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

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 in∣spired.

He instances in some Expositions of Scripture, which he finds in the brief Histo∣ry of the Ʋnitarians. 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 'tis, God is thy Throne (i. e. thy Seat, Resting-place,

Establishment) for ever. Nei∣ther the Translation nor the Interpretation is the Historian's, but by him taken out of Gro∣tius, 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 Histori∣an, 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 accom∣modated to Christ, by the Apostle: and I think 'tis 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 Su∣pream 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 Dona∣tion, whereby he was made better than An∣gels, as appears by ver. 4. the Words are these, Being MADE so much better than Angels, as he has by Inheritance obtained (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) a more excellent Name than they. The Greek Word which we translate obtained by Inheritance, signifies no more than barely ob∣tained; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by obtinuit, sortitus est, he gained or ob∣tained. 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. Where∣upon 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 An∣gels.

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 An∣gels, 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 ap∣plies 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 con∣cerning 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 be∣fore, 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 Apo∣stle 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 follow∣ing 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 Explicati∣on 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 after∣wards 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, Whe∣ther Christ be that God of whom the Psal∣mist 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 Con∣clusion. Were this true, it would follow, that the Sacred Writers of the New Testa∣ment 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 him∣self, not of Christ. Is our Author so little acquainted with the Writers of the New Te∣stament, as to be ignorant, that they very often cite the Texts of the Old, not as Testi∣monies 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 Li∣teral 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 there∣fore whatsoever is said of God, must be∣long 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 ap∣plied to Christ by way of Accommodation; as several other Passages of the Old Testa∣ment 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 can∣not 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. accor∣ding to the Lxx; and not out of Psal. 97. For there we find the very Words of the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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; Ʋnto 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, represent∣eth

him, and acteth by his Commission. So Men are said to appear before our So∣raign Lord the King, when they appear at the Bar of his Judges; because the Judges act in the King's stead, and by his Com∣mission. To this our Author replies; But why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the last Judgment? St. Paul, in∣deed 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 con∣fine the bowing of the Knee to the last Judg∣ment; 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 propor∣tionable 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 pro∣mote 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 Accomplish∣ment of God's Oath, Ʋnto 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 Per∣son of the Vice-Roy in Ireland, and confess him to be the Lord; and this be the Ac∣complishment of the King's Will, Ʋnto 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 esta∣blished 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, Ʋnto me every Knee shall bow, &c. Does it fol∣low 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, ho∣nours 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 be∣cause they are spoken of God in the Pro∣phet, 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 ve∣ry little acquainted with Scripture: that

This is nothing else, but to charge the Apostles with abusing Scripture; and pro∣ducing 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 de∣fend, 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 al∣ways thought, with other Christians, that these were invincible Arguments for the Truth of our Religion. So they are in∣deed, 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 pro∣sess to be led and guided by them: or (as Grotius expresses this matter) 'tis to declare, we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion, but what pro∣ceeds 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 there∣fore we give up our selves to their Insti∣tution 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 Fa∣ther. We religiously profess in Baptism, to believe no other Doctrine but what is de∣rived 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 Bap∣tized 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 Christi∣ans 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 im∣braced 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 Bapti∣zed 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 Pro∣fession of his Name, and the Publick Re∣ception 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 Bap∣tism, 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, Pro∣digies, and Distributions of Gifts. So that the Reception of Baptism, was a publick Profession of the Doctrine of Christ: There∣fore 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,

'Tis 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. Ʋnto 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 Sa∣viour 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 bap∣tized 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 Be∣nediction; 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 sig∣nify, 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 in∣to or unto Christ, is the same with being baptized in the Name of Christ. This was rightly understood by Vorstius, who para∣phrases 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 bapti∣zed in the Name of Christ, are used as e∣quivalent 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 Obliga∣tion 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 there∣fore, 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 absur∣dity, 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 Testa∣ment, which our Auther considers, is the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel: Which, says he, pag. 215. gives a glorious Testimo∣ny 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 Explica∣tion of this Chapter. 2. The Inconsistency of the Trinitarian Hypothesis with the Con∣text. 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 con∣tradictious, and that it is this;

In the Be∣ginning, 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 ap∣plied 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 can∣not 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 'tis 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 Scrip∣ture; 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 Descrip∣tions 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 Scrip∣ture, says he, is the Word called God the the Son?

Our Author replies:

This Word indeed is God the Son; but we do not pa∣raphrase 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 ex∣clusion of the Holy Ghost?

To avoid the strength of this Argument, our Author re∣plies;

By God, the Apostle here means that Original Mind and Wisdom, that Su∣pream and Soveraign Being, whom all Men called God, without making a Distin∣ction 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 consequent∣ly Three Wisdoms, for an infinite Mind can∣not 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 Sove∣raign 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. Further∣more, 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 Trini∣ty was with the Three Persons of the Trini∣ty, 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. In∣deed 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, signi∣fies, the Word was a Divine Person in the God∣head, 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 Di∣vine Person.

But to give us a right and full under∣standing of this place, he thought sit to pa∣raphrase 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 Su∣pream 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 para∣phrase his Paraphrase, to make it clearer to vulgar Understandings.

In the Begin∣ning of all Things, was the second Divine Person of the Trinity, whose Name and Character is the Word; this second Di∣vine Person of the Trinity was inseparably united with the Three Persons of the Tri∣nity, whom we call God, and consequent∣ly 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 Do∣ctrine of the Trinity? I confess, 'tis very a∣greeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity.

2. Thô I have shown already the incon∣sistency 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; be∣cause the Scripture does never describe E∣ternity by such an Expression, nor does the Expression in its own Nature denote Eterni∣ty: St. John would not have expressed so great a Mystery, and so necessary to be be∣lieved 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 Inter∣pretation 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 under∣stand 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 Be∣ginning 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 teach∣ing 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 Discour∣ses and Miracles of Christ; but this is of no great moment, and does not destroy the proper and essential order of History. The for∣mer 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 Creati∣on, 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 pub∣lish

his Gospel, viz. the asserting of Christ's Divinity? No, no, it is plain, he only de∣signed 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 O∣pinion; 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 Fa∣ther; and he was in the form of God, and like God, by reason of the Glory and Ma∣jesty 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 de∣scribed; 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 Sal∣vation; 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 Di∣stinction, 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 se∣cond, 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 en∣ter 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; be∣sides that we may observe, that Repetitions are very frequent throughout the whole Go∣spel 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 begin∣ning cannot signify the beginning of the World: but that it is here used for the be∣ginning 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 under∣standing 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 dis∣covered 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 admit∣ted 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 mean∣ing 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 be∣came 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 Propagati∣on 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 E∣ternal 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 Bre∣thren, but most of them would not re∣ceive 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 visi∣ble 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; sig∣nify

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 say∣that the Old Creation was the work of Je, sus Christ.