of the Old Creation the Creation of Heaven and Earth and the Sea and of the Things in them which is the Creation properly so called therefore to reconcile this Verse with the foregoing and with the Words before cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians He God set Him at his own Right-Hand far above all Principality and Power and every Name that is named The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Created ought to be rendred Modelled Disposed or Reformed into a new Order So that the Sense will run thus Christ is the Lord of every Creature for by him are all both Visible and Invisible Creatures even all Men and Angels Modelled or Disposed into a new Order being subjected to Him and His Commands As for Angels all the Orders of them whether they be Thrones or Dominions none of them are exempted from his Power and Authority he rules over them which is the meaning of Ver. 17. and they are all as it were compacted in one Body under his Conduct as for Men as He is the Beginning and the First-born from the Dead so He was also made Head of the Church his Body so that in all things He has the Preeminence He rules in Heaven and on Earth over Angels and over the Church which is the Sense of Ver. 18. This I hope makes a clear Sense agreeable to the whole Context and to the Text in the Ephesians I observe that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or He is before all Things is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Or He is the First-born of every Creature So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and by him all Things consist or are compacted into one Body ought to be the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by him were all Things not created as 't is rendred in the English but Modelled or Reformed I know not why Dr. Sherlock has called this a Socinian Explication as if it were devised by them to serve their Hypothesis the truth is the
A DEFENCE OF THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS Against Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER IN HIS VINDICATION OF THE Holy Trinity LONDON Printed in the Year M. DC XCI OBSERVATIONS On Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER TO THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS CHAP. I. Containing some General Observations WHen I see Men arguing against the Trinity methinks I hear a Papist inveighing against Luther or Calvin for questioning the Truth of Transubstantiation Indeed it appears to me very strange that Protestants should stand to the Principles of the Reformation only when they serve their turn and that they should be ready to part with them when they are not otherways able to defend a particular Opinion It cannot be denied that the Christian Church in succeeding Ages fell short of her first Purity in respect of Doctrine as well as Manners Now what other Remedy could be applied to such a Depravation than a sincere and careful Examination of the Points suspected of Falshood according to Reason and Scripture This proved so effectual a Course that Transubstantiation and some other Canonized Opinions were found to be meer Human Inventions and accordingly were rejected as contrary to the two above-mentioned Rules And who can assure us that the Reformation left no Error behind and that the Trinity is such an Opinion as ought neither to be doubted of nor to be reformed Shall we trust Men barely on their Word Or was it impossible that the Trinity should creep into the Church as well as several other false Opinions Our Principles therefore allow us to examine it and to inquire whether it be founded on undeniable Arguments especially being of such a nature that it contradicts Reason and by confession of all Trinitarians is no where set down in Holy Scripture in express Words Why should Men call us Hereticks and Libertines because we inquire after Truth and will have our Faith built upon a solid Foundation Was the Reformation so proper to Luther and Calvin c. that it ought no more to be thought of Or were those Reformers so infallible that they purged the Church from all Errors This I think would be an hard matter to prove Let therefore no Protestant be scandalized if having some Scruples about the Trinity we endeavour to free our selves from them by a sincere inquiry into the Grounds of it I begin with Reason and find that the belief of a Trinity does contradict it as much as Transubstantiation According to Transubstantiation the same Numerical Body may be in a Million of different places at the same time According to the Trinity three Divine Persons that is to say three Intelligent Infinite Beings each of which is God make but one God I cannot believe the First because Reason teaches me that one Numerical Body can occupy or be in but one place at one time I cannot believe the other because Reason tells me that Three are Three and not One and that it implies no less a Contradiction that Three Divine Persons should be but One God than that one Body be a Million Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions I come in the second place to examine Whether the Trinity be well grounded in Scripture Indeed Three are there mentioned the Father Son and Holy Ghost but how came Men to fancy that they Three are but One God Who taught 'em so Does the Holy Scripture plainly say that there is but one God yet there are Three Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead One would think indeed that such a Mystery and so necessary in order to Salvation were set down in Scripture in plain or express Words But the Scripture is perfectly silent about it there is not a Word to be found in the Bible of Three Hypostases or Persons in the Godhead The Father is in a thousand places called God distinctly from the Son nay the only true God The Holy Ghost is no where stiled God And the Son is so called in a few places as it were by the way and in such manner as plainly shows that the Title God is bestowed on him upon the same account as upon Moses even because of the Dignity and Power to which he was exalted by the Father's Liberality Indeed it can have no other meaning The Holy Scripture teaches us that there is but one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ But if so How can the Son be that one God the Father Of this we are sure by the whole tenor of the Gospel that Christ was a Man The Gospel is nothing else but the History of Christ's Birth Life Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven Who would have thought that a Man should be accounted the Supream God without any such intimation from Scripture nay against the whole current of it We find in the Gospel that there is one God the Father of our Lord Christ one Son of God sent into the World to be the Revealer of his Father's Will and a Mediator between God and Man even Christ and one Holy Ghost who distributes and works all sorts of Miraculous Gifts for the confirmation of the Gospel The Father of Christ is the One true God Christ is only his Minister and Interpreter the Holy Ghost whether it be God's Power or his ministring Angel or Angels the Instrument which he makes use of to work Miracles None certainly but Men blinded or prejudiced could think that God's Minister and Ambassador were God himself and that two so opposite Beings as God and Christ should be one and the same Thing It is just as if one should say there is one King William and one Vice-Roy in Ireland the Lord Sidney and the Vice-Roy is that one King William Indeed this is a Doctrine so unreasonable and contradictions and so opposite to Holy Scripture that I think had there been no such thing as Platonick Philosophy the Trinity should never have been heard of I desire therefore the Trinitarians to abate a little of their Confidence Let them examine with an unprejudiced Mind upon what Foundations they build the belief of a Trinity and they will soon perceive how weak and frail it is Let them at last confess that the Scripture does not threaten eternal Damnation to those who disbelieve a Trinity And then if themselves won't part with their darling Opinion let them abstain from persecuting others Thirdly Trinitarians lay so much stress upon the Tradition of the Church concerning the Trinity that I think it worth while to undeceive them by shewing that there never was so great a Variation in the Church as about this Point I shall divide into three Periods all the Ages of the Church The First reaches to the Council of Nice The Second from the Council of Nice to the Schoolmen And the Third from the Schoolmen to our time And one that is never so little acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the three first Centuries cannot deny
this ought to be the Interpretation of this Passage if the Author's Assertion be true Now I think the true meaning of this Phrase the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity should be this the Father is the first God as the Son is the second God and the Holy Ghost the third God This Author may say so if he pleases I shan't contradict him for that 's the Consequence that flows naturally from his Principles But I shall deny that the Father may be called the God of Christ if Christ be the supream God as well as his Father how can the supream God have a God over him The term God relates only to Creatures God cannot be said to be the God of any but Creatures this common Sense and the whole Current of Scripture teaches Yes you 'l say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I answer therefore you may in your Hypothesis call him the first God but by no means the God of the Son or Spirit to whom He is not Superiour in Power Authority or other Divine Attribute The Author speaks an unintelligible Jargon in his following Paragraph which I think there is no need to insist on Therefore I shall here leave it to every rational Man to judge whether we ought to rest satisfied with such a trifling Answer to the propounded Objection The second Objection p. 155. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without Blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that He is the Creature the Possession the Servant and the Subject of God To this the Author answers thus That Christ is called a Creature he proves because He is the First-born of every Creature Col. 1. 15. But here he should have remembred his Absolutely and without Restriction for Christ is so the First-born of every Creature that He is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature Surely an absurd Consequence I say on the contrary Christ is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore a Creature Let us see which of us is in the right Every one may plainly see that when St. Paul calls Christ the Image of the Invisible God he means that He is a Visible Image of an Invisible God and therefore he added the Epithet Invisible which otherways had been useless not to say ridiculous For then the Sense of the Apostle's Expression must be this Christ is the Invisible Image of the Invisible God Now the Nature of an Image is to be visible to every ones Eye or else it is no Image But if Christ is called the Image of the Invisible God because He is the second Person of the Trinity this second Person being as Invisible as the first it follows that Christ is an Image of God as Invisible as the Original which is ridiculous No no the Man Christ is the Image of the Invisible God by reason of his unspotted Holiness and of the supream Power and Authority conferred on him He is the Brightness of God's Glory and the express Image of his Person but such an Image as was Visible while He lived upon Earth and may now be seen of all the Inhabitants of Heaven Besides it does plainly appear by the Context that St. Paul calls Jesus Christ Man the Image of the Invisible God Who the Father saith he at Ver. 13. has delivered us from the Power of Darkness and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Ver. 14. In whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood even the forgiveness of Sins Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature There you see that He who is the Image of the Invisible God is that dear Son in whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood but He who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men must be Jesus Christ Man therefore Jesus Christ Man is the Image of the Invisible God Now let any unprejudiced Man judge which of these two Consequences is right either this of the Author Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore no Creature or mine Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore a Creature He goes on He is so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies that by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and He is before all things which is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Begotten before the whole Creation and therefore no part of the Creation and by him all things consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things were not only made by him but have their Subsistence in him Now let us suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to signify born before all Creatures I deny that therefore Himself is no part of the Creation The plain meaning of born before all Creatures is that Christ was born before any other Creature As these Words Adam was born before all Men do not signify that he is no Creature or no Man but only that he was the first Man created Therefore I say supposing that these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are well translated by born before all Creatures I may with great reason draw a Consequence contrary to the Author's thus Christ is born before all Creatures therefore He is part of the Creation Himself The Author is very unhappy at drawing Consequences Here is another as false as the former That this does not relate to the New Creation as the Socinians would have it is very plain For 1. In this Sense Christ if He were a meer Man was not the First-born of every New Creature For I hope there were a great many New Creatures that is truly Good and Pious Men before Christ was born of his Virgin Mother What supposing the New Creation by the Gospel is here meant can't Christ as a meer Man be the First-born of every New-Creature being the Messias the Author and first Preacher of the Gospel the Head of the Church the Fountain from which the Holiness of every New Evangelical Creature does spring In a Word being the Author of this New Evangelical Creation can't He also be the First-born of every New Evangelical Creature Those Socinians that he speaks of by the New-Creation mean nothing else but the New-Creation wrought by Christ and his Gospel and therefore either this Author imposes on them or is not fully acquainted with their Opinions or has no great Skill in Reasoning I see the Author does not understand the above-cited place Therefore I think it worth while to explain it the rather because 't is one of the strongest Holds of the Trinitarians and to show that instead of favouring their Opinion it overthrows it In order thereunto 1. I will prove that the Old Creation that is the Creation of the World is not intended in that Text. 2. I will set down what I take to be the true Sense of that whole Context 1. That the Creation of the World
Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but one Person But here he takes for granted that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity contrary to the Apostle who speaks only of the Person of God not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son If the Person of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image is only the Person of the Father then the Person of the Father only at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets Ver. 1. for Ver. 2. the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only is not the true God in the Author's Hypothesis therefore he must conclude that the true God spake not to the Fathers which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle who says that God undoubtedly the true God spake to the Fathers Farther by God who spake to the Fathers we must understand either Father Son and Holy Ghost or the Father only If Father Son and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers it could not be here said that Christ is the Image of that God's Person for he is Three Persons If the Father only spake to the Fathers then the Father only is the true God for the true God spake to the Fathers also then God is but one Person Which are the things we contend for He goes on As for his Singular Pronouns I Thou c. They prove indeed that there is but one God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons in all Languages When therefore they are applied to God they show that he is a Singular that is but one Person unless they will say that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others but this is false for being written to Men the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them are the same as in all other Languages and otherways the Scripture would not be given us to instruct us but to pervert and deceive us 5. The fifth Argument Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed He answers Had not the Son been God and also the Holy Ghost they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than the Form of Baptism which is the Original of the Apostles Creed But why not Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God since the Gospel was preached by the One and confirmed by the Other why may not they be put into the Creed as well as the Catholic Church by whom the Gospel is to be believed If our Creed only mentioned God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian therefore a Christian Creed as such must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thô they are not Gods or God A Christian as such must profess in his Creed that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty but also in his Son Jesus Christ who was sent by him to preach the Gospel and in the Holy Ghost by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man He adds That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church 'T is plain our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks And whereas he says there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed 't is very marvellous to me that there should be no reason to express an Article which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed but I say had the Article been necessary or so much as true the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed to make room for a necessary Article an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church and other Articles there expressed Besides what Inlargement would it have been what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory to have added twice this single and short Word God And in God the Son Jesus Christ our Lord c. I believe in God the Holy Ghost c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days It is plain therefore that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost no other but that they believed it not But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 23 24. was it too hot or to heavy for him Lastly he says It needed not to be added because the Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man But must he that is the Son of God be also by Nature God St. Luke says of Adam who was the Son of God Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God in the Language of Scripture Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying that the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man If one had leisure there might be Answers enow made to it all that I say is I pray prove it 6. The Historian concludes That The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible On the contrary our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge 1. It ridicules the Scriptures 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion 4. It justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries If it be so my Masters the Socinians are ill Men indeed but let us do them this Common Right to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment CHAP. VII 1. THE First pretence is That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired He instances in some Expositions of Scripture which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians For Example The Historian in answer to Psal 45. 6 7. which the Apostle at Heb. 1. 8. applies to Christ says In the Hebrew and in the Greek
that we should explain one obscure place by a thousand that are plain and easy 3. I come now to assign the true Sense of this famous Context Vers 1 2. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God PARAPHRASE When Jesus who is called the Word because he was the Messenger and Preacher of God's Will and Word and as it were the Mouth by which God pronounced his Oracles began to preach the Gospel he was intimate to the most secret Counsels of God like one who is in the very Bosom of his Father and he was in the form of God and like God by reason of the Glory and Majesty that did shine in him 1. That the Man Jesus may be called the Word or the Word of God no Body will deny who reads Rev. 19. 13. where Jesus is thus described He was clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood and his Name is called The Word of God He who is here called the Word of God who is clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood must be the Man Jesus Our Lord calls himself the Way because he teaches us the way to Salvation and the Light in this very Chapter because he is the bringer of it therefore why not also the Word of God because he was the Revealer Bringer and first Preacher of it 2. It appears by the second Verse that the Evangelist did not design to make a real Distinction between to be in the beginning and to be with God for what was distinctly spoken in the first Verse is put together in the second thus The same was in the beginning with God In effect the meaning of the Apostle is not that Christ was when he began to enter upon his Prophetick Office this would be no great wonder but that when he began to preach the Doctrine of the Gospel he was admitted into the most intimate Counsels of God or made partaker of his most secret Will This I think to be the reason of the Repetition contained in the second Verse besides that we may observe that Repetitions are very frequent throughout the whole Gospel of St. John and more used in that Book than in any other of the New Testament Thus when the same Apostle says 1 John 1. 1. That which was from the beginning which we have heard c. he does not pretend really to distinguish those two things and to say that the Gospel was in the beginning of the Gospel but that what he had seen and heard of the Gospel from the beginning of it that he declared unto Men. 3. I have proved before that In the beginning cannot signify the beginning of the World but that it is here used for the beginning of the Gospel the place last quoted and several others do sufficiently prove 4. To be with God and to be in the Bosom of the Father at ver 18. are equivalent Terms If therefore we know the true Sense of the latter Expression we shall have a right understanding of the former The Words at ver 18. run thus No Man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father he has declared him Now to see God in St. John's Stile is to know the Decrees and Will of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel Those words therefore ought to be thus paraphrased No Man knew at any time the Will and Decrees of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel the beloved Son of God who was admitted into his most secret Counsels has fully discovered them to us The Word Only-begotten is put here for Beloved by way of Excellence and so it is used very often both in Profane and Sacred Authors And to be in the Bosom of the Father is not here an Interpretation of Only-begotten that is Best-Beloved but it is brought in as the reason of the full knowledg that Christ had of God's Will and of the discovery he made of it Christ saith our Evangelist here has fully declared the Will and Counsels of God to us How so Because he was intimate and admitted to the most secret and hidden Counsels of God which he expresses by the Son 's being in the Bosom of the Father This is then the true Sense of this Phrase The Word was with God viz. God discovered to him the whole extent of his Will he kept nothing secret from him he filled him up with the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg 5. We may easily understand the true meaning of the Word was God if we compare them with Phil. 2. 6. where Christ is said to be in the form of God and equal with God or rather like God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred Christ was in the form of God and like God by reason of the Power and Authority bestowed upon him whereby he wrought all sorts of Miracles raising the Dead curing the Lame restoring sight to the Blind stilling the Winds and the Sea c. This we may apply to the words of St. John Jesus was not only in the Bosom of God Partaker of his most secret Counsels but he was besides invested with such Authority and Power as made him like God So that Christ is by St. John called God or rather a God by reason of that Power and Authortiy whereby he became in some manner like unto the true and most High God But this Appellation does no more prove him to be the true and most High God than Solomon or the Judges in the Psalms will be the True God because this Name God is given to them Psal 82. 6. and 45. 6. Ver. 3. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made PARAPHRASE All things necessary to the Propagation of the Gospel were performed by him the Author and first Preacher of it And without his Direction there was not any thing performed that was performed That this relates not to the Creation of the World but to the Dispensation of the Gospel is very plain from the following words In him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men c. In these words the Evangelist teaches us how all things were made by Christ because in him was the Life and Light of Men which all Men may discern to be spoken of the Gospel by him taught which is the Light of Men and their Life as it leads them to Eternal Life Ver. 10 11. He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not He came unto his own and his own received him not PARAPHRASE He was conversing among Men to teach them the way to Salvation some of them were reclaimed by him but the greater part rejected him He was sent to his own Brethren but most of them would not receive him It does sufficiently appear by these words and the World knew him not that the Apostle speaks only of
Men who only are capable of knowing not of this visible World As indeed the 11th Verse is a plain Explication of Verse 10. St. John expresses in this Chapter the same thing several ways He was in the World He came unto his own The Light shined in Darkness these are equivalent Expressions So also The World knew him not His own received him not the Darkness comprehended it not signify one and the same thing Thus the World was made by him is explained at Ver. 12. thus But as many as received him to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God and by Verse 4 and 9. So that in all this there was no Intention to saythat the Old Creation was the work of Je sus Christ CHAP. VIII HIS second Charge is That Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable pag. 231. because if Christ were no more than a meer Man the Anti-type should fall very short of the Types contained in the Old Testament The Tabernacle and Temple says he was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence and was so contrived as to be the Figure both of Heaven and Earth for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven But we must all confess that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence to dwell in an House made with Hands had it not prefigured something more Divine and Mysterious The Temple then was a Figure and we must inquire what it was the Figure of Now a Typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signify nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of some thing that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence He goes on and applies this to Christ who at John 2. 19. calls his Body a Temple which says our Author was that in Truth and Reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's Presence on Earth which he explains of his being personally united to Christ's Humane Nature But if Christ be not Incarnate adds he if the Divine Word be not personally united to the Humane Nature the Body of Christ is but a figurative Temple as the Temple at Jerusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor in speech I do not remember I ever saw so much trifling so seriously urged in a weighty Question but I have undertaken the drudgery of making Reflections on it and therefore will consider what he has offered 1. That the Temple was a Figure both of Heaven and Earth I am content to admit the Apostle to the Hebrews may be interpreted to that purpose But that it was also a Type of Christ's Body we have no colour from Scripture to affirm it and the Author has offer'd no other ground for it but his own wandring Fancy The Author to the Hebrews who inlarges upon the Temple does not give the least Intimation of this why then should we contrive Types and Figures of our own without any reason for it If this be allowed we may make Types of any thing and increase Figures to an infinite Number If the Author is in love with cold and groundless Allegories every Body is not of his Mind and therefore he should keep them to himself But why should the Temple be a Figure of Christ's Body rather than the Ark God is said all over the Old Testament to dwell between the Cherubims it was the proper Seat of God where he gave forth his Oracles and made his Glory to appear by affording sensible Signs of his Presence If therefore such Allegories had any Signification of future Times and Things it would be more probable that the Ark was a Type of Christ's Body than the Temple the rather because we know already by a Divine Testimony that the Temple was a Figure of some-thing else But he will say that Christ calls his Body a Temple What then so St. Paul calls the Corinthians Ye are says he the Temple of God Was the Temple at Jerusalem a Figure or Type of the Bodies of the Corinthians Or does our Saviour say that he calls his Body a Temple because it was the Anti-type of the Temple of the Jews 2. Tho the Temple were not a Figure of Christ's Body yet it would be no unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God to dwell in an House made with Hands to appoint this the place of his Worship c. which our Author thinks to be inexplicable without admitting his Doctrine of the Trinity Who knows not that the Israelites were given to Idolatry and that the pompous way of Worship used among the neighbouring Nations agreed so much to their Fancies that it was necessary to comply with them in this thing that they might be kept from worshipping other Gods and the current of Idolatry be restrained Thus God in his infinite Wisdom thought fit to set up among his People a carnal and sensible Worship and to appoint an House where he would dwell after a particular Manner and afford visible Symbols of his Presence All this he did to accommodate himself to the gross genius of the Israelites and to perswade them to forsake Idols and to acknowledg no other God but himself This was the true reason of the Temple of God's dwelling there and the Glory with which it was sometimes filled and to affirm that all was done to prefigure Christ's Body is a Fancy which the Author might better have kept to himself 3. But suppose the Temple was a Type of Christ's Body yet there is no need God should be incarnate in Christ's Body to answer that Type The Scriptures tell us God was with Christ and in Christ which I hope might be done without an Incarnation or Personal Union as he was in the Temple As God spake in the Temple so he spake in and by Christ But besides all this Christ was greater than the Temple because God was always present with him which cannot be said of the Temple where the Signs of God's Presence were not always visible God's Dwelling in Christ was always conspicuous by the Oracles which he delivered and the Miracles he wrought But he objects a place of Scripture To this says he St. John plainly alludes The Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tabernacled amongst us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem by his dwelling Personally in Humane Nature This Argument or rather Congruity is grounded on two false Suppositions The first is that The Word was made Flesh