things of God Rev. 1.1 If it be demanded If this be all Why is this Spirit called the Spirit of God I hope the Vindicator knows that 't is the manner of the Hebrew Tongue to name things great in their kind by the name of God He may also be called the Spirit of God as Prophets are in Scripture called the Men of God because both one and the other are sent by God And this Spirit is so much the Chief of all other Spirits that are God's Messengers that he is therefore sometimes called by way of Eminence and Excellence the Spirit of God So an Arian or Bidellian Unitarian would answer to the Objection from this Text. How a Socinian Unitarian would answer may be seen in the Brief History from p. 98 to p. 102. The CONCLUSION THus I have consider'd Dr. Sherlock's new Explication of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation by Self-consciousness and Mutual consciousness and therein the substance and force of his Book which he has so vainly and untruly called a Vindication of those Doctrines His Book can deserve that Title in no other sense but as 't is a supercilious disdainful and peevish Answer But for that the Unitarians know very well that when Learned Men rage in such a manner that they have neither Humanity nor good Manners left 't is because they find themselves pinch'd they know too that Omnis Renegada est Ordinis sui Persecutor Those who have hitherto said who are all that have read his Books there is nothing considerable in Dr. Sherlock's Books but what he either borrowed from the Socinians or build upon their Foundation such will wonder he would shew no better Reasons why he hath shifted sides He promised at P. 21. to examine the Brief Notes Paragraph by Paragraph that the Author might not complain of unsair Vsage But at p. 256 before he was got half thorough the Notes he pretends to grow weary of the Note-maker's long Harangues tho the whole Notes are less than a Sheet of Paper and so gives his Reader only so much of the Brief Notes as he fancied he could deal withal Therefore the Author of the Notes will say this was not only unfair but after a Promise false Vsage Others say the Doctor grew self-conscious sensible of his Inability and therefore durst not trust his Reader with those dangerous Notes and his crude Answer to them But where he pretended to answer he should not have suppressed so many Periods nor omitted to take notice of the Reason used supposing it was enough if he opposed the Doctrine Least of all should an Answerer of his standing and Reputation in Polemic Squabble have quietly past by some whole Paragraphs the most material in the Notes or only cast a bald squeez'd Jest at ' em As to the slight Querks which he sometimes opposes to the Arguments in the Notes and History there is an Answer preparing and almost finish'd to every thing in his Book to be publish'd unless in his next he is content to own he desires it not For as to the Unitarians themselves they are upon several accounts not forward to publish a farther Answer First They foresee that the Vindication is not a Book by which the Church of England or any other Party of the Trinitarians will abide they look for another kind of Answer and therefore reserve their Defences to a time and occasion that may more require them Another Reason is they dare trust the History and Notes with the Doctor 's Answer tho he durst not trust his Answer with the Notes only they desire the Reader to read the Notes and History as they are publish'd by them in entire Discourses not as they are mangled and cut into Thongs by the Vindicator They are confident that no discerning Man who shall read Dr. Sherlock's Vindication and afterwards read again the Notes or History as they are publish'd by the Unitarians but will sind himself as much troubled to untie the Gordian Knots as if they had never read the Solutions of the Vindicator But I will conclude with him with only observing something to what he has with his usual Charity and Sagacity objected to the Hopes of Salvation in the Unitarian way The Note-maker had said that In these Points which have been always controverted in the Churches of God 't is not necessary to Salvation that a Man happen to be of the right Perswasion 't is sufficient if he use reasonable Diligence to be informed if after that he mistakes he is in no fault at all his Error is pure Ignorance not a culpable Ignorance for how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Inquiry To this the Vindicator answers in several Pages but all the Argument of his Answer is in these words Then how comes an Atheist a Turk or a Jew to be in any fault Does the Note-maker think that no Atheist Turk or Jew ever used reasonable Diligence And why should not their reasonable Diligence serve their turns as well as the reasonable Diligence of Socinians and other Hereticks And does not the Reason he gives extend to the whole Christian Religion as well as to those Points that he says have been always controverted in the Churches of God To this Complement of the Vindicator I answer 1. I do not think Atheism ever was the abiding Sentiment of any Man who took time to consider and I deny that any Atheist ever used reasonable or but tolerable Diligence to be informed 2. As to Jews and Turks who believe and worship the one true God and him only perhaps they are in a nearer Proximity to Salvation than such as against sufficient Opportunities of a right Information and for Worldly Interests have apostatized from the Christian Faith to the Athanasian 3. Those that deny the whole Christian Religion after having known it and the Reasons of it the Note-maker is assured whatever Diligence they may have used they have not made as the Notes expresly require an Impartial Inquiry They have been byassed by their Prejudices or their Lusts against the whole Christian Faith as others we see are byassed against the most Essential Parts of it the Unity of God his Insinite Sapience Goodness Justice and Power his real Omnipresence the Liberty of our Wills to Good and Evil. If the Vindicator thinks otherways let him speak out and plainly tell the World his Mind that a Man may have used reasonable Diligence and also made an Impartial Inquiry and yet disbelieve the whole Christian Religion This I hope may be enough to Dr. Sherlock at present As for Mr. Savage who hath also written against the Brief Notes if he had pleased to write after an intelligible manner he seems to be a Person that might have deserved a careful Answer But having wrapt himself up in a School-Cloud and wrote in such towring Metaphysicks as are much above ordinary or unlearned Capacities I am sensible that with respect to the Unitarian Cause his Book can do neither good nor hurt However the Unitarians thank him for his design to inform and instruct them and they desire him not to take it amiss if they also advise him that the next time he writes for the Information of the Illiterate and Vulgar he would write more intelligibly For Learning's Light when held too high goes out The End
A Person is such a Being as has Understanding Will and Power of Action P. 66. They are Three distinct and Infinite Minds Three Intelligent Beings P. 258. They are Three Holy Spirits P. 67. These Three Infinite Minds are distinguished just as Three Finite Created Minds are by Self-consciousness Each Divine Person has a Self-consciousness of its own and knows and feels it self as distinct from the other Divine Persons The Father has a Self-consciousness of his own whereby he knows and feels himself to be the Father and not the Son or Holy Ghost The Son feels himself to be the Son and not the Father or Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost feels himself to be the Holy Ghost and not the Father or Son P. 104. The Persons are as really distinct as Three Human Persons or Three Men are P. 105. Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter James and John P. 149. We must believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God P. 98. We must allow each Person to be a God So also at P. 47. and elsewhere He not only contends each Person is God and a God but 't is his Belief in some places of his Vindication that each Person is a most consummate and absolutely perfect God For he ascribes to each of them a Personal absolutely perfect Wisdom Goodness Justice and Power I say a Personal perfect Wisdom c. besides the Wisdom Goodness c. common to them all by their Mutual-consciousness His words are these P. 81. There is no Contradiction that three Infinite Minds should be absolutely perfect in Wisdom Goodness and Power for these are Perfections that may be in more than One. P. 84 85. The Father has his own Personal Wisdom and by Internal Consciousness all the Wisdom of the Son and Holy Ghost The Son has his own Personal Wisdom and by the same Consciousness the Wisdom of the Father and Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost has his own Personal Wisdom and all the Wisdom of the Father and Son At P. 78. He denies there is in God an Infinite Wisdom Goodness Power c. but only perfect Wisdom Goodness c. He acknowledges at P. 97. and frequently else-where that if the Divine Persons were distinct and separate Persons they would be Three Gods but they are he saith distinct but not separate Persons Yet he saith there each of these Persons is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singly and by himself God tho not separately God P. 48. A Finite Spirit 's Numerical Oneness can be nothing else but every Spirit 's Unity with it self and its distinct and seperate Subsistence from all other Created Spirits And this Self-unity can be nothing else but Self-consciousness or that it is conscious to its own Thoughts Reasons Passions c. which no other Finite created Spirit is conscious to but it self Let us put this remarkable Doctrine concerning the Three Divine Persons into a short Creed and then make Brief Notes upon it Dr. Sherlock's Creed I Believe there are Three distinct Intelligent Infinite Beings Minds Spirits and Persons distinguished just as Three Finite Created Minds or Spirits are as really distinct as three Men or as Peter James and John Each of them has a Self-consciousness whereby he knows and feels himself as really distinct from the other two Divine Persons Also each of them has his own absolutely perfect for there is no Infinite Wisdom Goodness and Power and by a Mutual-consciousness each Person of these has the whole Wisdom Power and Goodness of the two other Persons Each Person has his own Understanding Will and Power of Action Finally each of these Beings Minds Spirits Persons is God nay each of them singly by himself is a God This Creed is not only the Vindicator's Sense but his very Words which he has often repeated in his Book Let us deliberately and minutely consider whether it be the Faith of Christians or consistent with Scripture or Reason I believe there are Three Infinite Spirits Minds and Beings 'T is the first time I ever heard so in my Life That God is unum summum Ens one Supream Being that he is Animus Mens Spiritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mind a Spirit is the Voice not only of Scripture but the agreed Doctrine of all Christians Let the Vindicator shew me either in Holy Scripture or in any Catholick Writer that these words are used of God in the Plural Number Do any of them like this Doctor call God Animi Mentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minds Spirits Beings Himself is the first who has dared thus to speak in express words and the reason is because he saw not what they all saw that three Infinite Minds Spirits or Beings are Three Gods For if one Infinite Mind or Spirit is One God Three Infinite Minds must be Three Gods else we cannot distinguish between One and Three nor discern that the Definition being multiplied the thing defined is also multiplied God saith our Saviour at Joh. 4.24 is a Spirit No saith the Vindicator at p. 258 and p. 66. God is Three Spirits Minds or Beings and to teach the contrary is both Heresy and Non-sense Before a Man bestows such Complements he ought well to consider on whom they may reflect for tho he thinks that such as Socinus and the Note-maker deserve not that common Humanity and good Manners be shown them yet he should have had some regard for his Saviour Well but what if Holy Mother Church be in the same Nonsense and Heresy Mr. Savage who has also written against the Brief Notes will tell him at p. 4. of his Answer that the Lateran Council hath defined that the Three Divine Persons are not Three Beings but that all together they make Unum summum Ens One Being And I will tell him that the fourth Council of Lateran often repeats it that God is not Aliud Aliud more Beings or Things but Vna quaedam Res One Thing or Being Mr. Marlow in his late Book concerning the Trinity written as should seem by the Preface on occasion of the Brief History and Brief Notes describeth God at p. 64. One single Being he adds there More than one Infinite Being cannot subsist But it were endless to cite particular Authorities in this matter therefore in a word all Catechisms Systems Institutions of Theology Christian Writers and even Jews and Mahometans that have spoken of God do with our Saviour define him a Spirit one Mind one Being never three Spirits three Minds or three Beings I dare not ask it of the Vindicator because he always answers according to the present Exigence only but I would ask any other learned and sensible Man What is the adequate Notion or true definition of Three Gods I make no doubt every such Person would answer without any the least Hesitation three Infinite Spirits or Minds or Intelligent Beings are three Gods Which is the Vindicator's Definition of one God But to involve himself yet
whereof one is the Father another his Son and the third an holy Spirit distinct from both I perswade my self that no Man can think that so much as one Person of the six hundred thousand Israelites who assembled to hear God speak did or possibly could understand that to be his meaning but on the contrary when they heard Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me they did and their Posterity to this day do understand it no otherways but thus Thou shalt never know or own more than one Divine Person even Me who now speak to thee When Points of Faith are turned into Laws we ought to be careful how we elude their plain and obvious Sense by Subtilties for such things will not excuse the Breach of Laws especially of the first and chief Law the ground of the rest to which they all refer as their chief Design Rather we should interpret all other dubious and disputable Scripture-Expressions by such solemn Principal and Chief Revelations and Laws The Vindicator 't is said is writing a Book to prove that there are more Persons the Son and Spirit besides the Eternal God and Father of our Lord Christ who are Gods or God that is he is writing a Book against the first Commandment And I confess that as his Party have ordered the vulgar Editions and Translations of the Holy Bible it will be no hard matter to alledg some very plausible Texts to such as know not the Deceits that have been used to make some Texts of Scripture contradict others But I challenge him before-hand to produce but one such Proof or Text for his purpose as is not of such suspected Credit and Authority in the Originals that no prudent Man would build any thing on it much less oppose it to the first Commandment or is so manifestly saulty in the English Translation that some of the most Learned of his own Party do reject it as no Proof or finally is not only not to his purpose but proves what the Unitarians contend for the Unity of God or that God is One But this was a Digression I left off at our Saviour's words Of that day and hour the day and hour of the last Judgment none knoweth but my Father only which I hope were sufficiently vindicated from the Perversions of Dr. Sherlock and others But let our Saviour say what he will and as expresly as he will the Doctor will prove against him that there is this perfect Mutual-consciousness between Him the Holy Spirit and the Father His first Objection is from Joh. 1.18 The only Begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father hath declared him To be in the Bosom of another signifies says the Vindicator to be conscious to that Person 's Mind and most intimate Secrets therefore the Son is conscious to the Father Answ But why did not the Vindicator produce some Texts to confirm this Interpretation The truth is the Scripture-Sense of this Phrase To be in the Bosom of another is this to be most dear to that Person as is clear from Deut. 28.54 56. 2 Sam. 12.3 So the Sense of the objected Text is only this The only Begotten Son who is most dear to the Father hath declared him i. e. hath made known his Will and Commands in the Gospel He objects Joh. 10.15 As the Father knoweth me so know I the Father Answ If the Vindicator had look'd into the Critical Commentators of his own Party he would have seen that to know in this Text is to love But allowing him his Sense of the words I answer as much is prophesied of all Christians in Gospel-times Jer. 31.34 They shall all know me from the greatest to the least of them Nor does as here note Equality of Knowlenge in the Son but Likeness only as at Mat. 5.48 Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect Therefore the Sense is the Father knoweth me and I also know the Father not by Natural or Congenit Consciousness but by his Revelation See Rev. 1.1 Joh. 10.30 I and the Father are One. This Oneness or In-being saith the Vindicator is a Mutual-consciousness and inward Sensation of each other Answ But our Saviour explains this Oneness to be such an Unity or Oneness as is or should be among all Christians which is not by Mutual-consciousness or inward Sensation but Mutual and Inward Love of one another John 17.11 Father keep those whom thou hast given me that they may be One as we are Ver. 22. That they may be One even as we are One. Again he urgeth Joh. 10.38 The Father is in me and I in him The Vindicator insisteth much on this as a clear Indication of an inward Consciousness between the Father and Son Answ But here again our Saviour has otherways explain'd himself namely thus that he means such an In-being as is between all Christians and the Father an In-being by Love and the Gift of the Spirit on the part of the Father and on our part by Love and Obedience and Profession of the Truth Joh. 17.21 That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they may be One in us 1 Joh. 3.24 He that keepeth his God's Commandments dwelleth in Him and he in him 1 Joh. 3.13 Hereby we know we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit Ver. 15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him and he in God Ver. 16. He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God and God in him Joh. 16.15 All things that the Father hath are mine Answ See what hath been satisfactorily said to this in the Brief-History pag. 103. 1 Cor. 2.10 11. The Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God For what Man knoweth the things of a Man but the Spirit of a Man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God Answ The Emphasis lies here that the Spirit knows the things of God even as the Spirit of a Man knows the things of a Man Now adinitting that the Holy Ghost or Spirit were a Person as many Unitarians particularly the Bidellians and Arians believe he is chief of the holy Spirits or Angels and called the Spirit by way of Excellence and the Holy Spirit to discriminate him from Satan who is chief of the Wicked and Apostate Spirits or Angels Admitting I say that the Holy Spirit is a Person yet what hinders that he may know the things of God that is appears by Ver. 9. the things that God has prepared for them that love him as fully and perfectly as the Spirit of a Man knoweth the Designs and Counsels of a Man towards other Men Cannot God as fully reveal those things of God to this holy and super-eminent Spirit as any Man knows his own Will and Designs of Good towards others and is it not thus that our Saviour also is said to know the