A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity 1691 Approx. 225 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 28 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A23823 Wing A1219 ESTC R211860 12637930 ocm 12637930 64942 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A23823) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64942) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 340:7) A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717. [1], 55 p. [s.n.], London : 1691. Has been incorrectly attributed to Pierre Allix. Cf. BM. This item also appears at reel 344:13 as part of: The faith of one God. London, 1691 (Wing F258B). Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. -- Brief history of the Unitarians. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity. Unitarianism -- Early works to 1800. 2006-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-03 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-06 Derek Lee Sampled and proofread 2006-06 Derek Lee Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 , 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 , how Unintelligible soever it be ; because we do very clearly conceive , that God is able to raise our dead Bodies . We don't apprehend the manner of this Resurrection ; how it shall be performed , is a thing Unintelligible to us ; but however 't is altogether free from a Contradiction . Were the Trinity as clearly set down in Scripture , and as free from Contradiction ; we would not disbelieve it , how Unintelligible soever it appeared to us , no more than we disbelieve the Resurrection . But the Trinity being not only Unintelligible , but Contradictions ; we deny it is taught in Scripture , which is altogether free from Contradiction . Let us hear the Author a little farther ; We must not indeed ( saith he ) expound Scripture contrary to common Sense , and to the common Reason of Mankind , in such Matters as every Man knows , and every Man can judge of ; but in Matters of pure Revelation , which we have no natural Idea of , and know nothing of them but what is revealed ; we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions , to reject the plain and express Authority of Revelation . For 't is impossible to know , what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things , whose Natures we do not understand . We must not indeed expound Scripture , contrary to common Sense , and the common Reason of Mankind , in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of . I grant it ; but what if the Trinity doth contradict the common Reason of Mankind ; and is of such a Nature as every Man knows , and every Man can judge of ? Then certainly it cannot be contained in Scripture , according to this Author himself . Indeed we cannot fathom the Essence of an infinite Being , no more than ( as this Author saith ) the Essence of any created Being ; yet as we have a distinct knowledg of some Properties of a Finite Being , so we have a clear Apprehension of the Attributes of God. We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three ; we are most certain , that One is not Three , and that Three are not One. The most simple Men have a clear Apprehension of those two Numbers , and therefore are able to judge of them . Now the Scripture plainly tells us , that there is but One God ; and every one knows that One God is One Intelligent Infinite Person , and therefore cannot be Three such Persons . He that has an Idea of One , and an Idea of Three , must needs perceive that it implies a Contradiction , that One be Three , and Three One ; that one God be Three Intelligent Infinite Persons or Beings , and Three Intelligent Infinite Beings One God ; This every one can judge of . Therefore we must not expound Scripture ( saith the Author ) contrary to common Sense , and the common Reason of Mankind ; in such Matters as every Man knows , and every Man can judge of : Therefore ( say I ) all being capable of judging , whether One may be Three , and Three One ; and finding it a plain Contradiction to the common Reason of Mankind ; all may be assured , that it cannot be contained in Scripture . But ( saith the Author ) in Matters of pure Revelation , which we have no natural Idea of , and know nothing of 'em but what is revealed ; we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions , to reject the plain and express Authority of Scripture and Revelation ; for it is impossible to know , what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things , whose Natures we do not understand . Now what does the Author mean by the plain and express Authority of Revelation ? Does he mean , that he has found somewhere in Scripture in plain and express Words , that there are Three Persons in one Divine Nature or Godhead ? If it be so , let him shew us it . I doubt he calls plain and express Authority , some false Consequences , which he is pleased to draw from Scripture , and which none but prejudiced Men would ever think of . I wish we could shew a Chinese , the Gospel well translated into his own Language ; and ask him , after a serious reading of it , what he thought Christ to be ? It is very likely , I think , that he would not take him to be the supream God ; and if any Man should tell him , he had overseen so great a Mystery ; he would undoubtedly answer , that he is sure there is no such thing in the Gospel which he read , unless there he another Gospel wherein such a Notion is contained . I confess there are some Matters of Revelation , which we have no natural Idea of ; and know nothing of them but what is revealed ; such is the Resurrection of the Dead : But then those Matters imply no Contradiction , and therefore ought not to be rejected . This first ( the Resurrection ) may be discovered to us by the Light of Revelation ; and discovering no Contradiction in it , we ought to believe it . The second ( the Trinity ) clashing altogether with our natural Ideas , can be no Matter of Revelation , and therefore ought not to be believed . The Resurrection is such a Thing , as we could never have discovered by the Light of Nature ; yet as soon as we come to know it , we assent to it , because we clearly perceive the Possibility thereof , and are sure it implies no Contradiction at all : but it is not so with the Trinity ; such a Mystery can never be revealed to us , because Revelation cannot be contrary to Reason ; and therefore the Trinity being contrary to this , cannot be the Matter of that . God indeed may reveal to us such Objects , as are unknown to Humane Reason ; but let them be never so much above our Reason , they will never contradict it . It is impossible to know , what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things , whose Natures we do not understand . Right ! But we know so much of the Nature of God , that He is One , and not Three ; and this is sufficient to show that the Trinity is a Contradiction to the Nature of God. What I say , is so clear and so notorious a Truth , that the Author himself is forced to acknowledg it ; He saith , p. 147. We must not expound Scripture to such a Sense , as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of natural Reason : For though God reveals such Things to us , as natural Reason could not discover , and cannot comprehend ; yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason ; for Truth cannot contradict it self ; what is true in Revelation , can never be false in Reason ; and what is true by natural Reason , can never be false in Revelation . All this he grants , only he saith , that we must be sure there is such a Contradiction ; it must be evident and express , and not made out by uncertain Consequences , which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things , but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge . This I grant too ; But the Author won't allow the Trinity to be such a Contradiction ; and endeavours to prove it : Let us hear him . He soon perceives the difficulty , and therefore brings it in by way of an Objection . Yes , you 'l say , that there should be Three Persons , each of which is God , and yet but One God , is a Contradiction . But what Principle of natural Reason does it contradict ? Reason tells us , that Three Gods cannot be One God ; but does Reason tell us , that Three Divine Persons cannot be One God ? If my Reason be like other Mens , I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it , does neither affirm nor deny it . Is not this an admirable Argument , which consists only in an Interrogation , and in a meer denial of the difficulty proposed in the Objection ? What Principle of natural Reason does it contradict ? Does Reason tell us , that Three Divine Persons cannot be one God ? Here is the Interrogation or Query . To which I answer ; Yes , it does contradict a plain Principle of natural Reason , even this , that Three cannot be One. If my Reason be like other Mens , I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it , doth neither affirm nor deny it . Here is a meer denial of the difficulty : I judge the Author's Reason must needs be very weak and corrupted , seeing it likes well this falshood , that Three are One ; and finds no fault with it . Those unquestionably have a better sight , and a more sound Reason , who discern , it implies a Contradiction , that Three be but One ; because they perceive and acknowledg that Three is three times One , and therefore cannot be only once One. Well ( saith the Doctor , pleading for his Adversaries ) if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons , each of which is God , we must believe Three distinct Gods. I hope not , when we profess to believe but One God : Yes , whatever we profess to believe , Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods. Now this we deny , and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so . Natural Reason teaches Nothing about the Personality of the Godhead : it teaches One God , but whether this One God be One or Three Persons , it says not , and therefore He may be either , without contradicting the natural Notions we have of One God ; and then there is free scope for Revelation ; and if Revelation teaches there is but One God , and that there are Three Divine Persons , each of which hath ( in Scripture ) not only the Title , but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to him , then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity , Three Persons and one God. For what the Scripture affirms , and Reason does not deny , is a proper Object of our Faith ; and then this Objection against this Faith , that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods , if each of them be God , is sensless and ridiculous . I have transcribed this whole Paragraph , because it deserves some particular Reflection . 1. I observe , that it contains no positive Proofs , but a meer denial . The Author is extreamly confident and bold ; and yet all his reasonings may be resolved into I hope not , and this we deny . Indeed this is a very short way of answering Objections ; and as easy as to burn Books that are unanswerable . There lies an Objection cross in his way , that if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons , we must believe Three distinct Gods. To this he answers , I hope not , when we profess to believe but one God. Is this a direct Confutation ? must we be satisfied with such an Answer : because Trinitarians profess that Three Divine Persons are but one God ; does it follow , that it is true , and cannot be doubted of ? He hopes not , and he denies it , therein lies the strength of his Argument and Answer . 2. I should have added , he challenges ; for this is his third way of confuting Objections . He challenges us to produce any plain Principle of Reason , to prove that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three Gods. But we have a plain Principle of Reason at hand , to answer his Challenge , to wit , that it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One. 3. Here is a most absurd and ridiculous Paradox , as I ever heard of ; Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of God or the Godhead ; it teaches One God ; but whether this One God be One or Three Persons , it says not . What ? If Reason tells us that there is One God ; He must be One Intelligent Being . Now according to Reason we have no other Idea of Unity , but such as we have of a Man , a Beast , and a Tree . Therefore as Reason teaches that a Man is one Person , because he is one Intelligent Being ; so it follows that according to Human Reason , God is but one Person , being but one Intelligent Being . Reason does not tell us that the Unity of God is different from the Unity of a Man : it produces in our Minds the same Idea of both ; which being applied to God as well as to Man , must needs denote One Person or Intelligent Being in opposition to Two or Three . Nay , if Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead ( which the Author does not think fit to prove ) what Idea can we have of the Vnity of God by Reason ? As long as we are ignorant , whether God be one or three Persons ; our Idea of him must needs be more imperfect than of any other Being , in that very Notion which is so familiar to us , and which God himself has so much urged , viz. his Unity . This is so false a Principle , and so contrary to the Dictates of Reason , that there never was any Man , taught by Reason that there is but one God , but did believe at the same time , that He is but one Person . The Author should not have ventur'd abroad such a Philosophy , contrary to the Reason of all Mankind ; but ought to have kept it for himself . Now I find that the Scripture doth perfectly agree with Reason . This tells me that there is but one God , who is but one Person ; That teaches me the same , and also that the Father of our Lord Christ is that one God : both of them contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity . 4. He saith ; that there are Three Divine Persons , each of which have ( in Scripture ) not only the Title , but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them . But where is the Holy Ghost called God in Scripture ? He is indeed called the Spirit of God , but never God himself ; and being the Power of God , 't is no wonder that such things are ascribed to him , as are ascribed to God himself . Thus it is ordinary to ascribe to a Man's Courage , what he has done himself ; and yet his Courage is no Person , nor distinct from him . This I say only by the way , to shew the strangeness of his Consequences . But I shall say nothing here of the Son : and indeed seeing he brings no particular Instances of what he advances , there is no need to insist any longer upon it . CHAP. III. I come now to examine his Answers , to the Objections against the Trinity in the brief History of the Unitarians . THE First Objection , p. 154. If our Lord Christ were himself God ; there could be no Person greater than He , none that might be called his Head or God , none that could in any respect command him . Let us hear , How the 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 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 the Context of the Colossians , by that of the Ephesians ; and put such a Sense upon it , as imports no true and proper Creation . 4. Coloss . 1. 19 , 20. being interpreted by Ephes . 1. 10. is a Confirmation of what I have said hitherto . The former ( Coloss . 1. 19 , 20. ) runs thus ; For it pleased the Father , that in him should all fulness dwell ; and ( having made Peace through the Blood of his Cross ) by him to reconcile all things to himself ; by him , I say , whether they be things in Earth , or things in Heaven . To which answers the other Text ( Eph. 2. 10. ) in these Words ; That in the Dispensation of the fulness of time , he might gather together in one all things in Christ , both which are in Heaven , and which are in Earth , even in him . No Man , I hope , will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistle to the Colossians , which we render to Reconcile , ought to be interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text of the Ephesians , which signifies to gather together in one , or to sum up . So that the meaning of both places is this , that it pleased God in the fulness of time , to unite both Angels and Men under one Head , even Christ , whom he set up Lord and King over them . Now this does perfectly agree with what St. Paul says to the Ephesians , concerning Christ's exaltation above all the Orders of Angels , and his being Head of the Church : for his Argument runs thus ; God has exalted Christ above all the Orders of Angels , and made him Head of the Church , for he had decreed , in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head , Christ . But if the Text of the Epistle to the Colossians , is meant of the Creation of the World ; this will be perfect Non-sense ; for thus it ought to run : Christ has created all Orders of Angels , and all Powers on Earth , and was made Head of the Church ; for God had decreed , in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head , Christ. No Man in the World can speak greater Non-sense than this would be , were the Creation of the World ascribed to Christ in the controverted Text. I desire the Author to reconcile his explication of these Words , that in all things he might have the preeminence , with what follows . That is ( says he , at p. 157. ) that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the First upon all accounts , before the Worlds , and the First-born from the dead . So the whole Argument ( according to the Author ) must run thus ; Christ was the First upon all accounts , before the Worlds , and the First-born from the Dead ; for God was pleased , in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under Christ , as their Head. Could any thing be said more absurd and ridiculous ? The Author's Skill in Scripture and Reason is , I think , alike . 2. Having thus proved that the Old Creation , or the Creation properly so called , is not ascribed to Christ in this Context of the Colossians ; I come now to explain its true Sense , as clearly as possibly I can . Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God , the First-born of every Creature . The meaning of these last Words is not , that Christ was begotten before all Creatures , as this Author would have it , but that He is the Lord and King of every ( Intelligent ) Creature ; in Allusion to the First-born of a Family , who is Heir of all Things . This I prove by the 17 and 18th Verses ; Ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And He is before all things , is the Explication of the First-born of every Creature ; and signifies , not that He is before all Creatures in order of time , but of Dignity and Power , being by God set over all the Orders of Angels , and over the Church , as their Head and King. But if you don't rest satisfied with this parallel Place , the 18th Verse will afford an undeniable proof of what I say : There you find , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is rightly rendred in our Bibles , That in all things He might have the Preeminence , both in Heaven and in Earth , among Angels and in the Church . I say now , these last Words ought to be the Explication of the two before-mentioned Expressions ; to be the First-born of every Creature , and to be before all Things , ought to be interpreted by his having the Praeeminence in all Things : so that He is the First-born of every Creature , is this , He hath the Preeminence over every Creature . Thus by the Context it self , we find out the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which in the English we translate First-born of every Creature : And thus too are these Words interpreted by the principal Critics among the Orthodox , ( as they are called ) Gomarus , Camero , Piscator , Drusius , Vorstius , Davenant , Dally , Grotius , ( for they will have him also to be Orthodox ) Hammond . I come now to the next Verse , For by him were all Things created . I have fully proved , they cannot be understood of the Old Creation , the Creation of Heaven and Earth , and the Sea , and of the Things in them , which is the Creation properly so called ; therefore to reconcile this Verse with the foregoing , and with the Words before cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians , ( He [ God ] set Him at his own Right-Hand , far above all Principality and Power , — and every Name that is named ; ) The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we render Created , ought to be rendred Modelled , Disposed , or Reformed into a new Order . So that the Sense will run thus ; Christ is the Lord of every Creature , for by him are all both Visible and Invisible Creatures , even all Men and Angels , Modelled or Disposed into a new Order , being subjected to Him and His Commands : As for Angels , all the Orders of them , whether they be Thrones or Dominions , none of them are exempted from his Power and Authority ; he rules over them , ( which is the meaning of Ver. 17. ) and they are all as it were compacted in one Body under his Conduct ; as for Men , as He is the Beginning and the First-born from the Dead , so He was also made Head of the Church his Body ; so that in all things He has the Preeminence , He rules in Heaven and on Earth , over Angels and over the Church , which is the Sense of Ver. 18. This I hope makes a clear Sense , agreeable to the whole Context , and to the Text in the Ephesians . I observe that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or He is before all Things , is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Or He is the First-born of every Creature : So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or and by him all Things consist , or are compacted into one Body , ought to be the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or by him were all Things ( not created , as 't is rendred in the English , but ) Modelled or Reformed . I know not , why Dr. Sherlock has called this a Socinian Explication ; as if it were devised by them , to serve their Hypothesis ; the truth is , the 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 ; 1. The Dignity conferred upon Christ ought not to be called , the Supream Government of the World ; as this Author has stiled it : For He acts and governs in Subordination to his Father . 2. When the Scripture speaks of this Advancement of Christ , it extends it especially over Angels and Men. 3. It is no Indignity to Angels , as our Author pretends , to be ruled and governed by a Man , whom God has exalted above them . Angels indeed have some natural Prerogatives above Men , whereby they are more excellent Creatures than Men : but if it pleases God of his free Gift , to invest a Man with greater Dignity , Power , and all other Excellence , than any Angel has ; why can't He be set over them , as their Lord and Ruler , in Subordination to God ? There is no Incongruity in it . 4. That , contrary to the Author's Assertion , a meer Creature may be a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal and Prerogative . Acts of Government or Power . Thus Saul and David were set over the Israelites , to govern and rule over them by God's Appointment , in Subordination to him . Nay we do commonly say , That the King is the Lieutenant and Representative of God. 5. God communicated to Christ such Wisdom and Power , as is necessary to enable him to exercise the Dignity conferred on him . In all this , there is not the least Inconsistency . But notwithstanding his foregoing Objections , he confesses , the Difficulty remains . P. 161. If He be by Nature the Son of God , and Natural Lord of the World ; how is He said to be exalted by God , and to receive a Kingdom from him , as the reward of his Righteousness and Sufferings ? He was before possessed of it , ever since the Foundation of the World ; being natural Lord of all his Creatures : He had no need to receive that which was his own , or purchase what was his natural Right , by such mean and vile Condescension as suffering Death on the Cross . Now to reconcile this , he makes a long Discourse concerning the Mediatory Kingdom of Christ ; which ( saith he ) hath been bestowed on the second Person of the Trinity , and is peculiar to Him , and distinguished from the Natural Government of the World , which He has in Conjunction with the Father . This Chimerical System I may overthrow , I think , by that single Text of St. Paul already cited ; There is one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , the MAN Christ Jesus . If Christ is a Mediator , and has the Mediatory Kingdom , as He is the second Person of the Trinity , that is , as He is God ; why does the Apostle tell us , that He is a Mediator bearly as He is Man ? At least he should have told us , that the Mediator is the God-Man Jesus Christ . It is unaccountable that the Apostle , who in all his Epistles sets forth the Excellency and Glory of Christ , in the most expressive Terms ; should tell us that the MAN Christ Jesus is the Mediator between God and Men , if the Mediatory Kingdom is exercised by the Divine Person or Nature , and if ( not Christ Man , but ) Christ God is the Mediator . But let us examine the Grounds our Author goes on . He tells us , ibid. A Mediatory Kingdom was necessary , to reconcile God and Men ; to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature : and this Power and Dignity God bestowed on his own Son ; who had the most Right to it , and was the best qualified for it , being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father . Now one would expect , he should cite some Texts of Scripture , to prove this Assertion ; but he could find no place to rely on . But Christ must , says he , first become Man , and perform the whole Will of God , and then He shall be exalted . Whereupon he makes this Observation ; ( pag. 162. ) All the Power Christ is invested with , is as Head of the Church : God has put all Things under his Feet ; and given him to be Head over all Things to the Church ; which is his Body , the Fulness of him that filleth all Things ; Eph. 1. 22 , 23. That is , saith he , God has made him Governour of the World , as Head of the Church . I observe two Things upon this place . 1. That this Text is not well interpreted . The first part of it relates to the foregoing Verse , and ought to be explained by it : God , saith the Apostle , at Ver. 21. Set Christ at his own Right-Hand in the Heavenly Places , far above all Principality and Power , and every Name that is named , not only in this World , but in that which is to come . Ver. 23. And hath put all Things under his Feet . What Things ? Those that are before mentioned , all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Powers . And then follows ; And gave him to be Head , &c. This is the sense ; not , that Christ was made Governour of the whole World , as Head of the Church . 2. But , what if all the Power Christ is invested with , is as Head of the Church ? Will it not follow , that all the Power He is invested with , is as a Man , not as God ? And this also I prove by Col. 1. 18. And He is the Head of the Body the Church , who is the Beginning , the First-born from the Dead . He who is the First-born from the Dead , can be no other but the MAN Jesus Christ ; but He who is the First-born from the Dead , is the Head of the Church , as that Text expresly saith : therefore the MAN Christ Jesus is the Head of the Church . Thus the Apostle very plainly telling us ; that the Mediator and Head of the Church is the Man Christ Jesus , destroys our Author's Notion of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom , or that it is grounded on and exercised by his Divine Nature or Person . Further , if Christ God is the Mediator , if the Mediatory Kingdom belongs to and is managed by the second Person of the ( supposed ) Trinity , I don't see , how the Government of Israel can be a Type of this Kingdom , as this Author says at p. 162 , 163. For the King of the Israelites was between God and his People , and was really diverse from both ; but Christ in our Author's Hypothesis , is God himself , One with the Father and the Holy Ghost ; so that he must be a Mediator between himself and Men , which besides that it is contrary to the Notion of a Mediator , does wholly destroy the Parallel . He says at pag. 164 , 165. that , We certainly know from the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles , that the Prophets spake of Christ under the Names of Lord , God , and Jehovah . But I desire him , to reconcile these Texts with his Opinion ; Heb. 1. 1 , 2. God , who at sundry Times and in divers Manners , spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets ; hath in these Last Days spoken unto us by his Son. Heb. 2. 2 , 3. For if the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast ; — How shall we escape , if we neglect so great Salvation , which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord ? Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels , in the Hand of a Mediator , i. e. by the Intervention 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 not , My Kingdom is not of this World , but from this World. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. My Kingdom is not owing to Men , but to God's own appointment : I am a King indeed , but this Kingdom I received from God's own Hands : My Kingdom is not from hence , as he explains it , but from above . Acts 2. 36. God has made that same Jesus , whom ye crucified , both Lord and Christ , i. e. King. And chap. 17. 31. He has appointed a Day , in which he will judge the World in Righteousness , by the MAN whom he has ordained . 1 Cor. 15. 24 , 28 , Then cometh the end , when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God , even the Father . — Then shall the Son be also subject to him , that put all things under him , that God may be all in all . This , I take to be the true account of Christ's Kingdom , according to Scripture . Thus God performed the Oath , which he sware to David ; even by raising up an Horn of Salvation in his House , Luke 1. 69. Thus the Kingdom of Christ , who is the Seed of David , shall last as long as the Sun and Moon . But we no where find in Scripture , that this Kingdom is bestowed upon him , as he is the Eternal Son of God , and Second Person of the Trinity . St. Paul was so far from believing that ; that discoursing of the principal Act of Christ's Kingly Power and Authority , viz. his judging the World ; he says , that God has appointed a Day to perform this , by the MAN whom he has ordained , Acts 17. 31. In a Word , as Christ has been exalted by God , and has received a Kingdom from him : So when the appointed End cometh , he shall deliver it up to God , and remain SUBJECT to him , as St. Paul expresly teaches , 1 Cor. 15. 28. These two things demonstratively prove , that Christ is a King , barely as a Man ; and that his Mediatory Kingdom , so much spoken of by our Author , is a Chimera . I proceed now to his other Answers , to this Objection , That Christ knows not the day of Judgment . He replies ( pag. 177. ) Christ in that Text speaks of himself as Man : St. Matthew does not mention the Son , which shews that the Son is included in St. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , None , or no Man ; and therefore these Texts must speak of Christ only as a Man. I answer , so they do , for he is no more than a Man. St. Mark tells us , that Christ as the Son ( of God ) knows not that Day and Hour . Now our Author will have Christ's Sonship founded in his Eternal Generation from the Father ; and that he is the Son not as he is Man , but as he is God , so he saith at pag. 166. and elsewhere . This is indeed a very easy distinction , were it but true : but Trinitarians are the Authors of it , not Scripture . In St. Mark 's Gradation Christ is named after Men and Angels , to shew his present Excellence and Exaltation above them : but in St. Matthew , that very Son of God , who is above Men and Angels , is included in the None , or no Man. Thus this glorious Title of the Son of God , denotes here Christ Man. As the Father in St. Mark is God ; so the Son of God , who knows not that Day and Hour , is Christ Man , who is so stiled in all the New Testament without any respect to a second Nature . CHAP. IV. THE sixth Argument in the Brief History runs thus : God giveth what , and to whom He pleases ; He needs not the aid of any other ; He intreateth not for Himself or his People ; He cannot die ; and deriveth his Power from none but Himself : But 't is certain , that the Lord Christ could not himself , without the previous Ordination of the Father , confer the prime Dignities of Heaven , or of the Church . He placed his Safety in his Father's Presence and Help ; he prayed often and fervently to the Father , both for himself and for his Disciples ; he died , and was raised from the Dead by the Father ; after his Resurrection he received from another , all that great Power which he now injoys . To this he answers ; Christ interceeds with no Creature , receives Authority from no Creature , &c. nor from any God neither , who is separated from himself : For he is One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost . That he interceeds with the Father , proves indeed that he is a distinct Person from the Father ; not , that he is not one God with him . But why , I pray , does it not prove that , he is not one God with the Father ? For if he intercedes with God , can he be that very God with whom he intercedes ? if he is , what need is there for him to intercede ? Besides ; this Author says before ( pag. 167 , 169 , 170. ) The Three Divine Persons can never act separately , they have but One Energy , and whatever is done they do it by one Individual Act. Now I hope he will grant , that Prayer and Intercession are real Acts or Actions : I infer , therefore when the Son intercedes , the Father and Holy Spirit must intercede too . Thus Intercession and Prayer are not peculiar to the Son ; but there are in the Godhead three Intercessors , three Beseeching Persons . Whom , what Person or God , does this Trinity beseech ? Good God! how long shall it be , that Men will love Darkness rather than Light ; and prefer a Novel and Unintelligible Gospel , before the old , plain and easy One ? Pag. 183. He says ; For God to make a Creature , Advocate and Mediator , is to give a Creature Authority over himself ; which cannot be : for it is a Debasement to the Divine Nature , and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom ; it is as if God did not better know , how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy , than any Creature does . But why so ? has our Author forgot , or is he to learn , that Moses , thô a meer Creature , was a Mediator between God and his People ? I am sure , St. Paul calls him so in these Words , at Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels , in the Hand of a Mediator . And at Deut. 5. 5. He stood between the Lord and them , to shew them the Word of the Lord. And the same Apostle tells us , that the MAN Jesus Christ is a Mediator between God and Men. Does not the Scripture mention Moses his Intercession with God ; and that God was moved by his Intreaty ? Why then does this Author affirm ; that to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator , is above the Nature and Order of Creatures ? To the next Argument ; viz. That Jesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of , as a distinct and different Person from God ; and described to be the Son of God , and the Image of God. He answers , This we own , and he had no need to prove it : This is a wonderful Argument to convince those , who acknowledg Three distinct Persons in the Godhead ; that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father ; for so according to the Language of Scripture , God signifies God the Father , when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit ; as 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 the Title of God , therefore because God is most certainly a Person , no Body can doubt that the Father is a Person . As for the Son , the same Gospel often says he is a Man ; every Man being a Person ; the Son being a Man , must be also a Person . But it is quite otherways with the Holy Ghost , for the Scriptures call it the Power of God ; and Power is a Faculty , not a Person . Acts 10. 38. God has anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost , and with Power . Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee , and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee . What is more plain than that , the Power of the Highest in these Texts is the explication of the Holy Ghost ? Again , Acts 6. 5. They chose Stephen , a Man full of Faith , and of the Holy Ghost . Ver. 8. And Stephen full of Faith and of POWER , did great Wonders . Here again the Holy Ghost at ver . 5. is explained by Power at ver . 8. He says further ; He is the Spirit of God , which searcheth the deep things of God ; and he who knows all things in God , must be a knowing Mind . In answer to this , I must explain the Text to which he alludes , 1 Cor. 2. 10 , 11. and which he cites too , pag. 192. Ver. 10. But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit ; for the Spirit searches all things , yea the deep things of God. The Apostle speaks here of the Doctrines of the Gospel , its Precepts and Promises , which before were hidden , but now are revealed to Men ; as appears by ver . 7 , 8 , 9. He meaneth this ; God has revealed to us Apostles these Doctrines , this ( formerly ) hidden Wisdom , by his Inspiration ; for this Spirit or Inspiration in us searcheth out ( i. e. finds or discovers ) these deep or hidden things of God. Deep , I say , and hidden ; not to us , but to the World , and the Princes of the World. The Apostle illustrates his Discourse with a Comparison , ver . 11. What Man knoweth the things of a Man , save the Spirit of a Man which is in him ? Even so the Things of God knoweth no Man , but the Spirit of God. As if he had said , As no Man knows the things that belong to Human Life , but by his own Spirit or Mind : So no Man knows these things of God , but by God's Spirit or Inspiration , whereby he is enabled to know them . This Interpretation perfectly agrees with what follows , at ver . 12. Now we have not received the Spirit of the World , but the Spirit of God , that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. This is the true Sense of this place . For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate no Man , must either be understood exclusively of God ; or so as to include God also . If it includes God too , it will follow , that the Holy Spirit or Third Person of the Trinity , knows the Things of God , and that the Father and Son are altogether ignorant of them ; which Consequence , I am sure , they will not allow . But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no Man here ( as most certainly it does ) then the Spirit of God is to be understood of , the Man who has received that Spirit or Inspiration ; by assistance whereof he may attain to the knowledge of the most secret Counsels of God ; as the Apostle explains it , in the very next Verse . The Author grants , that Charity may be said to suffer long , and to be kind , because a charitable Man does so : then the Spirit of God may be said to know the Things of God , because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , He that is Spiritual ( as St. Paul stiles him , Ver. 15. ) he that has the Spirit of God , does so . This Vorstius rightly understood in his Notes upon this place . By the Spirit of God ( saith he ) we must understand that Spirit which is given us of God ; that is , our Selves as Spiritual : thus ( John 3. 6. ) That which is born of the Spirit , saith our Saviour , is Spirit . This I hope may be enough to clear the sense of this Text. But the Author cannot allow of Power and Inspiration , distinct from God , and yet not God ; for what are Faculties in us , are Persons in God. If this be true , then there are more than Three Persons in the Godhead ; for Power is a Faculty in us , and being in God too , it must be another Person in him . Thus not only Wisdom and Love , but Power also are Persons in God. Nay , there being Three knowing Minds in the Godhead , each of which is ` God , as the Author tells us ; it cannot be said , that the Father only has Wisdom , Love , and Power . The Son and the Holy Ghost must have them too ; else they should not be God. But if Wisdom , Love and Power , being Faculties in us , ought to be Persons in God : then there are Nine Persons at the least , in God , viz. Wisdom , Love and Power in the Father , who is an Infinite Mind distinct from the Son and Holy Ghost ; Wisdom , Love and Power in the Son , who is an Infinite Mind distinguished from the Father and Holy Ghost ; Wisdom , Love and Power in the Holy Ghost , who is an Infinite Mind distinct from the Father and Son. Moreover , he tells us , that the Son is a Person , because He is the Father's Reflex knowledge . But the Son being an Infinite and most Perfect Mind , is undoubtedly able to reflect upon his own Wisdom and Knowledg , and thus ( as well as the Father ) to beget a Son. And this second Son in the Trinity may by the same Means and Reason beget another , and so onwards to Infinity . Thus according to this Maxim , that what are Faculties in us , are Persons in God ; there may be , nay there must be , an infinite number of Persons in God. Apage ! This is certain ( says he ) all Personal Acts belong to a Person ; and therefore whatever has any Personal Acts , we must conclude is a Person : unless we know by some other means , that it is no Person ; and then , that proves the Expression to be Figurative . But we know , that the Holy Ghost is no Person ; and therefore we may affirm , that whenever Personal Acts are ascribed to it , it is to be figuratively taken . That the Holy Ghost is not God , we most certainly know ; because the Scripture plainly tells us , there is but one God , the Father . That the Holy Ghost is not a created Person , is made probable by several places of Scripture , which teach us , that it is God's Power and Inspiration ; by explaining the Holy Ghost by the Power of God , and putting one for the other . According to these two Principles , which the Scripture affords us ; viz. That the Father only is God , and that the Holy Ghost is God's Power ; we dare affirm , that when Personal Acts are ascribed to it , it is a Figurative Expression . Thus we can easily conceive , that the Holy Ghost may be said to work Miracles ( pag. 190. ) to raise the Dead , to comfort , to convince , to sanctify the Church , to dwell in the Church : because God by his Power works Miracles , raises the 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 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 't is , God is thy Throne ( i. e. thy Seat , Resting-place , Establishment ) for ever . Neither the Translation nor the Interpretation is the Historian's , but by him taken out of Grotius , whom no Man thinks to have ridicul'd the Scripture . But let us suppose , contrary to Grotius , that the Hebrew Elohim ought to be taken in the Vocative Case , thus ; Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever : Yet the Interpretation of Grotius , and of the Historian , affords neither an absurd nor a trifling Sense . The Words in the Psalms are ( by confession of the ablest Trinitarian Interpreters ) spoken of Solomon , and are applied or accommodated to Christ , by the Apostle : and I think 't is very good Sense to say , that God was the Resting-place , Seat , or Establishment , both of Christ and Solomon . But ( as I said ) let us grant , that the Words should be thus rendered and interpreted , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever : I draw from thence this Inference , If Solomon , tho but a Man , is here stiled God ; then Christ , who is a greater Man , may be called so too . But when he is here called God , it is not meant that he is the Supream God , unless the Supream God can be said to be anointed with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows , which is plainly inconsistent with the Notion of a Supream God. Besides , he who is called God in this place , is said to have a God , by whom he is anointed ; which can by no means agree to the Supream God : for he can have no God above him , by whom he may be exalted , being himself the most High. The Apostle in the following Verses , cites another Passage out of Psal . 102. 25 , 26 , 27. which ( says our Author at pag. 201. ) is a plain Testimony of the Divinity of our Saviour . The Words are these , And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth ; and the Heavens are the works of thy Hands : they shall perish , but thou remainest , and they shall all wax old as does a Garment , and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up , and they shall be changed : but thou art the same , and thy Years fail not . Now , I say , that the Creation of the World cannot be ascribed to Christ in this place . This , I prove , by the Scope of the Apostle in this whole Chapter , which is not to shew the Excellence which Christ has of himself , but that which he obtained by Donation , whereby he was made better than Angels , as appears by ver . 4. the Words are these , Being MADE so much better than Angels , as he has by Inheritance obtained ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) a more excellent Name than they . The Greek Word which we translate obtained by Inheritance , signifies no more than barely obtained ; the Words by Inheritance are useless and dangerous , and false too , for the Name Christ has obtained , came to him by free Donation , not by Inheritance . And therefore it is that the most Famous Criticks render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by obtinuit , sortitus est , he gained or obtained . I say therefore , the Apostle's Scope is to show the Excellency that Christ obtained , not by Nature , or of Himself , but that which he had by Donation ; and whereby he was made by God better than the Angels . Whereupon in this whole Chapter he opposes the Glory which Christ had been indued with , to the Glory of Angels ; and shews that His is more excellent and greater than Theirs . So that suppose Ghrist had indeed created the World , yet the Creation cannot be ascribed to him in this Place ; for if he had created the World , he should have done it by a Power proper and essential to himself , not by a Power received from another . But the Apostle designs in this Chapter , not to speak of what is natural or essential to Christ , but of what he has received from God , whereby he was made greater and more excellent than Angels . Having thus shown , that Christ is not said here to have created the World , I must now declare , in what Sense this Text of the Psalm is applied to him . The preceding Words , spoken of Solomon , are accommodated to him , to express the Glory and the Duration of his Kingdom : its Glory , because God has anointed him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows ; its Duration , because his Throne is for ever and ever . By which glorious and lasting Kingdom , Christ has been made much better than Angels , and obtained a more excellent Name than they : which ( as I said before ) is the thing , the Apostle in this Chapter intended to teach us . Now to the same purpose he applies to Christ another place , taken out of Psal . 102. and separated from the other only by the Word And : by this other place ( or rather , in the Words and Terms of this other place ) he confirms what he said before concerning the Duration of Christ's Kingdom ; and shews that tho all things be subject to change and alteration , yet Christ's Kingdom shall be immutable and last for ever . They ( the Heavens and the Earth ) shall perish , but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as does a Garment , and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up , and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same , and thy Years fail not . These Words are used as a Confirmation of what went before , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever . As for ver . 10. Thou Lord in the beginning has laid the Foundation of the Earth , &c. The Apostle does not cite it as spoken of Christ , or with intention to accommodate it to him ; but because it was necessary for explaining the word , They ( They shall perish ) in the following words , which he had occasion to use for expressing the Duration of Christ's Kingdom . And now I appeal to any Reader , whether this be an absurd Sense ? Is not this Explication clear , and agreeable to the Scope of the Sacred Writer ? But is not the Sense which the Author would put upon this place , both absurd and inconsistent ? Can it be said that Christ is made better than Angels , and obtained a greater Name than they , because he created Heaven and Earth ; that is , being so before by Nature , and from all Eternity , he is afterwards made better , and has a more excellent Name than theirs bestowed on him ? The next place he examines , is Psal . 68. 18. Thou hast ascended on high , thou hast led Captivity Captive , thou hast received Gifts for Men : Which St. Paul applies to Christ . Whereupon our Author says , The single Question is , Whether Christ be that God of whom the Psalmist says , that He ascended on High ? &c. If he be not , St. Paul has abused us , for he applies that to Christ , which was not said of him . Here indeed is a very rash Conclusion . Were this true , it would follow , that the Sacred Writers of the New Testament have abused us , as often as they have cited any place of the Old Testament by way of accommodation . Thus St. Paul has again abused us , when he applies ( at Rom. 10. 18. ) to the Apostles these Words , Their sound went out into all the Earth , and their Words into the ends of the World ; which every one knows and confesses are meant ( at Psal . 19. 4. ) of the Heavens and other Works of God , which ( as it were ) preach his Wisdom and Power and Goodness to all Nations . And thus St. Matthew ( at Mat. 13. 35. ) puts a Trick upon us , when he applies to Christ the Words of Psal . 78. 2. I will open my Mouth in Parables : Which the Psalmist speaks of himself , not of Christ . Is our Author so little acquainted with the Writers of the New Testament , as to be ignorant , that they very often cite the Texts of the Old , not as Testimonies and Proofs of what they say , but by way of Allusion and Accommodation ? Such is the place in question , the Apostle thought fit to accommodate the words of the Psalm , to the matter he was treating of ; which was an elegant way of writing , and very much practised by the Antient Jews , as may be seen both in the Talmud and Rabbins . Let us hear J. Calvin on this place ; Lastly , says he , we must not be too scrupulous about the Literal Sense of this Psalm ; seeing the Apostle only alludes to the Psalmist's words : even as he applies a place of Moses , to the matter in hand at Rom. 10. 6. God himself can be no Type , says our Author , pag. 203. for the Type is always less perfect than the Anti-type ; and therefore whatsoever is said of God , must belong to his Person , and cannot belong to any other . But what then ? We do not say that God is a Type of any other in this Text ; nor did the Apostle cite the Words as such : we only say , that what is spoken of God in the Psalm , is by the Apostle applied to Christ by way of Accommodation ; as several other Passages of the Old Testament are , both by him and other sacred Writers ; as is confest by all Interpreters . The next Place is Heb. 1. 6. When he bringeth the First-begotten into the World , he says ; and let all the Angels of God worship him : Which last Words are commonly thought to be quoted out of Psal . 97. 7. To this Allegation the Socinian Historian answers ; The Apostle does not quote the Words of the Psalmist , as if they were spoken of Christ ; but only declareth the Decree of God ( known to him by the Spirit ) for subjecting the Angels to Christ , in the same Words that the Psalmist had used on another Occasion . This is a very sound and judicious Answer ; yet our Author cannot rest satisfied with it , for he answers ; But he proves this Decree of God by no other Revelation , but the Words of the Psalmist , nor pretends any other ; and if that don't prove it , we have no other . Yes , we have ; for we know from Christ himself , that all Power is given to him , both in Heaven and Earth , and consequently that he is exalted above all the Orders of Angels : this the Scriptures often teach , and it was believed by all Christians in the time of the Apostles . So that when this sacred Writer sets before the Hebrews the eminent Glory of Christ ; he does it , only to keep them in mind of it , and to perswade them never to depart from the Doctrine of so great and glorious a Master . As if he should have said ; You are not ignorant of the Glory Christ now injoys in Heaven ; how Thrones , Powers , Dominions , &c. are subjected to him : for when God brought his First-born and beloved Son into the Heavenly World , he said concerning him , what had been said upon another Occasion , Let all the Angels of God worship him ; let them honour , serve , and be subject to him . This is the true and natural Sense of this Place ; to which I must add , ( what has been already observed by others ) that it is probable this Place is quoted out of Deut. 32. 43. according to the Lxx ; and not out of Psal . 97. For there we find the very Words of the Apostle , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And let all the Angels of God worship him . But in Psal . 97. we find only , Worship him all ye Gods. If this be true , as I think it is , our Author's Objection will fall of it self . For those Words in Deut. are not spoken of God , but of God's People , the Israelites . And if this can be said of God's People ; I hope it may be said of Christ too , without concluding from thence , that he is the Supream God. The next Place is Isa . 45. 23. I have sworn by my self ; Vnto me every Knee shall bow . Which Words of God are applied to Christ at Rom. 14. 10 , 11. We shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ ; for it is written , Every Knee shall bow to me , and every Tongue shall confess to God. To this the Historian answers ; In bowing and confessing to Christ at the last Judgment , we are said to bow and confess to God ; not because Christ is God , but because Christ then and there holds the place of God , representeth him , and acteth by his Commission . So Men are said to appear before our Soraign Lord the King , when they appear at the Bar of his Judges ; because the Judges act in the King's stead , and by his Commission . To this our Author replies ; But why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the last Judgment ? St. Paul , indeed gives this as one Instance , but does not confine it to this ; but in the Epistle to the Philippians makes it as large , as the Exaltation of our Saviour ; Wherefore God hath highly exalted him , &c. And one may plainly see , that the Historian does not confine the bowing of the Knee to the last Judgment ; He only explains the Words of the Apostle which relate to it . But what then ? The Apostle makes the bowing of the Knee as large as Christ's Exaltation , Phil. 2. What follows from thence ? That Christ is God! By no means . It follows only , that we ought to pay Christ an Honour proportionable to the Dignity bestowed on him ; in a word , that every Tongue confess that he is Lord , to the Glory of God , the Father . In which Words the Apostle plainly teaches us , that the Honour we pay to Christ , is subordinate to God , and designed to promote God's Glory . If then , says he , we must bow to the Person of Christ , and confess him to be the Lord , and this can be an Accomplishment of God's Oath , Vnto me every Knee shall bow , and every Tongue shall swear ; then Christ is that God , who in the Prophet Isaiah swore , That every Knee should bow to him . This is just as if one should say ; If then the Irish must how to the Person of the Vice-Roy in Ireland , and confess him to be the Lord ; and this be the Accomplishment of the King's Will , Vnto me all the Irish shall bow , and swear Allegiance ; then the Vice-Roy is that King , who will have all the Irish to swear Allegiance to him . This is a ridiculous Argument ; for as the Irish may bow to the Person of the Vice-Roy , and look upon him as a Lord established by the King to govern Ireland ; so this they do in compliance with the King's Will , and to shew thereby that they are his loyal and faithful Subjects : and he who bows to the Vice-Roy , may be said to bow to the King ; because the Vice-Roy represents the King , and acts in his Name . So that it would be non-sense to say , the Vice-Roy is King , because they pay him that Honour . Let us apply this to Christ ; we must bow to him , and confess him to be the Lord ; and by so doing , God's Oath is accomplished , Vnto me every Knee shall bow , &c. Does it follow from thence , that Christ is that God , who swore in the Prophet Isaiah ? Not at all ; because when we pay this Honour to Christ , it is , to obey God's Commands , and to acknowledg his Power and Authority over us . He who honours the Ambassador , honours him that sent him ; he who honours Christ God 's Anointed , honours God who anointed him . In a word , He who bows to Christ tho a Man , bows to God also . The next place , is Rom. 9. 33. As it is written , Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-Stone , and Rock of ossence ; and whosoever believeth on him , shall not be ashamed . Part of these Words are taken from Isa . 28. 16. and because they are spoken of God in the Prophet , and applied to Christ by St. Paul and St. Peter , as several other Texts of the Old Testament are : They conclude , Christ must be that God , spoken of in the Prophet . But the Historian answers ; that Neither Peter , nor Paul , cite the Words of the Prophet , as spoken of Christ ; but only as in some sense applicable to him , namely , because Christ also was to many a Stone of stumbling . To this our Author replies , like a Man very little acquainted with Scripture : that This is nothing else , but to charge the Apostles with abusing Scripture ; and producing Proofs , which are no Proofs . This I have answered before . But he tells us , that Paul alledges this Prophecy to prove , that the Infidelity of the Jews , and the Offence they should take at Christ , was foretold in Scripture . Here I must tell him , he is mistaken . For the Words are no such Prophecy ; but are spoken of the Times of Sennacherib , who was to make War against the Inhabitants of Jerusalem , whom God promises to protect and defend , if they will but keep within the Walls of the City , and stick close to his Law. The Author adds a considerable Reflection ; And thus these Men , rather than they will allow the Scripture proofs , that Christ is God , destroy all the Old Testament proofs of the Truth of Christianity ; and yet if such Texts as these , must pass only for Accommodations and Allusions , I know not where they will find any proofs . Alas ! I perceive the Author would be a very unfit Man to convert Jews . When I read first this Passage of his Book ; I could not but wonder , how it came from a Christian . He knows not where we may find any proofs of Christianity , besides those of the Old Testament . Are then the Miracles of Christ , and of his Apostles , nothing ? Is Christ's Resurrection no Proof , or but a weak one , of his being sent by God , and the truth of his Message ? Must we account as nothing , the Purity of the Gospel , and its swift Propagation thrô the whole World ? I always thought , with other Christians , that these were invincible Arguments for the Truth of our Religion . So they are indeed , and by them we ought to convince the Jews : and then we are able to give them a reasonable Account of all the Texts of the Old Testament , that are quoted in the New. The first place in the New Testament , quoted by our Author , is Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations ; Baptizing them in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . This the Author of the Brief History explains , after this manner : To be Baptized in the Name of a Person or Persons , is a Rite by which one delivers himself to the Institution , Instruction , and Obedience of such Person or Persons . So that to be Baptized in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; is to prosess to be led and guided by them : or ( as Grotius expresses this matter ) 't is to declare , we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion , but what proceeds from these ; that is , Nothing but what is commanded by God , or the Father , and has been delivered by his Son the Lord Christ , and consirmed ( externally , by the Miracles ; and internally , by the Witness and Testimony ) of the Spirit , that is , of the Power and Inspiration of God. Now all this our Author grants ; only he says , that Baptism being a Religious Rite , it is a Religious Profession of this ; a Religious Devoting our selves to them : and therefore we give up our selves to their Institution and Guidance , not as Creatures , but as to God ; who is both the Author and Object of our Faith and Worship . But what is the meaning of all this ? We do not deny , that Baptism is a Religious Rite , and a Religious Profession of our Faith : we only deny that , because we are Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost , as well as in the Name of the Father , that therefore the Son and Holy Ghost , are Two Divine Persons , and God as well as the Father . We religiously profess in Baptism , to believe no other Doctrine but what is derived from the Father , taught by his Son , and confirmed by the Holy Ghost ; and the being Baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost , is so far from proving , that they are God ; that supposing they are not , yet we must of necessity be Baptized in their Name . When the Apostles made Proselytes , had they Baptized them only in the Name of the Father ; such a Eaptism had been no distinction of Christians from Jews ; for the Jews believed in the true God , as well as the Christians . So that supposing Christ and the Holy Ghost are not God , yet since the Gospel was first preached by the One , and confirmed by the Other ; it was necessary that he who imbraced the Gospel , should be Baptized in the Name of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost : to profess thereby , that he was neither a Jew nor a Pagan , but a Christian ; and that he admitted no other Doctrine , but that delivered by the Son , and confirmed by the Holy Ghost . This was so essential to the Baptism of a Christian , that we never read in the Acts of the Apostles , that Proselytes were baptized in the Name of the Father , but only in the Name of the Son : of which we can give a reasonable Account ; for all that believed in God , did not believe in Christ ; but whoever believed in Christ , believed in God too . One might believe and trust in God , without being a Christian ; but whoever believed in Christ and was Baptized in his Name , was both a Worshipper of the true God , and a Christian . He who was Baptized in the Name of the Son , did publickly profess 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 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 , that we should explain one obscure place by a thousand that are plain and easy . 3. I come now to assign the true Sense of this famous Context . Vers . 1 , 2. In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God : The same was in the beginning with God. PARAPHRASE . When Jesus , who is called the Word , because he was the Messenger and Preacher of God's Will and Word , and ( as it were ) the Mouth by which God pronounced his Oracles , began to preach the Gospel ; he was intimate to the most secret Counsels of God , like one who is in the very Bosom of his Father ; and he was in the form of God , and like God , by reason of the Glory and Majesty that did shine in him . 1. That the Man Jesus may be called the Word , or the Word of God , no Body will deny who reads Rev. 19. 13. where Jesus is thus described ; He was clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood , and his Name is called The Word of God. He who is here called the Word of God , who is clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood , must be the Man Jesus . Our Lord calls himself the Way , because he teaches us the way to Salvation ; and the Light , in this very Chapter , because he is the bringer of it : therefore why not also the Word of God , because he was the Revealer , Bringer , and first Preacher of it ? 2. It appears by the second Verse , that the Evangelist did not design to make a real Distinction , between to be in the beginning , and to be with God ; for what was distinctly spoken in the first Verse , is put together in the second , thus , The same was in the beginning with God. In effect , the meaning of the Apostle is not , that Christ was , when he began to enter upon his Prophetick Office ; this would be no great wonder : but that , when he began to preach the Doctrine of the Gospel , he was admitted into the most intimate Counsels of God , or made partaker of his most secret Will. This I think to be the reason of the Repetition contained in the second Verse ; besides that we may observe , that Repetitions are very frequent throughout the whole Gospel of St. John , and more used in that Book than in any other of the New Testament . Thus when the same Apostle says , 1 John 1. 1. That which was from the beginning , which we have heard , &c. he does not pretend really to distinguish those two things , and to say that the Gospel was in the beginning of the Gospel ; but that what he had seen and heard of the Gospel from the beginning of it , that he declared unto Men. 3. I have proved before , that In the beginning cannot signify the beginning of the World : but that it is here used for the beginning of the Gospel , the place last quoted ( and several others ) do sufficiently prove . 4. To be with God , and to be in the Bosom of the Father ( at ver . 18. ) are equivalent Terms . If therefore we know the true Sense of the latter Expression , we shall have a right understanding of the former . The Words at ver . 18. run thus ; No Man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son , which is in the Bosom of the Father , he has declared him . Now to see God in St. John's Stile , is to know the Decrees and Will of God concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel . Those words therefore ought to be thus paraphrased ; No Man knew at any time the Will and Decrees of God , concerning the Dispensation of the Gospel : the beloved Son of God , who was admitted into his most secret Counsels , has fully discovered them to us . The Word Only-begotten , is put here for Beloved , by way of Excellence ; and so it is used very often , both in Profane and Sacred Authors . And to be in the Bosom of the Father , is not here an Interpretation of Only-begotten ( that is , Best-Beloved ) but it is brought in as the reason of the full knowledg that Christ had of God's Will , and of the discovery he made of it . Christ , saith our Evangelist here , has fully declared the Will and Counsels of God to us . How so ? Because he was intimate and admitted to the most secret and hidden Counsels of God ; which he expresses by the Son 's being in the Bosom of the Father . This is then the true Sense of this Phrase , The Word was with God , viz. God discovered to him the whole extent of his Will , he kept nothing secret from him , he filled him up with the Treasures of , Wisdom and Knowledg . 5. We may easily understand the true meaning of the Word was God , if we compare them with Phil. 2. 6. where Christ is said to be in the form of God , and equal with God , or rather like God , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred . Christ was in the form of God , and like God ; by reason of the Power and Authority bestowed upon him , whereby he wrought all sorts of Miracles ; raising the Dead , curing the Lame , restoring sight to the Blind , stilling the Winds and the Sea , &c. This we may apply to the words of St. John. Jesus was not only in the Bosom of God , Partaker of his most secret Counsels ; but he was besides invested with such Authority and Power , as made him like God. So that Christ is by St. John called God ( or rather , a God ) by reason of that Power and Authortiy , whereby he became in some manner like unto the true and most High God. But this Appellation does no more prove him to be the true and most High God , than Solomon , or the Judges , in the Psalms , will be the True God , because this Name God is given to them , Psal . 82. 6. and 45. 6. Ver. 3. All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made , that was made . PARAPHRASE . All things , necessary to the Propagation of the Gospel , were performed by him , the Author and first Preacher of it . And without his Direction , there was not any thing performed that was performed . That this relates not to the Creation of the World , but to the Dispensation of the Gospel , is very plain from the following words , In him was Life , and the Life was the Light of Men , &c. In these words the Evangelist teaches us , how all things were made by Christ , because in him was the Life and Light of Men ; which all Men may discern , to be spoken of the Gospel by him taught ; which is the Light of Men and their Life , as it leads them to Eternal Life . Ver. 10 , 11. He was in the World , and the World was made by him , and the World knew him not . He came unto his own , and his own received him not . PARAPHRASE . He was conversing among Men , to teach them the way to Salvation ; some of them were reclaimed by him , but the greater part rejected him . He was sent to his own Brethren , but most of them would not receive him . It does sufficiently appear by these words , and the World knew him not , that the Apostle speaks only of Men , who only are capable of knowing ; not of this visible World : As indeed the 11th Verse is a plain Explication of Verse 10. St. John expresses in this Chapter the same thing several ways : He was in the World ; He came unto his own ; The Light shined in Darkness ; these are equivalent Expressions . So also , The World knew him not ; His own received him not ; the Darkness comprehended it not ; signify one and the same thing . Thus , the World was made by him , is explained at Ver. 12. thus , But as many as received him , to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God ; and by Verse 4 , and 9. So that in all this , there was no Intention to saythat the Old Creation was the work of Je , sus Christ . CHAP. VIII . HIS second Charge is , That Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable , pag. 231. because if Christ were no more than a meer Man , the Anti-type should fall very short of the Types contained in the Old Testament . The Tabernacle and Temple , says he , was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence ; and was so contrived , as to be the Figure both of Heaven and Earth ; for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us , the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven . — But we must all confess , that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony , for God , who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence , to dwell in an House made with Hands , — had it not prefigured something more Divine and Mysterious . — The Temple then was a Figure , and we must inquire , what it was the Figure of ? Now a Typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence , and God's Personal dwelling among Men : for Presence and Habitation can signify nothing but Presence , and a Figure must be a Figure of some thing that is real ; and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God , but a personal visible Presence . He goes on , and applies this to Christ , who ( at John 2. 19. ) calls his Body a Temple ; which ( says our Author ) was that in Truth and Reality , which the Temple was but a Figure of , that is , God's Presence on Earth , which he explains of his being personally united to Christ's Humane Nature . But if Christ be not Incarnate , adds he , if the Divine Word be not personally united to the Humane Nature ; the Body of Christ is but a figurative Temple , as the Temple at Jerusalem was : and then one Figure is made a Type of another ; which is as great an Absurdity in Types , as a Metaphor of a Metaphor in speech . I do not remember I ever saw so much trifling , so seriously urged in a weighty Question : but I have undertaken the drudgery of making Reflections on it ; and therefore will consider what he has offered . — 1. That the Temple was a Figure both of Heaven and Earth , I am content to admit ; the Apostle to the Hebrews may be interpreted to that purpose . But that it was also a Type of Christ's Body , we have no colour from Scripture to affirm it ; and the Author has offer'd no other ground for it , but his own wandring Fancy . The Author to the Hebrews , who inlarges upon the Temple , does not give the least Intimation of this : why then should we contrive Types and Figures of our own , without any reason for it ? If this be allowed , we may make Types of any thing ; and increase Figures to an infinite Number . If the Author is in love with cold and groundless Allegories , every Body is not of his Mind , and therefore he should keep them to himself . But why should the Temple be a Figure of Christ's Body , rather than the Ark ? God is said , all over the Old Testament , to dwell between the Cherubims ; it was the proper Seat of God , where he gave forth his Oracles , and made his Glory to appear by affording sensible Signs of his Presence . If therefore such Allegories had any Signification of future Times and Things , it would be more probable that the Ark was a Type of Christ's Body , than the Temple : the rather , because we know already by a Divine Testimony , that the Temple was a Figure of some-thing else . But he will say , that Christ calls his Body a Temple . What then ? so St. Paul calls the Corinthians ; Ye are , says he , the Temple of God. Was the Temple at Jerusalem a Figure or Type of the Bodies of the Corinthians ? Or does our Saviour say , that he calls his Body a Temple , because it was the Anti-type of the Temple of the Jews ? 2. Tho the Temple were not a Figure of Christ's Body , yet it would be no unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony , for God to dwell in an House made with Hands ; to appoint this the place of his Worship , &c. which our Author thinks to be inexplicable without admitting his Doctrine of the Trinity . Who knows not , that the Israelites were given to Idolatry ; and that the pompous way of Worship used among the neighbouring Nations , agreed so much to their Fancies , that it was necessary to comply with them in this thing , that they might be kept from worshipping other Gods , and the current of Idolatry be restrained . Thus God in his infinite Wisdom thought fit to set up among his People a carnal and sensible Worship ; and to appoint an House where he would dwell after a particular Manner , and afford visible Symbols of his Presence . All this he did to accommodate himself to the gross genius of the Israelites , and to perswade them to forsake Idols , and to acknowledg no other God but himself . This was the true reason of the Temple , of God's dwelling there , and the Glory with which it was sometimes filled : and to affirm that all was done , to prefigure Christ's Body , is a Fancy which the Author might better have kept to himself . 3. But suppose the Temple was a Type of Christ's Body ; yet there is no need God should be incarnate in Christ's Body , to answer that Type . The Scriptures tell us , God was with Christ , and in Christ ; which I hope might be done without an Incarnation or Personal Union , as he was in the Temple . As God spake in the Temple , so he spake in and by Christ . But besides all this , Christ was greater than the Temple ; because God was always present with him , which cannot be said of the Temple , where the Signs of God's Presence were not always visible . God's Dwelling in Christ was always conspicuous by the Oracles which he delivered , and the Miracles he wrought . But he objects a place of Scripture . To this , says he , St. John plainly alludes ; The Word was made Flesh , and dwelt amongst us , and we beheld his Glory , the Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father , full of Grace and Truth . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tabernacled amongst us ; fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem , by his dwelling Personally in Humane Nature . This Argument , or rather Congruity , is grounded on two false Suppositions . The first is , that The Word was made Flesh , is meant of Christ's Incarnation . The second , that in these Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we render he dwelt amongst us ; St. John alludes to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle . I begin with the first . It cannot be denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred was , as well as was made . Thus it is taken , Luke 1. 5. and 24. 19. and even at Verse 6. of this Chapter . Nor can it be doubted that the word Flesh signifies not only Humane Nature ; but very often Humane Nature as subject to Infirmities and Afflictions . Now is it not more agreeable to Reason and Scripture , to interpret these words thus ; And the Word ( Jesus ) was a Man like unto us in all things , Sin excepted ; having the same Mortal Nature , being exposed to the same Miseries and Afflictions : than to say , The Word was Incarnate , which is a Language unknown to Scripture ; wherein we never find , that God made himself Man ; and altogether repugnant to Reason ? And this I confirm by Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood ; He likewise himself took part of the same , that thrô Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death , even the Devil . Here Christ is said to be Partaker of Flesh and Blood , as pious Men are ; which cannot be meant in a sense of Incarnation , for pious Men are not said to be Incarnate : but the one and the other are Partakers of Flesh and Blood , that is , of Infirmities and Sufferings . This he explains farther at Verse 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren : but his Brethren were not Incarnate . But at Ver. 10 , and 18. he expresly expounds this of Christ's Sufferings : Ver. 10. It became him for whom are all things , and by whom are all things , to make the Captain of their Salvation , perfect through Sufferings . Ver. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered , — he is able to succour them that are tempted . Mr. Limborck saw and confessed this that I have been saying ; his Words are these , Theol. Christ . pag. 226. The true sense of this place , is , that the Word was Flesh : That is , a true fleshly Substance , subject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh ; that is to say , He was Mortal , Vile and Contemptible . Which appeared more especially in the days of his Passion and of his Death , which are called at Heb. 5. 7. The days of his Flesh . 2. Our Author , charmed with Allegories and mysterious Interpretations , has found out , that St. John alludes here to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle ; and this he thinks God did , to make the Anti-type answer the Type , Christ's Body to the Tabernacle or Temple . Since he is so much in love with Allegories , it may be I may do him a kindness to help him to one , which I have ready at hand ; it is this : As the Tabernacle in the Wilderness had no fixed place to stand in , as the Temple afterwards had , but was carried from one place to another ; according to the several Incampments of the Israelites : So Christ , to fulfil that Type , was always wandring with his Disciples , having no where to lay his Head ; Mat. 8. 20. This Allegory is as probable , and more natural than his ; without supposing an impossible Incarnation . I cannot tell , whether the Author will like it better than his own ; I am sure , I like neither of them . No , no , there is no Mystery in the Greek Word : Our Version renders it well , He dwelt among us : So does Seb. Castalio , Et apud nos , Gratiae Veritatisque plenus , habitavit ; And he full of Grace and Truth dwelt among us . And the same word is thus used without any Mystery , Rev. 12. 12. and 13. 6. where it is applied to the Inhabitants of Heaven . By way of conclusion , I will set down the sense of the whole Verse , which is an Abridgment of the Life of Christ : The Word was Flesh , a mortal Man , obnoxious to Sufferings and Death : here is his Priestly Office. He dwelt among us full of Grace and Truth ; here is his Prophetic Office. We have seen his Glory ; here is his Kingly Office. Thus therefore we ought to paraphrase the whole ; Jesus Christ was a Mortal Man , Partaker of Flesh and Blood , subject to the same Infirmities that we are ; in a word , like unto us in all things , but Sin. And he dwelt among us , preaching the happy News of Reconciliation with God , and the Doctrine and Truth revealed to him by the Father . But thô he were a Mortal Man , a Man of Sufferings and Griefs ; yet we have seen his Glory , shining in his Miracles , his Transfiguration , his Resurrection , his Ascension into Heaven , &c. Such a Glory as was well becoming the beloved Son of God. Having spoken of the Temple , he comes to discourse of Sacrifices , and tells us ; The true meaning of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World , is not meerly that he was slain in God's Decree ; for what God has decreed to be done , is not therefore said to be done , before it is done . But this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures , from the Foundation of the World ; ever since the fall of Adam , in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall , which were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ . But , 1. Where has he found , that those early Sacrifices were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ ? The Scripture is silent about it ; and the Apostle to the Hebrews , who inlarges on the Sacrifices of the Mosaical Law , does not so much as mention those that were offer'd before ; which is unaccountable , if they were Figures of the Sacrifice of Christ . 2. But he says ; He knows no Principle of natural Reason , that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts to God ; and therefore he must think , the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution . But suppose those early Sacrifices were an Institution , does it follow from thence , that they were instituted to be Types of the Sacrifice of Christ ? By no means : God might have other Reasons for such an Appointment . But since the Scripture does not mention the appointing of those Sacrifices ; we have good reason to believe , that they were of Humane Institution : for had God appointed them , it would not ( it should seem ) have been omitted in Scripture . 'T is reasonable to think , that Abel and Cain thought fit to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God ; to shew by such visible Marks , the Sense they had of God's Majesty ; and to express the Reverence they ought to pay to him . 3. To deny , that the Lamb was slain from the Foundation of the World meerly in God's Decree , because what God has decreed to be done , is not therefore said to be done before it is done , is no very accurate reasoning in a Divine ; because 't is contrary to the stile of Scripture . Is there any thing more usual with the sacred Writers , especially with the Prophets , than to speak of things to come , as if they were come to pass already , by reason of their certainty and the immutable Decree of God ? And why then cannot the Lamb be said to be slain from the beginning of the World , meerly because God had certainly decreed it should be so ? 4. But if he is not satisfied with this Explication , here is another for him . There is a Transposition in the words of this Verse , which also may be observed in many other Texts of Scripture ; so that the Verse may be read thus , Whose Names are not written from the Foundation of the World , in the Book of Life , of the Lamb slain . This reading is confirmed by Chap. 17. Ver. 8. Whose Names are not written in the Book of Life , from the Foundation of the World. So the sense of the controverted Text , is ; The Names of those who worship the Dragon were never written in the Book of Life of the slain Lamb ; that is , in the Book of the Martyrs and Confessors of Christ , who were destined to eternal Life from the Foundations of the World. Pag. 237. He desires some of the learned Reasoning Socinians , honestly to tell him ; what account they can give of the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices , which is becoming God. Why should God he propitiated by a Man , subject to the same Sins and Infirmities , and very often guilty of them , that other Men are ? Why innocent Beasts must die , to expiate the Sins of Men ? The thing he aims at , is to prove that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Jewish Oeconomy . How so ? The Jews Sacrifices , says he , were Typical of Christ's Sacrifice . We grant it ; for so the Apostle to the Hebrews intimates : we say only , that this was not the chief and primary end for which they were instituted . But what then ? The Death of Christ was therefore a Sacrifice . So it was . Then he was not a Metaphorical Priest . No more he was . Then he was the Divine Word Incarnate . How so ? This he should prove , but he takes it for granted . I want the Author's Spectacles , how to draw this Consequence , therefore the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Jewish Oeconomy , from that Argument . Now to this Question , concerning the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices , I answer with St. Paul , Gal. 3. 19. The Law ( the Ceremonial Law , the Law of Sacrifices and other external Rites ) was added because of Transgressions : i. e. by reason of the Idolatry of the Israelites , which could not be restrained but by such a Method . Had not the Jews been inclined so much to Idolatry , by seeing the Worship of their Neighbours round them ; God would not have put on their Necks this Yoke , which ( as St. Peter says ) they were not able to bear . God himself says this , Jer. 7. 22. I spake not unto your Fathers nor commanded them , in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt , concerning Burnt-Offerings or Sacrifices : But this thing commanded I them , saying , Obey my Voice , and I will be your God , and ye shall be my People . Here we may plainly see , that God at first required nothing from his People , but to own him , and obey his reasonable Laws , the Moral and Political Laws he designed for them : but he was , as it were , constrained to institute Sacrifices , and other external and pompous Rites , by their Idolatrous Inclination . I refer our Author , about this matter , to Learned Dr. Spencer , the best Writer on the Ceremonial Law. This then is the true and primary Reason of God's appointing Sacrifices ; and very well becoming both his Wisdom and Goodness . And it hinders not , but those Sacrifices might be also Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ : they were so , secondarily . God who appointed Sacrifices to stop the progress of Idolatry , did also by them prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ . But a meer Man , says he , can be no more than a Metaphorical and Typical Priest and Sacrifice . This , I think , deserved to be proved . A Metaphorical or Typical Priest and Sacrifice are here opposed to a true Priest and Sacrifice ; yet he tells us , that tho the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law were Typical , they were true and proper Priests and Sacrifices ; and made a true and proper expiation for Sin , as far as they reached . But if the Priests of the Law were true and proper Priests , and the Sacrifices true and proper Sacrifices ; much more will the Sacrifice of Christ be a true and proper Sacrifice , tho he also was a Man. This Consequence the Author himself has afforded us . Now because the Anti-Type , as he says , ought to be greater than the Type ; what remains , is only to inquire , Whether Christ be a more excellent Priest and Sacrifice , than the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law ? The Priests of the Law were but ordinary Men , distinguished from others only by the Dignity of their Priesthood : but Christ was the Messias , the Son of God , intrusted with his secret Will , indued with an in mense Authority and Power , and made ( as it were ) God by the unspeakable Gifts of God his Father . The Priests of the Law were called to their Priest-hood in an ordinary ways but Christ by God's immediate appointment . The High-Priests of the Law entred only into a Tabernacle made with Hands , and but once a Year into the most Holy Place ; but Christ into a Tabernacle whose Builder and Maker is God , and is to continue there for ever . Surely therefore , tho he is a Man only , this Anti-Type is more excellent than the Types , and Christ a more excellent High-Priest and Sacrifice than those of the Law. So that here is no ridiculing the Jewish Oeconomy , by the Socinian Hypothesis : but our Author by such ungrounded Charges , and weak Proofs , has written a Book very fit to confirm Socinians in their Opinions . CHAP. IX . III. HIS Third Charge is , Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion , makes it a very mean and contemptible Institution . He tells us , That The Fundamental Mystery of the Christian Religion is the stupendious Love of God in giving his own Son , his only-beloved Son , for the Redemption of Mankind . But how comes this Love of God to be called a Mystery still ? It was a Mystery , or Secret , before the Revelation of the Gospel ; but since it was revealed , it ceases to be a Mystery or Secret : unless a Secret discovered be a Secret still . This , says he , our Saviour lays great stress on ; That God so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting Life . By this , one would have thought , that Christ had been the Son , the only begotten Son of God , before God gave him . Now this is a very ambiguous way of expressing himself ; for he professes to believe that Christ was the Son of God , nay the only begotten Son , before he gave him ; but he differs from Us and from Common Sense in this ; that by the Son of God , he means God himself ; and by before , he means from all Eternity . This is a very hard Language ; for who can fancy , that the Son of God should be God himself ; and that before , should signify Eternity ? Yet this is the Sense he puts upon it , when he says ; If Socinianism be true , God 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 free and voluntary Choice ; when he did not take it , but was made so ! What ? when the Apostle says , that Christ took upon him the Form of a Servant ; must we say , that he did not ? Is it not a plain Contradiction to the Apostle ? He adds ; And what Humility was this , for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God ; and so great a Minister as to be in the Form of God , that is ( as he says ) to be glorious for Miracles , and admired as the great Power of God : especially , when he was to be exalted unto Heaven for it , and advanced above all Principalities and Powers ? This is such Humility , as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most , glorious Angel . Shall we not call Humility what St. Paul calls so ? He tells us , that the same who has been advanced above all the Orders of Angels , humbled himself . All the Glory that Christ has been crowned with , doth not hinder the Apostle from praising and extolling his Humility . Because Christ's Sufferings have been remunerated with a transcendent Glory ; must they not be accounted Humility , but Pride ? On the contrary , the more that he who humbles himself is great and glorious , the greater is his Humility . Seeing therefore Christ had received from God more Glory than ever any Man had , it follows , that his Humility was the most stupendious and unparallel'd that ever was . But according to our Author's way of reasoning , there is no such thing as Christian Humility . For every Christian who humbles himself , endeavours thereby to fit himself for the Kingdom of Heaven : but all our best Actions are not worthy to be compared with that Glory which shall be revealed in us ; and therefore will our Author say , Humility is but a Chimera , because he who is said to humble himself , expects to get by the means an Eternal Glory . Indeed if the most bitter Sufferings of Christ , are not to be accounted Humility , because they were to be rewarded with a more excellent Glory : I cannot see , how any Christians may be said to be humble ; for they expect a glorious and transcendent Reward . Pag. 242. After Christ was come into the World , there was no place ( saith our Author ) for his Choice and Election ; he could not shew either his Love or his Humility , in choosing Poverty or Death : and therefore if it was matter of his free Choice , and a Demonstration of his great Humility and Love , as the Apostle says it was ; he must and did choose it before he came into the World. But all this is contrary to the place of the Apostle , wherein he speaks only of what Christ has done since he came into the World , and does not so much as mention what he had done before . Which has forced several Trinitarian Interpreters to acknowledg , that this Text does not relate to the Incarnation . I desire our Author to tell me the meaning of these words , Who being in the Form of God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with God. For if to be in the Form of God , signifies , to be the true God ; then the sense will be this ; Christ being the true God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with the true God. Which is just as if one should say , Leopold who is Emperour does not think it Robbery to be equal with the Emperour . Is it possible , Men should put such a trifling sense on the words of an Apostle ? Besides , how can it be said here , that the Supream God made himself of no Reputation ? In a word , of all the things spoken of Christ in this place , not one of them can be applied to the Supream God : which plainly shews , that the Man Christ Jesus only did humble himself ; and that this Humility is so far from proving that Christ is God , that it demonstrates , he was only a Man. He goes on ; The Faith and Worship of Christ , is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion . That the Faith of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion , I grant ; but I deny , that the Worship of Christ is so too . I suppose , by the Worship of Christ , he means only the Worship of Christ's Divine Nature ; for he tells us in the following words , that both the Natural and Mosaical Religion condemn the Worship of any Creature ; therefore Christ's Humane Nature being a Creature , ought not to be worshipped . Of the Worship paid to Christ , I have said enough already ; but because our Author gives occasion for it , by repeating his Charge of Idolatry , I will consider what he has offered , in its proper place . Only here I shall mind him ; that the Compilers of the Apostles Creed have made no mention of the Worship of Christ , but only of Faith in him . At pag. 245. He goes on to prove , that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion ; Because it does not ascribe to Christ such Knowledg as is proper to the Supream God. His first Proof , is John 2. 25. He knew what was in Man. To which the Historian had before answered thus ; The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had , or now in his State of Exaltation hath , of the Secrets of Mens Hearts , is the pure Gift of , and Revelation from God ; and the Divine Word abiding on him . Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ , which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants . Our Author would elude the strength of this Answer , thus ; This ( saith he ) is a plain abuse of the Text and the Reason of it . He knew what was in Man , is the Reason assigned why he needed not external Information , or Testimony of Man. He needed not that any should testify of Man , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he himself knew what was in Man , and knew all Men. Which according to the propriety of Words , signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg ; in opposition to any external Manifestation , and therefore to Revelation it self . For he always knew all Men , which cannot be done by Revelation ; which is particular and occasional . Here one may plainly see , what strange shifts Men are put to , when they oppose Truth . Who denies that those Words , He knew what was in Man , signify inherent Personal Knowledg ? Can any Man know any thing but by his inherent Personal Knowledg ? He that knows , knows with his own Mind , and therefore has an Inherent and Personal Knowledg . But does it follow from thence , that such a Knowledg is not from Revelation ? I hope it may be said of a Man inlightned by Revelation , that he knows , as well as of any other ? And yet thô such a Man be inspired , he has an inherent Personal Knowledg ; for his own Mind knows inwardly what he did not know before . But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , says our Author , he himself knew ; which according to the Propriety of Words , signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg in opposition to Revelation . No surely . For then the Prophet Elisha was God , for he knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber , 2 Kings 6. 12. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he himself knew what the King of Syria spake : yet this was certainly by Revelation . If our Author should reply , that it is well known that Elisha was but a Prophet , and could know no such thing but by Inspiration or Revelation . I answer , It is likewise well known , that Christ knew not all things , and particularly not the Day of Judgment , Mark 13. 32. therefore he could not be God , for God knows all things . Besides , the Scripture assures us , that God gave to Christ his Revelation , Rev. 1. 1. which proves that all his extraordinary Knowledg was derived from God. But he always knew all Men , saith the Author , which cannot be done by Revelation ; which is particular and occasional . Why not ? God's Revelation may be perpetual , if he pleases . There is no Contradiction or Impossibility in it . But how has he perverted the first Verse of St. John's Revelations ? The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him , to shew unto his Servants things , which must shortly come to pass . This , says he , doth not signify that this was a Revelation made to Jesus Christ , but that Revelation which Christ made ; for thô God is said to give to him , it is to shew unto his Servants ; that is , by appointment of God , Christ shewed this Revelation unto John. Alas , if our Author was not able to answer this place , he should not have studied to clude it . If Christ made this Revelation , because he is God , how is it said to be given to him , which can in no sense agree to him who is true God ? He received it , says our Author , to shew unto his Servants . But of whom can the true God receive , either Knowledg , or Authority to dispense it ? But here are two Arguments against our Author's Doctrine : 1. That God gave to Christ a Revelation . But he that is God can need no Revelation ; because himself knoweth all things . 2. That He is appointed to shew this Revelation to others . Which no more can agree to one who is God , than Revelation does . He concludes ; that He desires a Mediator , who knows more , and in a more perfect manner . But I think , 't is fit we should be contented with such a Mediator , as God was pleased to give us . IV. His last Charge is ; that Socinianism justifies , at least excuses , both Pagan and Popish Idolatries ; at least as it is taught by those Men , who allow of the Worship of Christ ; which it is certain too , the Christian Religion teaches . In answer hereto ; I will , 1. Shew in what consists the Worship or Honour due to Christ . 2. Compare this Worship , with the Worship which Pagans exhibited to their false Gods , and Papists to their Saints . 1. I observe that in the Unitarian Hypothesis , the Worship or Honour due to Christ , is not a supream Worship ; such as we ought to pay to God. Christ being a Creature , can never be worshipped as God is . Thô he be never so great and glorious , a supream Worship is proper only to Almighty God , and can never be bestowed on any Creature . 2. As it cannot be denied , that there are divers Orders of Creatures ; so the Honour paid to them , ought to be proportionable to their Greatness and Dignity . Thus , in a Kingdom those , who by reason of their Dignity , are above the common sort of Men , deserve a greater Respect and Honour than others ; and the King , who is above them all , has an Honour paid to him which is incommunicable to the rest of his Subjects . By the same reason Angels , who are more excellent than Men , are worthy of greater Honour . But Christ , who has been exalted above both Men and Angels , since he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords , hath a proper Worship due to him , which can never be given either to Angels or Men. He is God's Beloved Son by way of Excellence , all Power is given to him in Heaven and Earth , he is at the Right-hand of God , having all things put under his Feet ; he deserves therefore an Honour , so much greater than theirs , as he is greater . Phil. 2. 9 , 10 , 11. God also hath highly exalted him , and given him a Name above every Name ; that at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow , of things in Heaven , and things in Earth , and things under the Earth ; and that every Tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord , to the Glory of God the Father . The Apostle does not say , that every Knee ought to bow at the Name of Jesus , because he is the Supream God ; but because God has exalted him above Men and Angels ; because he has obtained ( of God ) a Name above every Name , the most eminent and glorious Dignity that ever was . This is the true ground of the Honour which is due to Christ . This St. Paul teaches ; and this the Unitarians profess to believe , and perform . 3. When we worship Christ , it is to the Glory of God the Father , as the Apostle speaks . The Honour we pay to Christ , is terminated in God : we worship him as God's Ambassador and Image . As he who believes in him , believes in God also ; so he who honours him , honours God also . 2. Let us compare the Worship of Christ ( the Reader will remember , we mean not thereby a Supream Worship ) with the Worship of False Gods among Pagans , and of Saints among Papists . Pagans were guilty of Idolatry ; because , First they had no Divine Command for such Worship : but even our Author confesses , there is such a Command for the Worship of Christ . To worship Creatures without the Warrant of God , is Usurpation on , and Contempt of God. Secondly , They worshipped and served Creatures more than the Creator , as St. Paul says . They set up an infinite number of Gods , who had been meer Men ; and ascribed to them such Power as did not belong to them , and such Worship as was infinitely above them . They offered Sacrifices to them , consecrated Temples to their Honour , prayed to them ; in a word , they paid to them such Worship , as was terminated in them , and so made True Gods of Men. But it is not so with the Worship of Christ . We ascribe to him no other Power , but what we know from the Scriptures God has bestowed on him ; and no other Honour but what is proportionable to that Power , to the Dignity of his Person , and what God himself commands us to pay him . This may be applied to the Papists . Let them show us any Text of Scripture , which obliges us to worship St. Peter , St. Paul , St. Francis. Were they content to keep within the bounds of Respect and Honour , due to glorified Saints , they should be guilty of no Fault . But to pray to them , as many do , as Mediators both of Intercession and Merit , to dedicate Churches to them , to kneel down before their Images and to their Images , nay to their vilest Relicks ; this approaches too near to Idolatry . Our Author therefore mistakes , when he says ; The greatest hurt ( on the Vnitarian Hypothesis ) seems to be , that they ( Pagans and Papists ) lose their Labour , but according to these Principles they do no Injury to God. What then ? Is it all one , to worship Christ by God's Appointment , and to worship False Gods and ( Apocryphal ) Saints , without any Warrant from God ? Is it all one , to pay to Christ such Honour as neither exceeds his Power , nor is greater than his Dignity , and honour False Gods and Saints , in such manner as exceeds both their Power and Merit ? That , is Obedience to God's Will ; the Other , detestable Usurpation and Rebellion . I conclude therefore , that the Vnitarians by the Worship they pay to Christ , cannot be said to justify or excuse Pagans or Papists . Which if it had not been an invidious Charge , is so apparently False , that it would not have deserved any notice . And thus I have done with that part of the Doctor 's Book , which I undertook to answer . It may be , the Historian himself might , upon some Texts , and to some of our Author's Objections , have either explained or defended himself , otherways than is here done : and that we may , it seems , shortly see ; unless Dr. Sherlock thinks sit to own , that he desires it not . In the mean time , it may be the Historian is satisfied ; that in these Papers , I have done wrong neither to him , nor to the Inviolable Truth of God. God be pleased to Inspire Christians , with the Spirit that leads into all Truth ; and with that Infallible Note of true Disciples , to love one another , John 13. 35. Now to him that is of Power , to establish us according to his Gospel , and the preaching of Jesus Christ ; to God only wise , be Glory through Jesus Christ for ever . Amen . FINIS .