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
and an Holy Spirit different from both Nay we must not think that the very express Words at Mat. 24. 36. the Father only do indeed signify the Father only but the Father the Son and another Person even thô the Son is there expresly said not to know the Day and Hour of Judgment and that the Father only knows it These are some of the Illuminations with which our Author and his Party has blest the World He goes on and says the Dispute must end here whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost for if so when the Father is said to be the only true God and the one God the Son and Holy Spirit are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead I answer the Dispute may be soon ended for when the Father is called the one God and the only true God even in those places where the Son is mentioned This alone is a clear Demonstration that the Scripture does not teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost Were the Son and Holy Ghost God with the Father the Prayer of our Lord at John 17. 1 2 3 c. must have been thus framed This is Life Eternal to know Thee Father and Me and the Holy Ghost to be the only true God And Paul to the Corinthians should have said But to us there is but one God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But this is the Language of Scripture no where Pag. 186. His other Texts saith our Author prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God not that Christ is not one God with the Father Let us hear the Texts themselves 1 Cor. 15. 24. Then cometh the end when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father James 3. 9. Therewith bless we God even the Father Rom. 15. 6. That ye may with one Mind and one Mouth glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is an affected blindness and perverseness not to discern and own that in these Texts God even the Father is as much as to say God that is to say the Father No plainer or more express Words could be used by a Socinian or other Vnitarian to declare his Notion of the Unity of God What hope is there of convincing those with whom the Father only shall not signify the Father only And again God that is to say the Father shall be two others besides the Father CHAP. V. THE next Argument If Christ were indeed God as well as Man or as Trinitarians speak God the Son Incarnate it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature as a Director and Guide for what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did Personally dwell To this he answers The account of this is plain and short for the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra what the Father does that the Son does and that the Holy Ghost does by one Individual Act. But the Sanctification of all Creatures and such is the Human Nature of Christ is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit But if the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power the Sanctification of Christ's Human Nature or of any other Creature can by no means be peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost why to the Holy Ghost rather than to the Father or than to the Divine Word or Son dwelling as they say after a peculiar manner in Christ But the matter is plain the Holy Ghost is the Power of God of which Christ stood in need for performing the Will and Works of the Father and which God bestowed on him for that very end but if Christ had been indeed God there had been no need he should receive any such Gift for as God he would have had it in his own Person Our Author adds He might as well have asked why the Sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Spirit But the Historian had no reason to ask such a Question for no one pretends that the Church is God or is Personally united either to the Father or Son as Trinitarians say the Human Nature of Christ is It is after the same slight and insignificant manner that he answers the next Argument even this The Miracles of Christ are attributed always either to the Father or the Holy Spirit dwelling in him He answers pag. 188. Father Son and Holy Spirit act together I say now supposing this which he says yet if Christ were God why should we never ascribe his Miracles to himself why always to the Father or to the Holy Spirit which is the Power of the Father why has he concealed a matter of so great importance to be known Or why do we seek to make him greater than he ever said he was Besides in the very Texts in which he ascribes the Miracles he did to the Father or the Spirit and Power of the Father dwelling in him I say in those very Texts he denies that he doth them himself which is directly contrary to what our Author affirms that the pretended three Divine Persons have but one Energy and act by one Individual Act. If that were so our Saviour could not have said John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works Let us hear the account which St. Peter gives Acts 10. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed with the Devil for God was with him Here St. Peter teaches that Christ wrought all sorts of Miracles not because as Trinitarians say he was God but because God was with him i. e. God helped and assisted him by anointing him with the Holy Ghost and with Power The next Argument is Had our Lord Christ been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament in which he is promised would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses the Servant and Missionary of God on whom God's Spirit should rest The Historian by a particular Induction of Texts shews this to be the Character of Christ in the Prophecies of the Old Testament Our Author thinks fit to answer this Objection in another place I come now to his Answers which he makes to the Arguments against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost The First Argument in the History is this The Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are in Scripture spoken of as one and the same thing Our Author answers at pag. 189. It is as easy to prove that the Father and Son are no Persons as that the Holy Spirit is none But if he can make good this Assertion erit mihi magnus Apollo The Father has in the New Testament
Dead comforts convinces sanctifies and dwells in the Church Thus we do not prove that the Holy Ghost is no Person only because Personal Acts are sometimes Figuratively attributed to that which is no Person as this Author mistakes But having proved by Scripture that the Holy Ghost is no Person we say that Personal Acts are figuratively ascribed to it as they are to Charity Wisdom and other Things both in Scripture and in Prophane Authors and in common familiar Speech 2. The second Argument against the Spirit 's being God is this A manifest Distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself To this our Author answers pag. 191. This Holy Spirit is either a Divine subsisting Person or nothing but a Name If this Spirit were a Divine Virtue or Power as he would have it then it is not distinct from God but is God himself As the Powers and Faculties of the Mind thô they may be distinguished from each other yet they can't be any thing distinct from the Mind but are the Mind it self and therefore if the Spirit as he says be represented in Scripture as so distinct from God that 't is impossible he should be God himself then he must be a distinct Divine Person and not the meer Power of God which is not distinct from God himself To this I answer the Holy Spirit is neither a Divine subsisting Person nor a meer Name In order to the clearing of this I must observe that the Holy Ghost signifies in Scripture sometimes the Power of God sometimes the Effects of that Power or all miraculous extraordinary Gifts In the first sense we read Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee Here it is evident that the Holy Ghost signifies the Power of God whereby he effected the miraculous Conception of our Blessed Saviour In the latter sense we read Gal. 3. 5. He therefore that ministreth to you the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith Here the Spirit is plainly meant of the miraculous Gifts bestowed upon the first Christians and the meaning of the Apostle's Question is this whether the Galatians had been indued with that Spirit and those extraordinary Gifts by submitting to the Ceremonial Law of Moses or only upon their imbracing the Gospel In the first sense the Holy Ghost is only an Attribute of God and so is not a meer Name nor is it a Divine subsisting Person which to say were ridiculous and contrary to the Notion of an Attribute This Attribute may be distinguish'd from God in such manner as Attributes are wont to be distinguish'd that is God may be said to act by his Power as he is said to act by his Wisdom But he saith If this Spirit were a Divine Vertue or Power then it is not distinct from God but is God himself I answer if this be all our Author contends for that the Holy Spirit or Power of God is God in such sense as other Vertues and Faculties of God may be called God himself the Socinians never denied it and this is all that his Argument proves Secondly He ought to know the Holy Spirit is not distinct from God as one Person from another but is distinguished from God as his Attribute This is easy and plain and agreeable to Reason and Scripture and is a full answer to what he adds in these words A Power which is distinct from God and is not God himself as he says the Holy Spirit is if it has any Personal Acts must be a distinct Person and if these Personal Acts are such as are proper only to God it must be a distinct Divine Person He goes on He says this Spirit is the Inspiration of God be it so This Inspiration then is either within God himself or without him in his Creatures who have this Inspiration If it be within God himself it must be a Person or else it cannot be distinct from God and a Divine Person unless any thing be in God which is not God If this Inspiration be without God in the Creatures who are inspired by him how is it the Spirit of God For the Spirit of God must be in God as the Spirit of a Man is in a Man I answer If every thing that is in God be a Person then there must be as many Persons in the Godhead as there are Attributes or Immanent Acts in God which to say is too sensless and ridiculous to need Confutation God's Inspiration as 't is an Act is in God as 't is an Effect 't is in Creatures and is called the Spirit of God because 't is an Effect of that Spirit Energy or Power which God uses to make his Will known to Men by inward Suggestion or Inspiration He desires to know pag. 192. how the Spirit of God differs from his Gifts and Graces I answer As the cause from its effects so that there are Diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 4. The same Cause produces several effects out of the same Power spring several Gifts 3. The next Argument is The Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers therefore it self is not God This he pretends to answer by his Old Sophism that One Divine Person may send and give another which has been already confuted He adds The Spirit gives himself and is asked of himself for the Divine Persons in the Trinity do not act separately but as the Father and the Son give the Spirit so the Holy Spirit gives himself in the same Individual Act. But how can this be the same Individual Act The Father and the Son says he send the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost gives himself Can sending another and giving one's self be one and the same Act Farther If the Father Son and Holy Ghost cannot act separately when the Holy Ghost gives himself Father and Son must give themselves too or else it will not be the same Individual Act. But were it so this would not be made peculiar to the Holy Ghost who only is said in Scripture to be given and obtained of God But the thing is plain and easy if by the Spirit we understand God's Power and Inspiration which with their Effects are communicated to those that pray for them CHAP. VI. 4. THE next Argument is against a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead Which saith the Historian is contrary to the whole Scripture For that speaks of God but as one Person and speaks of him and to him by Singular Pronouns such as I Thou Me Him c. He cites also Heb. 1. 2. where Christ is called the express Image of God's Person Our Author returns this Answer It is plain that the Person of whom the Son is called the express Image is the
his Opinion that in this Clause God should be interpreted as it was in the foregoing Indeed it would be strange Non-sense for then the Word was God should signify the second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity Therefore in his Hypothesis the Word was God signifies the Word was a Divine Person in the Godhead pag. 216. But this Interpretation is no less absurd than the other for by the Word he understands a Divine Person who is called the Word and by God too he means a Divine Person in the Godhead Therefore his Interpretation of these Words the Word was God amounts only to this the Divine Person who is called the Word was a Divine Person But to give us a right and full understanding of this place he thought sit to paraphrase it thus In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God that is In the Beginning of all Things was the Divine Person whose Name and Character is the Word this Word was inseparably united to that Supream Being whom we call God and was himself God a Divine Person subsisting in the Unity of the Godhead not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man I hope the Author will not take it ill if I paraphrase his Paraphrase to make it clearer to vulgar Understandings In the Beginning of all Things was the second Divine Person of the Trinity whose Name and Character is the Word this second Divine Person of the Trinity was inseparably united with the Three Persons of the Trinity whom we call God and consequently with himself and this second Person was a Divine Person not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man Our Author was so taken with this sense of the Words of St. John that he could not for bear breaking out into these Words Can any thing be more easy and obvious and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity I confess 't is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity 2. Thô I have shown already the inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the First Chapter of St. John's Gospel by confuting the Author's Explication yet I intend to make it appear farther by these few Considerations 1. That to be in the Beginning cannot here signify to be from all Eternity has been proved already because the Scripture does never describe Eternity by such an Expression nor does the Expression in its own Nature denote Eternity St. John would not have expressed so great a Mystery and so necessary to be believed by All in improper and unsuitable Words 2. For the Word to be with God and to be God can never bear the sense which the Trinitarians put upon it When John says the Word was with God if by God we must understand the Three Persons of the Trinity and by the Word a Divine Person in that Trinity this Interpretation makes as I have shewed this absurd sense The second Divine Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity and consequently with himself But if by God we must understand the Father only why does St. John omit the Holy Ghost who is God as well as the Father and with whom the Son was no less than with the Father In a word as the Historian speaks How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost 3. The Word was God must signify in this Hypothesis That Divine Person who is called the Word was a Divine Person 4. All Trinitarians confess that St. John in the Beginning of his Gospel speaks of the New Creation wrought by the Gospel as well as of the Old and thô they do not agree among themselves about the place where he begins to treat of this New Creation or Regeneration yet they do all grant that he discourses of it before Ver. 14. And the Word was made Flesh They all take those words He came unto his own Ver. 11. to be meant of Christ's conversing among Men and teaching them the way of Salvation But if the Word was made Flesh at Ver. 14. signifies Christ's Incarnation as Trinitarians pretend it is unaccountable that St. John writing the History of Christ's Life should first tell us what Christ Incarnate has done and then that He was Incarnate This is just as if one writing the Life of Alexander should say he overcame Darius and then that he was begotten by Philip King of Macedon Or that Christ was tempted of the Devil and then that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost Indeed it cannot be denied that the Evangelists do not very much observe the order of time in relating several Discourses and Miracles of Christ but this is of no great moment and does not destroy the proper and essential order of History The former has been done by the Evangelists as well as by other Historians but never the latter They never tell us that Christ went about to preach the Gospel and then that he was born or that he was raised from the dead and then that he died This would be to invert the true order of History and make Non-sense of it And therefore it sufficiently proves that these words The Word was made Flesh coming after He came unto his own cannot be meant of Christ's Incarnation Thus Ver. 6 7. John is said to bear witness of Christ and then that he was Incarnate The like we may observe on Ver. 10. He was in the World and the World was made by him if those Words The World was made by him are to be understood in a proper sense of Creation the Apostle should have said first that the World was made by him and then that He was in the World 5. This Evangelist plainly tells us Chap. 20. Ver. 21. the design he aimed at when he wrote his Gospel These Things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have Life thrô his Name It was not therefore to teach the Divinity and Consubstantiality of Christ as Trinitarians pretend He wrote that we might be sure that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God not that he was God How comes he then to forget the most essential Thing which induced him to write and publish his Gospel viz. the asserting of Christ's Divinity No no it is plain he only designed to teach and prove that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God And the Son of God can no more be God than a Son can be his Father Thus I think it appears clearly that this Beginning of St. John's Gospel does not favour the Trinitarian Opinion but from Ver. 1 to Ver. 15. is only an Abridgment of his whole Book Were the Trinitarian Hypothesis clearly set down in other places of Scripture I would not wonder to see Men lay so much stress upon this place but since the Scriptures throughout teach us that Christ was but a Man it stands to reason
if he be but sincere that those Fathers follow the Ideas of Plato concerning the three Principles and therefore speak rather like Arians than Orthodox They tell us that the Son and Holy Ghost have each of them his own Nature and Essence whereby they are distinguish'd from each other and that the Son is subordinate and inferior to the Father both in Nature and Power as likewise the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son If any one desires to see some undeniable Proofs of what I assert I refer him to the Quaternio of Curcellaeus whereby he will be fully satisfied The succeeding Fathers finding fault with this Notion brought into the World a new Interpretation of the three Principles They won't have them to be subordinate but equal both in Nature and Power However they acknowledg them to be three Essences or Collateral Beings If you ask them how they can avoid admitting a Plurality of Gods They will answer That those three Beings are but one God as Peter James and John are but one Man If you deny that Peter James and John are but one Man they will tell you that you are mistaken because in Propriety of Speech this term Man ought not to signify an Individual as Peter or James or John but a specifical Nature common to them all so that thô they be three Individuals or three Persons yet they are but one Man being Partakers of the same specifical common Nature This they apply to their three Principles They are indeed say they three Hypostases or Persons yet they are but one God This term God denoting not an Individual Hypostasis but a Nature common to the three Persons of the Trinity whereby thô they are three yet they are said to be but one God Thus they made shift as well as they could It was indeed a very unsufficient way of explaining the Unity of God and did by no means resolve the difficulty They made an abstract specifical God as the Heathens might equally have done but there were still three Individual or Numerical Gods as Peter James and John may be said to be by Abstraction one specifical Man because they have the same specifical Nature but however they are still three Individual Numerical Men. Therefore the Schoolmen disliking this Notion as favouring Polytheism found out a new one more agreeable as they thought to the Unity of God They won't have the three Persons of the Trinity to have each of them his own Essence and Nature No this too plainly destroys the Unity of God There is say they but one Divine Essence Right but then they must not part with three Persons of the Trinity Therefore what are those three Persons They are Three Subsistences Three Modes Three Relations Three I know not what 's This is meer Nonsense for a Person is an Intelligent Being and Three Persons must needs be Three Intelligent Beings So true it is that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead if he takes the Word in its proper sense must admit Three Gods Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid who says they are Three distinct Minds Three substantial Beings Three intelligent Beings therefore unavoidably Three Gods Now is it fair to boast so much of the Tradition concerning the Trinity as if it had been constant and unalterable in all the Ages of the Church when the contrary appears to any sincere Reader The Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice speak like Platonic Philosophers and Arians the Nicene Fathers like Tritheists and the School-men like Mad-men Where now is that unchangeable Tradition so much cried up Considering the ridiculousness of those Men who in their respective Ages set up new Notions of the Trinity I am apt to say contrary to Averroes his Wish Let not my Soul be with the Philosophers To conclude this Chapter those great Boasters of the pretended Tradition should do well to apply themselves to the confuting the Quaternio of Curcellaeus before mentioned which when they have fully and truly performed we may perhaps begin to think of parting with Tradition which indeed is not the Foundation whereon we build our Faith Knowing only the Scriptures which are able to make wise unto Salvation CHAP. II. Containing an Examination of the Doctor 's Answers to the Arguments against the Trinity in the History of the Unitarians HAving premised this general Observation I come to examine what Answer the Doctor returns to the Arguments alledged against the Trinity by the Author of the Brief History of the Vnitarians But I must first consider his Reflections concerning the use of Reason in expounding Scripture This is saith he an Impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it he plainly contained there he would conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture p. 141. But is this Impudence to say Transubstantiation cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction I hope not Well then if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture I think both Consequences are right But saith the Author A modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not But we have already made such an Inquiry and cannot find the Trinity in Scripture We never could read there that there are Three Persons in one Numerical God Indeed how could we We might as well find there that the Bread of the Sacrament is Transubstantiated into Christ's Body But he goes on And if it be plainly contained there he should conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture I beg the Author's pardon there is a vast difference between Vnintelligible and Contradictions He should not have said How Unintelligible soever but how Contradictions soever And thus his Words ought to run He should conclude how Contradictions soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture I perceive the Author found it too harsh to say that how Contradictions soever a thing appears to be that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture and therefore he puts the word Vnintelligible instead of the word Contradictions In effect we do not say that every Unintelligible Thing contained in Scripture is a Contradiction We acknowledg the Resurrection plainly set down in Scripture does imply no Contradiction
chief of the Orthodox Interpreters have thus explained this Context of the Colossians Among the Ancients St. Cyril Fulgentius Procopius Gazeus and even Athanasius himself Of the Moderns Salmero Montanus Grotius and many more Before I put an end to this I must observe that our Author is greatly mistaken in his Explication of Col. 1. 18. The Apostle says he proceeds from Christ's Creation of the natural World to his Mediatory Kingdom Which proves that He did not speak of that before I see the Author does not observe his own rule p. 146. To consider in expounding Scripture what goes before and what follows It was no hard matter to see that the Apostle at Ver. 16. speaks First in the general of Things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth Visible and Invisible but then afterwards he explains what he meant by the Things that are in Heaven viz. all the Orders of Angels this he doth in the latter part of the same Verse and what he means by Things that are on Earth He tells us fully at Ver. 18. viz. the Church The 18th Verse being an Explication of some part of Ver. 16. it appears not to have been Paul's Design to proceed from Christ's Creation of the World to his Mediatory Kingdom Thus I have done with the famous Context of Col. 1. 15 16 c. The Author of the Brief History had proved that Christ was God's Minister and Servant because He was appointed or made by God the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession To this the Author I am now considering Answers But here is a Restriction to his being High-Priest and therefore no danger of Blasphemy tho He be God For we may observe that thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet he was a type of an High-Priest who is more than Man even the eternal Son or Word of God as some of the Learned Jews acknowledge This is indeed an admirable Answer Christ has been appointed by God an High-Priest which seems to prove that Himself is not God No says the Doctor you are mistaken for thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet He was a Type of an High-Priest more than Man of an High-Priest who is the eternal Son of God How does he prove it As some says he of the Learned Jews acknowledge And what then if some Learned Jews have spoken non-sense must we speak non-sense too One would expect the Author should prove by Scripture and not by Jewish Writers that the Jewish High-Priest was a type of an High Priest who is the eternal Son and Word of God The Jewish High-Priest being a Type of Christ was a Type of an High-Priest more eminent and greater than Himself in all respects thô he were not God He goes on For the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father If you ask him why he will answer Philo Judaeus who often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest says so and shows that the Garments of the High-Priest were Figures of Heaven and Earth Which seems to signify that the eternal Word which made the World is the true High-Priest Here comes upon the stage one of his Learned Jews Philo by whose Testimony he proves that the second Person of the Trinity is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father But Philo being Plato's Follower did not believe such a Trinity as the Doctor teaches Sure there is a great difference between Plato's three Principles and the Doctor 's Trinity But if there were not must we believe Philo Judaeus rather than St. Paul who plainly tells us in direct opposition to Philo that as there is One God so there is One Mediator between God and Men the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. As for the Garments of the High-Priest which Philo will have to be a Figure of Heaven and Earth and our Author's Story about Jaddus both which our Author alledges as Arguments at least as Congruities whereby to prove the Divinity of Christ I shall so far trust the Judgment of the meanest Reader as to take no notice of them That which follows is no less ridiculous I am sure says the Author the Apostle distinguishes Christ from High-Priests taken from among Men and makes his Sonship the Foundation of his Priesthood Heb. 5. 1 6. The contrary to both these is true and evident also in the Text he cites The Priesthood is the Foundation of the Sonship and Aaron and Christ are there made Instances of High-Priests taken from among Men. The Objection therefore remains still that Christ being an High-Priest appointed and made by God cannot Himself be God He goes on As for his next Objection from 1 Cor. 3. 23. Christ is God's I know not what he means by it for there is no doubt but Christ is God's Son God's Christ God's High-Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory and what then Therefore he is not God by no means he may conclude that He is not God the Father because He acta subordinately not that therefore He is not God the Son The Author of the Brief History meant I suppose this that as you are Christ's in that Text signifies Men are subject to Christ so Christ is God's must signify Christ is subjected to God and therefore not Himself God This I think is good Sonse and a good Argument But can it be said that the second Person of the Trinity who is the supream God nay One God with the First is God's Son God's Christ God's High Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory All these Titles denote a dependance upon the Father and a real subjection to Him which cannot agree to any Person who is indeed Himself a Supream God Here is another sensless Answer to a good and strong Objection P. 158. His next proof is That God calls Christ his Servant in the Prophet Isaiah But it is his Servant in whom his Soul was pleased which is the peculiar Character of his Son and is that very Testimony which God gave to Christ at his Baptism This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased I desire here the Reader to observe the Doctor 's accurate way of reasoning This is the Objection Christ is called God's Servant therefore He is not God No this is a mistake says He for Christ is God's beloved Servant P. 159. He says in answer to the Objection from Phil. 2. 8 9. Because He voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature does He forfeit the Dignity of his Nature But I ask can it be said of the Supream God with whom is no Variableness neither Shadow of turning that He has condescended below the Dignity of his Nature P. 159 160. He goes on in a florid way of Speech to show how inconsistent it is that Christ were He a meer Creature should be advanced to that Power and Authority whereunto He has been promoted Hereupon I observe
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
this Belief that he was sent from God and had his Doctrine from him and by such an Acknowledgment he profest at the same time that God bare testimony to this Doctrine by the plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to be Baptized only in the Name of the Son are one and the same thing I shall conclude this with the Words of the Learned Mr. Limborck Theol. Christ pag. 645. Dominus Jesus ritui c. In English thus To this Rite before practised by John Baptist the Lord Jesus added another Signification viz. the Profession of his Name and the Publick Reception of the Doctrine he had preached Therefore he ordered that Baptism should be administred in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. That those who should receive the Rite of Baptism might thereby give up themselves to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and profess themselves Disciples of that Doctrine which is originally derived from the Father revealed and preached by the Son and confirmed by the Holy Ghost with divers Miracles Signs Prodigies and Distributions of Gifts So that the Reception of Baptism was a publick Profession of the Doctrine of Christ Therefore it is that the Faithful are said every where to be Baptized in the Name of Christ that is to profess by their being Baptized that they receive his Doctrine as Divine and will be called by his Name as being their heavenly Master and only Saviour The Historian adds that 'T is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or thing is God because we are Baptized unto it or in the Name of it For then Moses and St. John Baptist also would be Gods 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized unto Moses Acts 19. 3. Vnto what then were ye baptized And they said unto John 's Baptism that is say the Generality of Interpreters unto John and the Doctrine by him delivered He replies pag. 212. I confess he had answered this Argument could he have shewn us that the Jews were baptized in the Name of God and in the Name of Moses for that had joined Moses with God as our Saviour joins the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father in the form of Baptism But if the Jews were baptized in the Name of Moses who can doubt that they were baptized in the Name of God too as those who are baptized in the Name of Jesus are thereby baptized also in the Name of God as has been before shewed It is plain the Apostle compares Moses with Christ and tells the Corinthians that as they were baptized in the Name of Jesus the Son and Messenger of God so the Fathers had been baptized in the Name of Moses the Servant of God But we can afford the Author some places of Scripture wherein Creatures are joined with God Thus Exod. 14. 31. it is said And the People feared the Lord and believed the Lord and his Servant Moses In the Hebrew 'tis in the Lord and in Moses his Servant Here Moses the Man is joined with God and the Jews are said to believe in him as they believed in God So 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things c. Here elect Angels thô Creatures are ranked with God in so great and important a Matter and act of Religion as an Obtestation Again Rev. 1. 4. Grace be to you and Peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his Throne If Moses and Angels may be joined with God in Acts of Faith of Obtestation and of Benediction why not the Son and Spirit in Baptism thô neither of them is God himself We plainly see by St. Paul's Words to the Corinthians that to be baptized in the Name of One does not import that he is God 1 Cor. 1. 14 15. I thank God says he I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius lest any should say that I had baptized in my own Name He plainly intimates that a meer Man may baptize in his own Name and if any of the Corinthians had thought so of the Apostle I hope they would not have concluded from thence that he was God or made himself God He adds It is plain that to baptize unto Moses is a Figurative and Allusive Expression and does not and cannot signify that they were baptized in the Name of Moses because it is not true Indeed the Jews were not baptized as Christians are but still they were baptized Let the Author call it a Figurative and Mystical Baptism or what else he pleases it was still a Baptism as St. Paul assures us And to be baptized into Moses is the same with being baptized in the Name of Moses as in the New Testament to be baptized into or unto Christ is the same with being baptized in the Name of Christ This was rightly understood by Vorstius who paraphrases this place thus Scitis etiam c. i. e. You know also that they were all baptized in the Doctrine of Moses as the Messenger of God as the Cloud and the Passage thrô the Red-Sea were designed for a Confirmation of the Ministry of Moses But he denies that to be baptized into Christ and baptized in the Name of Christ signify the same thing But he mistakes as grosly as he uses to do for any one may observe it that compares the Texts where these Phrases are used Thus John 3. 18. He that believeth on him in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or into or unto him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God So at Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. to be baptized into Christ and at Acts 2. 38. and 8. 16. to be baptized in the Name of Christ are used as equivalent terms Indeed the plain meaning of Rom. 6. 3. is this Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized in the Name of Christ and profest to obey his Doctrine lay thereby under an Obligation of a Spiritual Conformity to his Death in dying to Sin as he is dead and living to God as he is raised from the dead and lives with God So that the first words contrary to our Author's Assertion relate to the form of administring Baptism in the Name of Jesus and the latter to the effect of it This we may apply also to Gal. 3. 27. He further denies That to be baptized unto or into John 's Baptism signifies to be baptized in the Name of John for says he John did not baptize in his own Name but made Proselytes to the Messias But I hope he will not deny that to be baptized into Christ's Baptism is all one with being baptized in the Name of
Christ And if this be so to be baptized into John 's Baptism must also signify to be baptized in the Name of John John indeed made Proselytes to the Messias but he preached the Doctrine of Repentance and he who was baptized by him was baptized into the Profession of the Doctrine taught by him and therefore whoever profest in his Baptism to follow the Doctrine of John might be said to be baptized to the Doctrine of John or in the Name of John Lastly He asks Whether it be not very absurd that the Power or Inspiration of God which is not a Person should be joined in the same Form with the Father and Son who are Persons I answer I see no absurdity in being baptized into the Profession of a Doctrine which not only comes originally from God the Father and is revealed by his Son but is confirmed by the Power or Spirit of God The next and last Place of the New Testament which our Auther considers is the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel Which says he pag. 215. gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ and a plain Demonstration of the incurable Perverseness of Hereticks I will examine this High Pretence and shew these three Things 1. The Absurdity of the Author's Explication of this Chapter 2. The Inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the Context 3. The true sense and meaning of this so much controverted Place 1. The Historian said that the Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictious and that it is this In the Beginning i. e. from all Eternity But How saith the Historian can in the Beginning be from all Eternity From all Eternity is before the Beginning or without Beginning not in the Beginning To this our Author replies That No Man expounds in the beginning of Eternity But he should not be so bold in his Assertions for Mr. Calvin expounds it so He adds When St. John tells us In the Beginning was the Word we say this proves the Eternity of the Word for that which was when all things began which had a beginning was it self before the beginning and without beginning I answer had the Evangelist designed to teach us the Eternity of the Word he would undoubtedly have done it by the same Characters that are used in Scripture to express the Eternity of God Now this Expression in the Beginning is so far from denoting Eternity that it is never applied to God in that Sense We read in Scripture That In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth Gen. 1. 1. Heb. 1. 10. a plain Demonstration that In the beginning cannot be applied to him that is God but only to Creatures and as plain a Demonstration that God himself is from all Eternity for he who created all things must needs be not only before all things but from Eternity But we never read God was in the Beginning in all the Descriptions which the Scriptures afford us of his Eternity nay they rather declare it or describe it by Before the beginning Psal 90. 2. Before the Mountains were brought forth even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God Here Eternity is described by before the beginning This is the Scripture-Notion of Eternity therefore if St. John had intended to shew the Eternity of the Word he should not have said In the beginning was the Word but as 't is said of God In the beginning the Word created the Heaven and the Earth Nor will it avail any thing to say The Word was so in the beginning that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made For as the foregoing Words In the beginning was the Word are no true Description of Eternity in Scripture so neither are these All things were made by him c. the Scripture-Description of the Creation There is no mention here made either of the Heaven or the Earth or the Sea which are never omitted in the Descriptions we have in Scripture of the first and true Creation a I shewed before and therefore there is no need to insist longer on this Phrase in this place The Historian goes on Was the Word i. e. was God the Son But where in Scripture says he is the Word called God the the Son Our Author replies This Word indeed is God the Son but we do not paraphrase it so in this place In the beginning was God the Son but In the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word But I pray what is the meaning of this For if the Word is indeed God the Son one may paraphrase it here In the beginning was God the Son as well as In the beginning was that Divine Person called the Word the one is as fit and as good Sense as the other But it seems our Author is asham'd to paraphrase the Word by God the Son this is a Modesty in him which is but seldom found in his Book Histor The Word was God i. e. The Son was with the Father Answ It seems then that God in this Clause is the Father But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost and is not he too according to Trinitarians God or a God If he is why does St. John only say the Son was with the Father and how comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost To avoid the strength of this Argument our Author replies By God the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom that Supream and Soveraign Being whom all Men called God without making a Distinction of Persons in the Godhead But if God in this place does not signify the Father only but the Three Persons of the Trinity he should not tell us that the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom but those Three Minds whom all Men called God for we are taught all over his Book that God is Three infinite Minds and consequently Three Wisdoms for an infinite Mind cannot be without Wisdom Neither should he say That Supream and Soveraign Being whom all Men call God but those Three Supream and Soveraign Beings for he often tells us that God is Three infinite and substantial Beings therefore he is Three Supream and Soveraign Beings It is a plain Contradiction to say in one place God is Three Minds and Three Beings and in another that he is but one Mind and one Being Furthermore when the Evangelist says The Word was with God if by God he means not the Father only but the Three Persons who are that God this will make a very trifling sense For then the Word was with God must signify thē second Person of the Trinity was with the Three Persons of the Trinity and consequently with himself which is not only trifling but ridiculous The Apostle adds And the Word was God Our Author to serve his Hypothesis puts here another or a new sense on the word God for he saw it was inconsistent with
did not give any Son he had before but made an excellent Man whom he was pleased to call his only begotten Son When our Saviour says God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son c. I desire our Author to tell me what is meant by the Word God Whether the whole Trinity or the Father only If the whole Trinity the Sense will come to this The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost so loved the World that they gave their only begotten Son Which is false for in the Trinitarian Hypothesis the Son is not the Son of the Second or Third Persons in the Trinity If by God be meant the Father only How comes the Father to ingross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Son and the Holy Ghost How is he only said to love the World for the Son and Holy Ghost love it as well as the Father Thus they are not the Socinians but the Trinitarians that ridicule the Christian Religion by putting on it an absurd and unnatural Sense But says he God's Love in giving his only-begotten Son for our Redemption which our Saviour fixes on as the great Demonstration of God's Love is not so wonderful if this giving his Son signifies no more than making a Man on purpose to be our Saviour What then Does it follow from thence that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion It only follows that the Socinian Doctrine makes the Love of God less wonderful than the Trinitarian For in it self it is a wonderful Love that God should raise up a Saviour to Apostate and Rebel Mankind tho this Saviour was not God himself But why should we call a Chimera a more wonderful Love for the Son of God cannot be God himself and therefore God could not shew his Love by giving such a Son To conclude as the Love of God in redeeming Offenders is wonderful be the means what they will So his Love in giving for them his Beloved Son tho but a Man cannot without Impiety be denied to be wonderful to a Miracle The ridiculing is only on the side of our Author not on the Vnitarian and I am apt to think that if I were not an Vnitarian already his Book made up of bold Charges inconsequent Reasonings and arrogant Definings of what he understands not would make me one In the next place says he at pag. 239. the Apostles mightily insist on the great Love of Christ in dying for us and his great Humility in submitting to the condition of Human Nature and suffering a shameful and accursed Death even the Death of the Cross He cites 2 Cor. 8. 9. and 5. 14. and Phil. 2. 5 6 7 8. And goes on thus Supposing Christ to be but a meer Man who had no being before he was born of the Virgin who knew nothing of his own coming into the World or for what end he came whose Undertaking was not his own voluntary choice but God's appointment Where is the great Love where is the great Humility of this The meaning of all this is that were not Christ the Supream God whatever he has done on our behalf would be no great Argument of his Love or his Humility If Codrus and Decius devoting themselves to Death for the Good of their respective Countries have been accounted by all Men great Lovers of their Countries Shall not Christ's dying for the Eternal Salvation of Mankind pass for an Argument of wonderful Love Is it nothing for Christ to lead a wandring poor and miserable Life to expose himself to all the Injuries and Fury of Implacable Adversaries to undergo a painful and infamous Death and all this to make Men partakers of everlasting Life Must all this be accounted nothing unless the Person so doing be the Supream God How did he become Poor says he who was never Rich But I ask him How the Supream God can become Poor How God can make himself of no Reputation or humble himself and become obedient unto Death all which things he imputeth to a Person who is God I would know How it comes that Christ's Love and Humility is described by such Characters as can only be applied to a Man if we must not be allowed to believe that the Love of Christ-Man was wonderful He insists much on 2 Cor. 8. 9. where our Translation says Christ became Poor But he might know that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to become Poor but to be Poor and so Castalio renders it So the Sense of that place is this Tho Christ was Rich and Glorious by reason of the Authority and Power conferred on him yet he was willing to lead a poor Life that by his Poverty as by one means we might obtain Eternal Riches and Glory The Historian explains being in the Form of God at Phil. 1. 6. by being made Like to God by a Communication to him of Divine and Miraculous Power over Diseases Devils the Grave the Winds the Seas c. To this our Author replies This dwindles the Form of God into just nothing for according to them he had no power to do this but God did it at his Word as he did for other Prophets And therefore this is no Form of God no likeness at all For Christ did not work Miracles as God does by an inherent Power but God wrought Miracles for him Christ indeed could not work Miracles by an inherent or proper Power of his own since he was not God but to conclude that therefore there was no form or likeness of God at all in him is a very bad Consequence When we say that Christ was in the form or likeness of God we exclude thereby an equality with God and we mean only that he was in a manner like God This may be explained by a Comparison It may be said that a Vice-Roy is like a King but this does not signify that he is the King himself or is equal to the King but only that by reason of the Power and Authority conferred on him he is in a manner like the King So that thô he does not act by a Power of his own yet he may be truly said to act like a King To conclude from hence that this dwindles the likeness of the Vice-Roy with the King into just nothing would be meer Impertinence for then a Porter would be as like a King as the Vice-Roy himself which no Man in his Senses will affirm When therefore Christ by the Power bestowed upon him cast out Devils cured all sorts of Diseases raised the Dead commanded the Winds and the Seas He was indeed in the likeness of God and it was a great Humility in him that he was so far from making an ostentation of his Glory and Greatness that he became like a Servant humbled himself and underwent all sorts of Sufferings even the Death of the Cross But says the Author pag. 241. How did he take this Form upon him which signifies his own