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
A DEFENCE OF THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS Against Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER IN HIS VINDICATION OF THE Holy Trinity LONDON Printed in the Year M. DC XCI OBSERVATIONS On Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER TO THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS CHAP. I. Containing some General Observations WHen I see Men arguing against the Trinity methinks I hear a Papist inveighing against Luther or Calvin for questioning the Truth of Transubstantiation Indeed it appears to me very strange that Protestants should stand to the Principles of the Reformation only when they serve their turn and that they should be ready to part with them when they are not otherways able to defend a particular Opinion It cannot be denied that the Christian Church in succeeding Ages fell short of her first Purity in respect of Doctrine as well as Manners Now what other Remedy could be applied to such a Depravation than a sincere and careful Examination of the Points suspected of Falshood according to Reason and Scripture This proved so effectual a Course that Transubstantiation and some other Canonized Opinions were found to be meer Human Inventions and accordingly were rejected as contrary to the two above-mentioned Rules And who can assure us that the Reformation left no Error behind and that the Trinity is such an Opinion as ought neither to be doubted of nor to be reformed Shall we trust Men barely on their Word Or was it impossible that the Trinity should creep into the Church as well as several other false Opinions Our Principles therefore allow us to examine it and to inquire whether it be founded on undeniable Arguments especially being of such a nature that it contradicts Reason and by confession of all Trinitarians is no where set down in Holy Scripture in express Words Why should Men call us Hereticks and Libertines because we inquire after Truth and will have our Faith built upon a solid Foundation Was the Reformation so proper to Luther and Calvin c. that it ought no more to be thought of Or were those Reformers so infallible that they purged the Church from all Errors This I think would be an hard matter to prove Let therefore no Protestant be scandalized if having some Scruples about the Trinity we endeavour to free our selves from them by a sincere inquiry into the Grounds of it I begin with Reason and find that the belief of a Trinity does contradict it as much as Transubstantiation According to Transubstantiation the same Numerical Body may be in a Million of different places at the same time According to the Trinity three Divine Persons that is to say three Intelligent Infinite Beings each of which is God make but one God I cannot believe the First because Reason teaches me that one Numerical Body can occupy or be in but one place at one time I cannot believe the other because Reason tells me that Three are Three and not One and that it implies no less a Contradiction that Three Divine Persons should be but One God than that one Body be a Million Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions I come in the second place to examine Whether the Trinity be well grounded in Scripture Indeed Three are there mentioned the Father Son and Holy Ghost but how came Men to fancy that they Three are but One God Who taught 'em so Does the Holy Scripture plainly say that there is but one God yet there are Three Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead One would think indeed that such a Mystery and so necessary in order to Salvation were set down in Scripture in plain or express Words But the Scripture is perfectly silent about it there is not a Word to be found in the Bible of Three Hypostases or Persons in the Godhead The Father is in a thousand places called God distinctly from the Son nay the only true God The Holy Ghost is no where stiled God And the Son is so called in a few places as it were by the way and in such manner as plainly shows that the Title God is bestowed on him upon the same account as upon Moses even because of the Dignity and Power to which he was exalted by the Father's Liberality Indeed it can have no other meaning The Holy Scripture teaches us that there is but one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ But if so How can the Son be that one God the Father Of this we are sure by the whole tenor of the Gospel that Christ was a Man The Gospel is nothing else but the History of Christ's Birth Life Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven Who would have thought that a Man should be accounted the Supream God without any such intimation from Scripture nay against the whole current of it We find in the Gospel that there is one God the Father of our Lord Christ one Son of God sent into the World to be the Revealer of his Father's Will and a Mediator between God and Man even Christ and one Holy Ghost who distributes and works all sorts of Miraculous Gifts for the confirmation of the Gospel The Father of Christ is the One true God Christ is only his Minister and Interpreter the Holy Ghost whether it be God's Power or his ministring Angel or Angels the Instrument which he makes use of to work Miracles None certainly but Men blinded or prejudiced could think that God's Minister and Ambassador were God himself and that two so opposite Beings as God and Christ should be one and the same Thing It is just as if one should say there is one King William and one Vice-Roy in Ireland the Lord Sidney and the Vice-Roy is that one King William Indeed this is a Doctrine so unreasonable and contradictions and so opposite to Holy Scripture that I think had there been no such thing as Platonick Philosophy the Trinity should never have been heard of I desire therefore the Trinitarians to abate a little of their Confidence Let them examine with an unprejudiced Mind upon what Foundations they build the belief of a Trinity and they will soon perceive how weak and frail it is Let them at last confess that the Scripture does not threaten eternal Damnation to those who disbelieve a Trinity And then if themselves won't part with their darling Opinion let them abstain from persecuting others Thirdly Trinitarians lay so much stress upon the Tradition of the Church concerning the Trinity that I think it worth while to undeceive them by shewing that there never was so great a Variation in the Church as about this Point I shall divide into three Periods all the Ages of the Church The First reaches to the Council of Nice The Second from the Council of Nice to the Schoolmen And the Third from the Schoolmen to our time And one that is never so little acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the three first Centuries cannot deny
And 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