:

ing Scripture by Reason, that is, to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words fignifie, that is the Senfe of Scripture ; and when they will not admit this Senfe, because they apprehend it contrary to Reason, though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place, this is nothing else but a Controverfie between Scripture and Reafon.

My prefent Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures, which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity, or by others for it; this is a voluminous Work, and has often been done by others, and if there were any just Occafion of doing it again, it deferves a Treatife by it felf; but indeed it is the Doctrine it felf, which the Socinians diflike, more then our Expofitions, which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough, were the Doctrine fo; but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason, and therefore muft never allow, that the Scripture teaches fuch à Doctrine, which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind; reconcile men to the Do&trine, and the Seripture is plain without any farther Comment; this I have now endeavoured, and I be A lieve our Adverfaries will talk more fparingly of Abfurdities and Contradictions for the future, and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expofitions of Scripture: but yet I am unwilling to difmifs this Argument, without fome few Obfervations about the Senfe of Scripture.

This Author refers us to the Hiftory of the Unitarians, which though it be but a little Book in all Senfes, is too large to be particularly examined now ; but however I fhall give fome taste of it. In the first X

Letter

t

History of V

5.

Letter the Author marfhals thofe Texts, which he
thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity, and
because this may be most dangerous to unskiliul Rea-
ders, I fhall more particularly examine that.
duces the Scriptures under feveral Topicks, or Heads
of Arguments.

He re

1. If our Lord Christ were himself God, there nitarians, P.4, could be no Perfon greater than he, none that might be called his Head or God, none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious, for though Chrift be God himfelf, yet if there be Three Perfons in the Godhead, the equality and famenefs of Nature does not deftroy the Subordination of Perfons: a Son is equal to his Father by Nature, but inferiour to him as his Son: if the Father, as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wifdom, the Son a personal fubfifting, but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom, though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the fame, yet the Original is Superior to the Image, the Father to the Son: and therefore 14 John 28. though I know fuch Texts as he alleadges, My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God. I afcend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God; are both by Ancient and Modern Expofitors applied to Chrift's Human Nature, yet I fee no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with refpect to his Divine Person, and his Relation to his Father: For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity, and the Son is God of God, and therefore the Father may be called his God.

1 Cor.11.3.

20 John 17.

12 John 49. 14: 31.

As for Chrift's receiving Commands from the Father, though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office, and fo concerns him as God Incarnate,

as

as by the Difpenfation of the Gospel, he is the Mi-
nifter of God's Will and Pleasure, yet I grant even as
God, he receives Commands from his Father, but it
is no otherwife then as he receives his Nature from
him by Nature he is the Word,the Wisdom,the Com-
mand of the Father; his reflex Image, whereby he
produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and
Counsel into act. Thus St. Au-
ftin anfwered the Arrian Obje-
&tion, That Chrift was but God's
Inftrument, and made the World
by God's Command. Let them
confider with what other words
the Father commanded his only
Word. But they frame to them--
felves an Imagination of two, near one another, but fe-
parated by their diftinct Places, one commanding, ano-
ther obeying. Nor do they understand, that the Fa-
thers Command it felf, that all things should be made,
is no other Word of the Father, but that by which all
things are made; that is, the substantial Word and
Wildom, and Command of the Father, his only be-
gotten Son

Cogitent quibus aliis verbis jusserit Pater unico verbo. Formant enim fibi in

phantafmate cordis fui, quafi duos aliquos,
etfi juxta invicem, in fuis tamen locis con-
ftitutos, unum jubentem, alterum obtempe-
rantem. Nec intelligunt ipfam juffionem
Patris ut fierent omnia, non effe nifi ver-
Aug.contr.Serm. Arrianorum. Lib.3.
bum Patris, per quod falta funt omnia.

2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God, it could not, Page 5. without blafphemy, be (abfolutely and without Reftridion) affirmed of him, that he is the Creature, the Poffef fion, the Servant, and Subject of God. It is well he added, abfolutely and without restriction, but he had done better, if he had remembred it in his proofs: that Chrift is called a Creature, he proves, because he is the firft-born of every Creature, but here he fhould Col.15 have remembred his abfolutely and without reftriction, for he is fo too the firft-born of every Creature, that he is the Image of the invifible God, X 2

and

I Col.17.

and therefore no Creature; fo born before all Crea-
tures, as newlóron alfo fignifies, That by him were
all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are
in Earth, vifible and invifible 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, (which is the Explication of πμwrizon á-
ons alios, begotten before the whole Creation, and
therefore no part of the Creation himself) and by him
all things confift, τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέςηκε,all things
were not only made by him, but have their Subli-
stence in him; as the Apostle tell us, in God we live
and move and have our being, that this does not re-
late to the new Creation, as the Socinians would have
it, is very plain: For 1. in this Senfe Chrift (if he
were 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. 2. Nor in
this fenfe were all things in Heaven and Earth visible
and invifible, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities,
and Powers, that is, all the Orders of Angels crea-
ted by him: For the greatest part of vifible things,
(especially in the Apoftles days, when fo little part
of the World was converted to the Christian Faith)
were not new made by him; and none of the invifible
things were new made by him: good Angels did not
need it, and he came not to convert fallen Angels,
but to destroy the vifible Kingdom of the Devil in
this World, and to judge them in the next.
3. Nor
in this fense were all things made for him; for he is a
Mediator for God, to reduce Mankind to their Obe-
dience and Subjection to him; and therefore when
he has accomplished his Work of Mediation, and de-

ftroyed

stroyed all Enemies, in the final Judgment of the World; he fhall deliver up his Kingdom to his Father, that God may be all in all; of which more prefently. 4. And therefore the Apostle proceeds from his Creation of the Natural World, to his Mediatory Kingdom, which proves, that he did not fpeak of that before: And he is the Head of the Body the Church,who Verse 14. is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he might have the preheminence: as the Maker of all things visible and invisible, he is faid to be before all things, begotten of his Father before the Creation of the World; as Head of the Church, he is agy allo, the beginning, the first who rofe from the dead, that he might be the gold the firft upon all Accounts, before the Worlds, and the firft-born from the dead. That he was God's Minister and Servant, he proves by feveral Texts: as that he was appointed or made (which has the fame fenfe) by God, Page 6. the Apostle and High-Prieft of our Profeffion: but here 3 Hebr.1.2. is a restriction to his being High-Priest, and therefore no danger of Blafphemy, though he be God: for we may obferve, that though the Jewish High-Prieft. were but a man, yet he was a Type of a High-Priest, who is more than man, even the Eternal Son and Word of God, as fome of the Learned Jews acknowledge; for the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father, as Philo Judæus often calls the xy or Word, the exes or High-Priest; and fhows that the Garments of the High-Prieft were Figures of Heaven and Earth,which feems to fignifie, that the Eternal Word,which made the World, is the true High-Prieft. And the Story Jofephus tells of Alexander looks this way; that when Jaddus the High-Priest went out to meet him,dreffed

in