A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity

CHAP. VI.

4. THE next Argument is against a Tri∣nity 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 re∣turns this Answer;

It is plain that the Per∣son, 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 Per∣son of God, not of the Person of God the Fa∣ther 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 Fa∣ther only, at sundry Times and in divers Man∣ners, 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 Con∣tradiction 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 Fa∣ther, 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 Per∣son, 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 Pro∣nouns, 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 Pro∣nouns 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 o∣ther Languages; and otherways the Scrip∣ture 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 Hea∣ven 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.

'Tis 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; 'tis very marvellous to me, that there should be no reason to express an Article, which he and his Party say is ne∣cessary to Salvation; and that a Man is no Chri∣stian 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 es∣sential 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 reason∣able 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 ridi∣cules the whole Jewish Occonomy. 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion. 4. It ju∣stifies, 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.