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
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
Doctor answers this Objection Now saith he this Argument is fallacious for tho Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the God-head the Equality and Sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of the Persons A Son is Equal to his Father by Nature but Inferior to him as his Son Now where is the Fallacy but in the Author's Answer His Comparison of a Father with his Son is short of his purpose for tho a Son be equal to his Father by Nature yet he is not equal to him in Authority and Power and therefore a Father is truly greater than his Son is his Head and can command him This is not meerly a Subordination of Order but of Power and Authority also But it is not so with the Father and Son in the Trinity they are not only equal by Nature in the Author's Hypothesis but in Power and Authority as they have the same Nature so they have the same Attributes whereby they are equal to one another in all Things Now if it be so how can the Father be said to be greater than the Son who is as great as himself How can he be called his Head which imports some Authority over Christ As appears from 1 Cor. 11. 3. But I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God It appears by this place that God is the Head of Christ as Christ is the Head of every Man and the Man the Head of the Woman Now Christ's being the Head of every Man imports some Power and Authority over every Man as the Man's being Head of the Woman imports a Power and Authority over the Woman and consequently God's being the Head of Christ must import an Authority and Power over Christ else the Comparison would be unreasonable fallacious and impertinent But I say how can God be called the Head of Christ in such a Sense if Christ be as Great and have as great Power and Authority as God has how can God be called his God To be ones God is as much as to be his Benefactor and his Protector according to the stile of Scripture but Christ being All-mighty and self-sufficient how can the Father be stiled his God that is his Benefactor and Protector I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God John 20. 17. My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Mat. 27. 46. How could Christ say these things on the Doctor 's Hypothesis for being God as well as the Father He must no less forsake himself than the Father forsook him and he might as well call himself his own God and complain of himself that he had forsaken himself Nay being himself Almighty God as well as the Father and being able to comfort himself in his Sufferings how comes he to invoke the Father or to call him his God for those Words plainly shew that He expected and desired from the Father the Assistance which He could not perform to Himself Furthermore how can we forbear conceiving Two Gods according to this Hypothesis Christ who invokes the Father is God the Father whom He invokes is God also consequently there are Two distinct Gods Can he that invokes and he that is invoked be one and the same Being I always thought that this supposed two several Beings Lastly If our Lord Christ were himself God how could any command him He has all the Power and all the Authority that the Father has He is no more subject to the Father than the Father to him nay the Father and He are but One God The Author goes on If the Father as I have explained it be original Mind and Wisdom the Son a Personal subsisting but reflex Image of the Father's Wisdom thô their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son And therefore thô I know such Texts as he alledges My Father is greater than I The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's humane Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to the Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and therefore the Father may be called his God Let us consider this Paragraph The Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom What Gibberish is this Has the Doctor found any where in Scripture that the Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom Why does he not speak the Language of Scripture If his Words have any Sense he means that the Father reflects upon his own Knowledge and Wisdom but how comes he to fancy that a reflected Wisdom or to reflect on ones own Wisdom is a Divine Person and an Intelligent Being One would think it only an Act of God to reflect upon his own Knowledg or other Perfections without dreaming of a Divine Person but Metaphysicians it seems have a clearer Sight than other People what is to others only an Act of God the Metaphysician discerns to be a Divine Person 2. The Original saith the Author is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son But the Superiority in the Trinity is only a Superiority of Order which can admit of no such Expressions as Greater than Christ the Head of Christ the God of Christ as I shewed before He sees he saith no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to Christ's Divine Person and his Relation to his Father because the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I will shew more particularly the ridiculousness of this Assertion by insisting upon the first of the Passages before cited as I have done upon the two others Our Saviour seeing his Disciples sorrowful because He had told them that He was going to his Father and being willing to comfort them and to lessen their Sadness tells them John 14. 18. If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go unto the Father For my Father is greater than I. One would think that Christ's meaning is That the Disciples should be glad to hear that he leaves the World to go to his Father because his Father being greater than He would undoubtedly crown his Obedience with an immortal Glory and a Name which is above every Name But this Author has found out another Sense which is worth the observing If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go to the Father for the Father is greater than I that is to say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity This would have been a very unsignificant Comfort Be not sorrowful for my leaving this World and going to the Father For the Father is the first Person of the Trinity Yet
of Moses Acts 7. 53. Who have received the Law by the Disposition of Angels Ver. 38. This Moses is He who was with the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel who spake to him in Mount Sinai These Texts do more than sufficiently prove that the Son of God is not meant by the Prophets and other Writers of the Old Testament where they mention the Lord God and Jehovah But to return to Christ's Mediatory Kingdom He says pag. 167. The Son has a Kingdom of his own which is peculiarly his and administred in his Name and by his Sovereign Authority But how is this consistent with what we read pag. 168. The Power indeed whereby he administers his Kingdom is the Power of the whole Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost for they being essentially one God have but one Energy and Power and therefore can never act separately How can the Son or the second Person of that Trinity have a Kingdom of his own if whatever he does is also done by the Father and Holy Ghost have not they hereby as great a share in this Kingdom as the Son This therefore is a plain Contradiction and perfect Non-sense Let us hear him further pag. 169 170. The Power is not taken out of God's Hands that is impossible Father Son and Holy Ghost govern the World still by one individual Act and Power but as in the Natural Government of the World the exercise of this Power begins with the Father so in the exercise of this Mediatory Kingdom it begins with the Son and is directed by his Mediation That is God governs the World now not meerly as a Natural Lord by the Rules of Natural Justice but with respect to the Mediatory Power and Authority of his Son and to serve the ends of his Mediatory Kingdom This Chimerical reasoning will not free the Author 's System from Contradiction For as in the Natural Government of the World tho as he dreams the exercise of the Power begins with the Father yet the Son and Holy Spirit acting in conjunction with the Father by an individual Act it cannot be said that the Power or Kingdom is peculiar to the Father so in the supposed Mediatory Kingdom tho the exercise of the Power begins with the Son yet as long as the Father and Holy Spirit act together with him and can never act separately it cannot be said that the Son has a Kingdom of his own or that he is the Mediatory King more than the Father or Spirit Yet by the help of this contrived Mediatory Kingdom our Author undertakes at pag. 173. to overthrow the Fourth Argument in the History of the Vnitarians even this because God doth all things in his own Name and by his own Authority but Christ comes in the Father's Name does his Will and seeks his Glory This only proves says he that he is not the Father but the Son and the King of God For this Mediatory Kingdom as he says at pag. 172. is erected by the Father and by him given to the Son But I ask is not the Son equal to the Father both in Energy and Authority How then can he be said to be sent by his Father to receive his Commands and to seek his Glory Can all this be ascribed to the Supream God Nay if the Father together with the Son and Spirit be but one God is it not absurd to say that the Father sends the Son and the Son does the Will of the Father Why not rather in his own Mediatory Kingdom does his own Will seeks his own Glory I think I could as soon believe White is Black as swallow the Absurdities of our Author 's Mediatory Kingdom But 't is plain to every discerning Reader that he has often not understood what he said Having thus shown the Absurdity of his Hypothesis concerning Christ's Mediatory Kingdom I will set down in a few Words what I take to be the true Notion of Christ's Kingdom God had promised to David that he would establish his Throne for ever and there should never be wanting one of his Seed to sit thereon Psal 89. 3 4. I have made a Covenant with my Chosen I have sworn unto David my Servant thy Seed will I establish for ever and build up thy Throne to all Generations And again vers 29. His Seed will I make to indure for ever and his Throne as the Days of Heaven Again ver 35 36 37. Once I have sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David his Seed shall indure for ever and his Throne as the Sun before me it shall be establisht for ever as the Moon and as a faithful Witness in the Heavens Now that this Promise does not relate only or chiefly to David's Successors in the Political Government of Israel without any respect to the Messias who was also the Son of David does plainly appear by the Event for the Political Kingdom of David has been destroyed for several Ages and the Series of Successors in the Davidical Line is utterly broken off This Promise therefore had its full Accomplishment in our Messias Jesus Christ who is the Son of David and the King of Israel But this Kingdom of Christ is both more ample and more durable than David's was For all Power is given to him both in Heaven and Earth Mat. 28. 18. And 1 Cor. 15. 25 26. He must reign till he has put all Enemies under his Feet the last Enemy that shall be destroyed is Death Thus his Throne shall indure as long as the Sun and Moon He may be called with greater reason than David was Psal 89. 27. God's First-born Higher than the Kings of the Earth for he is Rev. 19. 16. King of Kings and Lord of Lords Rev. 1. 5. Prince of the Kings of the Earth But his Power reaches not only over Men but over Angels too 1 Pet. 3. 22. He is on the right hand of God Angels and Authorities and Powers being made subject to him This is God's Anointed whom he has invested with the Power of enacting Laws for the good of his Subjects When God did not so immediately govern Israel as during the Theocracy but by Kings David as God's Deputy and Vicegerent appointed Musick Singers Porters and made such other Regulations as were fit in the Worship of God So Christ who is a King immediately appointed by God by virtue of the Power and Instructions given to him took away the Ceremonial Law set up a Spiritual Worship and being a King over the Gentiles as well as over the Jews made such Laws as were able to unite them into one Body in the Worship of one God that there might be but one Flock and one Shepherd Christ's Kingdom is not only Spiritual but Temporal I mean he has so much Power over all Creatures as is necessary to enable him to perform the ends of his Spiritual Kingdom Nor is this contradicted by our Saviour's Words at John 18. 36. The Original has it
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
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
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
all Men grant Let the Author abate a little of his Confidence Is an Ironical Answer sufficient to confute a good and a strong Argument This is a wonderful Argument says he to prove that Christ is not God When St. Paul says in his Salutations Grace be to you and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ who would guess that Jesus Christ is God as well as the Father he nor any other sacred Writer ever says that there are Three Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost he calls only the Father God and distinguishes the Lord Christ from him If the Lord Christ is God as well as the Father the Apostle should have framed his Salutation thus Grace be to you and Peace from God the Father and from the God Man Jesus Christ But according to the Language of Scripture says he God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit I answer that is a Demonstration that the Father only is God else the Title God could not be appropriated to him when he is distinguished from the Son and Spirit And to discern so much a Man can lack nothing but common Sense But I observe farther to this Answer that supposing Christ were but a Man the Apostle could have expressed himself no otherways from whence it follows that either the Apostle did indeed so think and so teach or this Author must charge him as not knowing how to speak correctly and properly 'T is impossible saith the Brief History that the Son or Image of the One true God should himself be that One true God as impossible as that the Son should be the Father or the Image that very Thing whose Image it is This is meer Sophistry saith our Author for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God they are the same One true God and yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father I appeal to the Reader whether this be not a mear denial of the Difficulty not an Explication or a Solution of it The Son saith the Historian can't be the One true God because he is the Son and Image of the One true God for the Son cannot be the Father nor the Image the very Thing whose Image it is Yes says our Answerer God and the Image of God are the same One true God The next Argument of the History is that Many Texts expresly declare That only the Father is God In answer to this says our Author This would be a Demonstration could he produce any one Text which asserts that only the Father in opposition to the Son and Holy Ghost is God for then the Father must signify the Person of the Father in opposition to the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost But has not the Historian produced such a Text John 17. 3. Father this is Life Eternal to know Thee the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or Jesus Christ thy Messenger Here the Father to whom the Son directs his Prayer as appears by Ver. 1. is called the only true God and the Son Jesus Christ whom he hath sent or his Messenger Here the Father as the Sender is opposed to the Son as the Messenger and the First called the ONLY true God the Other an Apostle or Messenger Our Author adds But when the Father is called the only true God only in opposition to all the false Gods which the World then worshipped there Father does not signify Personally but that one Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source the Fountain and the Original So soon has this Author forgot his own Observation and Rule of Interpretation that according to Scripture God signifies God the Father whenever he is distinguished from the Son or Spirit Is not he to whom Christ here directs his Prayer called God and is he not distinguished from the Son who is called the Messenger why then should he not signify here Personally God the Father as well as in other places why must Father here signify not the Father but one Godhead of which the Father is the Source Thus either his Observation is false and then he is overthrown by the Texts to which he opposes it or it is true and then in this Text the only true God is affirmed by our Saviour himself to be the Father only in opposition to all other Persons whomsoever I cannot but admire this Author's way of expounding Scripture One while he founds Christ's Sonship on his eternal Generation so that the title Son denotes begotten Wisdom the second Person of the Trinity as soon as this notion will not serve the turn as when the Son is in St. Matthew and St. Mark denied to know the Day and Hour of Judgment then the Son shall signify Christ Man Again when God is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit he signifies Personally God the Father this Notion shall serve us against many Socinian sayings of Scripture against all the Texts in the seventh Argument of the History But when John 17. 1 3. and the like Texts are urged then on the contrary God the Father must not signify the Father Personally but one Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source Certainly were his Hypothesis true there would be no need he should thus turn himself into all Shapes to defend it When the Father is called the one God and the only true God in opposition to all false Gods is he not so called in opposition to the Son also Most certainly he is In these two Texts John 17. 3. 1 Cor. 8. 6. we have no warrant from Reason or Scripture to understand by the Father Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Is it not absurd and senseless to say That the Father signifies also the Son and Holy Ghost in those very Texts where he is distinguished from them I always thought the Father signified the Father only and the Son the Son only and Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost only I always thought that the Language of Scripture was agreeable to the Language of Men because otherways it cannot be understood by Men and therefore that Father must not be understood to be Father and Son and a third Person distinct from both But Trinitarians better sighted than other People have found it may When we read in Scripture 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father It sounds as if the Apostle had said There is but one numerical infinite Being the Father of Jesus Christ and of all the World because this is the natural Idea we have of one God the Father But this Author tells us we are grosly mistaken for one God signifies three infinite Minds three substantial intellectual Beings or Persons Again we should think that the Father here signifies the Father only but this is it seems another foul Mistake for it signifies besides the Father a Son
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