A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nominal and Real Trinitarians Non Partûm Studiis agimur sed sumsimus arma Consiliis inimica tuis Discordia vecors Printed in the Year 1695. Of the Nominal and Real TRINITARIANS The Distinction of Trinitarians into Nominals and Realists and the Design of these Sheets IT will easily appear to all that have seen the late Prints between the Trinitarians and Unitarians That the Questions controverted between us are managed here on another Foot as they speak in another Method and by different Arguments than in Foreign parts or by the Latin Writers Among other remarks that we have made and urged the English Vnitarians show That their Opposers do indeed all go under the common name of Trinitarians but are in truth a great many several and contrary Sects They all cast up their Caps and cry Trinity Trinity But the Ideas they have of the Trinity and consequently their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary that they are less one Party among themselves than the far more Learned and far greater Number of them I mean hereby the Nominal Trinitarians are one Party with Us. As much as the Socinians are clamour'd on for abominable intolerable Hereticks there is nothing more certain than that the Nominal Trinitarians who are truly and properly the Church and who are by much the Majority of Christians are altogether in the same Sentiments concerning Almighty GOD and the Person of our Saviour that we are This is one of the Points that I shall insist on and evince in these Sheets but I shall argue divers other Matters these two especially That the several Sects of Real Trinitarians are guilty of a manifest Tritheism their Doctrine necessarily and immediately infers three Gods and that the Nominal Trinitarians have causlesly innovated the Language of the Holy Scripture and of the Primitive Church concerning GOD and the Person of the Lord Christ I said in the Language of Scripture and of the antient Church for they have retained the Primitive and true Doctrine only they have not kept to the Form of sound Words I will speak first of our Brethren the Nominal Trinitarians then of the Tritheistick Tribes or Realists Of the Nominal Trinitarians that these are the Church THE first observation to be made on the Nominals is that these are the Church which I prove by two incontestable Arguments 1. Their Doctrine has been espoused by a General Council The Council assembled at the Lateran in the Year 1215 established in the most ample manner and most express Terms the Doctrine of the School-Divines or Nominal Trinitarians and condemns in the Person and Writings of Abbat Joachim the Doctrine of the Real Trinitarians as Heretical and Mad I use the very words of the 2d Canon of that Council To this Argument I must note two things First This Council was more truly General than almost any of the Councils that are so called Here were present 1200 Fathers the Ambassadours of the Emperour of Constantinople the King of the Romans the Kings of France England Arragon Hungary Jerusalem Cyprus and divers others Here also were the five Patriarchs partly in Person partly by their Legats the Roman Constantinopolitan he of Jerusalem the Antiochian and Alexandrian whose Presence by themselves or their Legats is supposed necessary towards constituting an Oecumenical or General Council Secondly Divines and Canonists do not give the name of Heresy to any Doctrine because 't is rejected by a great number of Learned Men or by a National Council but they reckon it Heresy if it has been censur'd by a General Council which represents the Vniversal Church Be the mistake never so great let it have been condemned by never so many Writers whether Fathers or Moderns or both 't is only Error 't is not Heresy unless it has been Anathematiz'd by the Catholick or Universal Church and the Catholick Church is never understood to speak but by a General Council which for that reason is called the Church Representative Briefly Heresy and the Faith can be declared but only by a General Council the General Council at the Lateran in Rome has avowed the Doctrine of the Nominal Trinitarians and Anathematiz'd the Hypothesis and Explication of the Real Trinitarians therefore say I the former are the Church the latter are Hereticks I am amazed when I hear some Real Trinitarians say in their Books That the Doctrine of the Nominals never had any other publick Authority but the Creed and 2d Canon of the Council of Lateran for what other equal Authority thereto can it have is not a General Council the highest Court of the Church Her Canons declare the Faith her Anathemas Heresy And what other Council ever was so General as this in which were assembled the Emperour and Kings of the East and West the Latin and Greek Churches 1200 Fathers and what especially makes a General Council the five Patriarchs of Christendom What will the Realists say here that this was a Popish Council First it would be News indeed that the Roman Catholicks are not Orthodox in the Questions concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation It has ever been granted to them both by the Lutherans Calvinists and Church of England that they are sound in Fundamentals in the Doctrines of the Trinity the Incarnation the Satisfaction and such like their Error consists in the Additions they have made to the Fundamentals and namely by their Doctrines of Indulgences Transubstantiation Worship and Invocation of Images and Saints and the rest And is the Greek Church also Heretical in the Doctrine of the Trinity for in this Council the Greek Emperour and Church were represented as well as the Latin Church nay of the five Patriarchs here present four of them belong to the Orient or Greek Church When the Realists have turned themselves all ways they will find themselves held and even bound by the Authority of this Council which is too Great and Venerable to be openly or directly disclaimed 'T is objected to this Council by Mr. Spanheim the present Learned Professor at Leyden that they assented to and published 70 Canons in 20 days Time and that the Canons were not framed by the Fathers but by the Pope These are frivolous Exceptions unworthy of so Learned an Historian for 't is not at all to the purpose who contrived these Canons seeing they were approved assented to and published by the Council Canons are oft-times composed by some particular Father in a Council sometimes by a Committee of the Council sometimes as in the present Case by the President but by whomsoever they are drawn up they are not the Canons of that Person or Persons but of the Council when the Council has examined approved and voted them But Mr. Spanheim doth not find Fault with this Council for their Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity or the Canons that refer to any part of that Article but because it was convened under pretence indeed to carry on
after all probably the Reformers would have come off no better than the Socinians have done that is with all the clear Truth they have of their side and all their Dexterity and Wit in managing it being over-powered by the numbers of the contrary Herd they should have been answered with Penal Laws and Sanguinary Prosecutions of the those Laws They took therefore a Course that would do their Business unperceived by the most and when perceived by some few it would not be hard to convict them of Tritheism and explode them as Tritheists and so de facto they served Abbat Joachim And then getting their Explication of the Trinity confirmed by the Council of Lateran they happily restored the publick Profession and Faith of the Unity of God by an Authority which none dares to contradict for a General Council as was before noted is the highest Court of the Church that last Tribunal on Earth from which there lies no Appeal Of the Noetians and Sabellians THERE is yet another Branch of Nominal Trinitarians more antient far than those yet mentioned for about the Year of Christ 200 the Noetians and but a little after them the Sabellians arose both these said there is but one Divine Substance Essence or Nature and as the Substance of the Father Son and Spiirt is numerically One so consequently said they there is but one Person of God Father Son and Spirit are but only three Names of God given to him in Scripture by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature For in regard of the Creation God is called the Father he is named the Son as he wrought Miracles and accomplished the whole Work of Man's Redemption by the Lord Christ in whom he dwelt after a peculiar and extraordinary manner and who indeed was the Son of God by miraculous Conception in the Womb of Holy Mary He has the Name of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit from his omnipotent Energy or Power by which he effecteth all things In a word the Noetians and Sabellians held that God is but one subsisting Person yet that with respect to things without Him he may be called as the Modern Nominals now speak three Relative Persons the one subsisting Person of God sustaineth the three Names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons or Persons in a Classical critical Sense And this too is the Explication of the Trinity by that Party in the first Nicene Council who contrived the word Homo-usios or Consubstantial by which they meant that the three Divine Persons have all the same Substance and this is the Party which after the breaking up of that famous Council and upon the sudden Prevalence of the Arian Faction were persecuted by the Arians and were considered by all others as the true Nicene Party till about the Year of Christ 380 the Realists obtained that it should be said that God is tres Hypostases three subsisting Persons Indeed there are several Comma's in the Nicene Creed very hardly reconcilable to the Sabellian Doctrine but as there were three powerful and almost equal Parties in the Nicene Council the Arian Party the Realists and the Sabellians the latter thought it enough if they could procure Homo-usios consubstantial to be inserted into the Creed For that ambiguous Word may be interpreted in favour of all those Parties It may be interpreted the same Substance the very same or same in Number and so it establishes the Sabellian Doctrine or the same in Kind and all Properties and so it countenances the Realists or it may be understood of like Substance and so it pleases the Ariani molles the moderate Arians tho the rigid Arians in the Council would by no means admit of it they rather chose to lose their Bishopricks But when the Council was broke up it was perceived by the other Parties that the zealous Assertors of Homo-usios of the same Substance were all of them Sabellians believed that God is but one subsisting Person and therefore destroyed the real Existence of the Son whom the Arians as well as the Realists took to be a subsisting Person not a relative Person a Respect or a Name only And as the Arians discovered that the Homo-usians were indeed Sabellians so these latter charged the Arians and Realists as guilty of a manifest Tritheism because they so interpreted Homo-usios as to make Father Son and Spirit to be distinct intellectual Substances or subsisting Persons Let us hear their own Historian Socrates L. 1. c. 23. After the Council the Bishops wrangled about the word Homo-usios Those that were for it were censured by the contrary Party as Sabellians and were called Impious because they destroyed the real Existence of the Son Those that were against it were condemned by such as were for it as reviving Gentilism or the belief of more Gods And this Truth that Sabellianism was then taken to be the Nicene Doctrine or the same with the Doctrine of Consubstantiality is owned by the Learned Critick H. Valesius in his Notes on Sacrates L. 1. c. 24. For whereas the Historian saith That Cyrus Bishop of Berea was deposed for holding the Sabellian Doctrine Valesius notes hereupon in these words that is for the Doctrine of the Consubstantiality or the Doctrine of the Nicene Council which Council brought in the Homo-usiotes or Consubstantiality The Sum of what has been said concerning the Nominals THESE at length are the Divisions of the Nominals They all agree that the three Persons of God are not subsisting Persons they are not so many distinct Lives Understandings Wills or Energies which together with a particular Substance make a subsisting Person and if they are more than one they make so many physical real or subsisting Persons no they are Persons in a quite different Sense from that vulgar acceptation of the word Persons They are either three Attributes of God Goodness Wisdom and Power Or three external Acts Creation Redemption and Sanctification Or two internal Acts of the subsisting Person of the Father that is to say the Father Vnderstanding and Willing himself and his own Perfections Or three internal Relations that is three Relations of God to himself namely the Divine Substance or Godhead considered as Unbegotten and Proceeding Or three Names of God ascribed to him by the Holy Scriptures because he is the Father of all things by Creation and because he did Inhabit and Operate after an extraordinary and miraculous manner in the Person of the Man Christ Jesus who was verily the Son of God by his wonderful manner of Conception and last of all because he effecteth all things more especially our Sanctification by his Spirit which is to say his Energy or Power Every one sees these are very crude Conceits to be dignified with the Name of Mysteries but withal the Reader is to know that the Mystery is still behind For the Mystery lies not here that one subsisting Person is
a proper physical and natural Sense of the word God for the words God and Man are specifical Terms the former implies divers personal Gods as the other implies many personal and individual Men. He is so far from being ashamed of all this that he adds again Page 85. The Fathers of the Nicene Council nay the whole Eastern Church did appropriate a the title one God to the Father and God of God to the Son The Fathers meant thereby the Son is God not of or from himself but from or by or of the Father See what use Mr. J. B. makes of this at pag. 91. The Phrase God of God does necessarily imply a Multiplication of the term God in some Sense or other And one and the same numerical God in concreto can never be God of God and not God of God these two cannot be verified of the same Subject of one and the same God in concreto or in Person 'T is Heresy in excelsis and the last words in Person designed only to blind his true meaning or to mollifie it to those that happen to understand him do but increase the grossness of his Tritheism He hath said in those words in effect the Nicene Creed and Oriental Church acknowledging one who is God of God this God who is God of or from God cannot be the same God with him from or of whom he is God namely with God the Father these two must be several Subjects different Gods This avowed Tritheism I say is neither hid nor sofmed by adding different Gods in concreto or in Person for it was never said or so much as thought before that the multiplication of Persons in the Godhead or these expressions God the Father God the Son God the H. Spirit would warrant any one to say several Gods or that God of God is not the same both Subject and God with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit In short that which this Author and his Party of Realists intend and say though somewhat Covertly and Artificially is that as all the Men in the World in concreto are notwithstanding sometimes expressed by the general abstract word Man So the three Gods in concreto three Personal really subsisting Gods may also be expressed but they care not how seldom the seldomer the better by that scurvy Socinian abstract word God I have not made these short remarks on Mr. J. B. with a malevotent Intention to create Envy or to raise up Enemies to him I shall confess that as broadly as he has spoke St. Sasil Gregory Nyssen and other Fathers after the Year 380 so Taught and so Spoke and I have before given some instances of it as I shall give more in the Continuation of my Answer to Dr. BuII's Defence of the Nicene Faith and Judgment of the Catholick Church But all that I design is only to appeal to the World whether the Realists have not notoriously owned and professed their Tritheism with which they are charged not only by the Socinians but by the Nominals which is to say by the Church Dr. S th is but one Man he is only a private Doctor but he has rightly understood the Doctrine of the Church if a General Council were again to assemble they would certainly espouse his two Books he hath said neither more nor less nor otherwise than the Catholick Church since the Council of Lateran has constantly taught Mr. J. B. is a Learned and very discerning Person so are other Realists of this Nation I must not say of the English or of the Catholick Church for they are departed from both who have lately written against the Socinians but they have opposed to ours such an Explication of the words God Persons Trinity as Dr. S th hath deservedly called a Trinity of Gods nor will they be ever able to wipe off the Imputation Mr. J.B. must not think he has answered Dr. S th he hath only sometimes mistaken him sometimes misreported or perverted his plain and obvious Meaning or quarrelled with the Doctrine of the Schools and of the Lateran Council which is to say of the Catholick Church to make room for the exploded Tritheism of St. Basil and some other Fathers The Doctrine of the Catholick Church Mr. J.B. knows well can be fetched only from General Councils the Church is never understood to speak but by a General Council particular Fathers are but only particular Doctors they are not the Church how many soever they are Therefore I desire Mr. J. B. to tell me what Council ever used his Language that one Divine Person is one God as perfectly one God as one Angelical Person is one perfect Angel In what Council shall we find that the word God is equivalent to a Species which is to say the Divinity no less than the Humanity or the Manhood comprehends several Individuals of the same both Nature and Denomination as there are many Men in concreto so there are divers Gods also in concreto Can he direct us to that Council which teaches that God of God and God not of God that is Father and Son are not the same God or that the term God implies any Multiplication Did ever any Council so far apostatize from Christianity as to deny that there is but one numerical God and call that Doctrine the Faith of Jews Mahometans and Heathens But this is Mr. J. B's Language and the Doctrine of all the Realists they all intend as he has said nor will any of them censure his Book but applaud it as a great and extraordinary Performance I do not regard the Impertinences of Mr. Tho. Holdsworth of North-Stoneham near Southampton in his late Impar Conatui which he hath opposed to Mr. J. B. This Orlando has vomited up his Crudities on a Person too much above him to take notice of him and all that I shall trouble my self to say of him is that if as he has been careful to tell us the Place of his Residence and of his Vicinage so he had also told us his Age we might have guessed with more certainty than now we well can whether he raves or dotes The Realists speak much more Mystically or Absurdly than the Nominals I Must make another Remark on the Realists namely That the absurd contradictory and impossible Things partly expresty said by 'em partly implied in their Doctrine are far less tolerable or accountable than the forced Improprieties in the use of Words and Terms by the Nominals are I confess both Parties so often depart from the common use of Terms and Words that one as well as the other is frequently forced to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Mystery when they cannot assoil the Difficulties objected to themselves by each other or by the Socinians to both when they find that the use of Words and the nature of Things are both against them they cry Mystery their Doctrine then they confess though a Truth is however a Mystery above the Capacity whether of themselves
the War against the Saracens in the Holy Land but really to raise a Crusade or Holy War against the Albigenses and to confirm the Vassalage of John King of England to the See of Rome against the Consent of the English Peerage that is in short to inlarge the Jurisdiction and increase the Authority of the Western Patriarch or Bishop of Rome 2. My second as I said incontestable Proof that the Nominal Trinitarians are the Church is that the Divinity-Chairs and all Writers whether of Controversy or Systems have ever followed the Doctrine of the Schools which is the Doctrine of the Nominal Trinitarians and the Creed and 2d Canon of the beforesaid Council of Lateran in declaring the Doctrine of the Trinity They all take it as the Council-Schools and Nominals do for their Foundation That there is but one only and self-same Divine Substance and in that Substance but one infinite Undestanding but one almighty Energy and Will in number Which is to say there is but one really Subsisting divine Person or God is but one subsisting Person tho in a Critical or Classical Sense of the word Persons namely when Persons is used only for various Relations of the same really subsisting Person we may say there are three Divine Persons A subsisting Person is by Confession of all one particular Substance having one Understanding Will and Energy or power of Action in number therefore God being according to the Council Schools and all Nominals one Substance or one particular spiritual Substance with one only Understanding Energy and Will he can be according to them but one subsisting Person tho he may be more Metaphysical or Classical Persons that is more Relations or Properties This I say is the Doctrine of that Council of the Schools and of the Nominal Trinitarians and it has always been approved and taught by the Divinity-Chairs and by the Writers both of Systems and Controversy therefore the Nominals not the Realists are the Church I shall grant that the real Trinitarians have on their side the most and most considerable of the Fathers reckoning from about the Year of Christ 140 and meaning those Fathers whose Writings have been suffered to come down to our Times and excepting out of the Number the Party in the first Nicen Council which some little time after the breaking up of that Council were considered as the Orthodox Party and the Church and were persecuted as such by the Arians But the Nominals have what is much more considerable all the Moderns accounting the Moderns from the Council of Lateran or the Year 1215. Since that Council Learning and more especially Theological Learning has not only been revived but greatly improved the later Divines have been better Criticks Interpreters Philosophers than the Fathers were and the two last Ages only have afforded more Hundreds of able Divines than there were single Persons of the Fathers Of the Latin Fathers only St. Jerem would have been accounted a Learned Divine in our Age and of the Greeks Origen Eusebius the two Gregories Basil St. John Chrysostom and four or five more had the rest wrote in any part of the two last Ages they should undoubtedly have been reckoned among the Scriblers The Nominals therefore if you demand Authority produce a General Council not only establishing their Hypothesis or Explication of the Trinity but denouncing Anathema to the contrary Doctrine and the Realists if you require a Poll if you will be judged by most Votes they have for them an hundred far more Learned Moderns against one Father who can be cited for their Opposers the Realists Why the Nominals are so called their Doctrine and Agreement with the Unitarians THE Church then as I said is unquestionably the Nominal Party and this Party is so called because as the Realists are denominated from their believing three distinct Divine Spirits or Minds who are so many real subsisting Persons so the Nominals believe three Divine Persons who are Persons in Name only indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person This will appear by all more fully and clearly by the account I shall now give in their own Words and Terms of their Doctrine Hypothesis or Explication The Nominals are one Party in several Subdivisions they must be called one Party because their Explications so far agree as really to leave but one God and one Divine Person properly and physically so called All the Divisions of the Nominals accord that there is but one only and self-same Divine Essence and Substance the Divine Substance according to them is one in Number not as the Realists hold one in Properties only which indeed were only a likeness of Substances not an Vnity As the Divine Substance is numerically One so according to the Nominals is the Divine Understanding Energy and Will they are not repeated as the Persons are but they are one as strictly and properly as the Essence or Substance is one Or more clearly if it may be thus as there is but one Divine spiritual Substance so there is but one omniscient Understanding but one omnipotent Energy but one most Holy Will. They allow indeed of three Persons in the Sense hereafter declared but all these Persons have but one Understanding one Will one Energy in Number Having laid this honest and sound Foundation they take a Latitude and without quarrelling with or censuring one another in declaring what is to be meant by the three Persons One saith they are only three Acts of God whereby he is denominated after three several manners On the account of his Creating Redeeming and Sanctifying Mankind he is called three Persons for say these Gentlemen a Creator is a Person a Redeemer is a Person a Sanctifier is a Person If you reply true but one Person may perform all these Acts and sustain all these Denominations they answer you have rightly understood them for they intend not to say there are three Divine physical or subsisting Persons but three Persons in a Critical or Classical or if you will Metaphysical sense of the word Persons For instance three such Persons as one Man who happens to be a King a Husband and a Father may be said to be Every Body knows who is that Learned Professor that preached this Trinity first in three Sermons to the University of Oxford with great applause afterwards maintained it with no less Approbation among the London Divines in divers Letters by him published The Socinians not only never denied three such Persons in God or such a Trinity but as willingly avow it as this Professor himself his Learned Auditory at Oxford or his Admirers at London Why are we Hereticks while he is not only confest to be Orthodox and Catholick but is esteemed as a worthy and deserving Apologist for the Faith Why may not the Author of the Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius or he of the Considerations on the Explications and Defences of the Trinity succeed to this Professor in his Canonship at
related it is such pitious Trifling as utterly destroys the Patience of the Realists that hear it while others think that the Philosopher who is said never to have laughed but once might even have done it a second Time on this ocasion In very Deed our Brother S th has need of all his Talents and Helps his Leisure Learning Wit Courage the Council of Lateran and all the Moderns to defend him against the insults of the Realists who have here so manifest an Advantage and are for the most part Men so able to take and manage it that he will find at length he has no way to rescue his Explication or himself but by Recriminating that is by shewing the as great Absurdity and plain Impossibility of the Explication of the Trinity b the Realists It may be worth while to inquire here whether the Nominals do not know or are not aware that in very deed they are Unitarians or as some call us Socinians I am of Opinion they are sensible of it and I ground my self on the express words of some of them and those too the most esteemed For example Dr. J. Wallis and Dr. S th intimate plainly enough that the Socinian Doctrine and theirs is the same Dr. Wallis answering to a Socinian in his 3d Letter or Vindication of the Athanasian Creed p. 62 63. has these words That which makes these Expressions he means the Terms used by Trinitarians especially this God is three Persons or three Persons are one God seem harsh to the Socinians is because they have used themselves to fancy that Notion only of the word Person according to which three Men are accounted to be three Persons and these three Persons to be three Men. But they may consider there is another Nation of the word Person and in common use too wherein the same Man may be said to sustain divers Persons and those Persons to be the same Man that is the same Man sustaining divers Capacities And then it will seem no more harsh to say the three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God than to say God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier is one God which I suppose even to this Answerer he means the Socinian to whom he is there answering would not seem harsh or be thought nonsense Here he saith these two things 1. That three Persons when affirmed of God are not to be taken as when we say three Men are three Persons but in that sense wherein the same Man is commonly he means by Grammarians and Classical Authors called three Persons because he hath three Capacities as suppose of a King an Husband and a Father This is the Sense in which God is said to be a Trinity or three Persons he hath these three Capacities of Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and in that regard or sense is said to be three Persons 2. That to a Socinian this account not only will not be Non-sense but not so much as harsh or uncouth No one can deny that the Doctor well perceived that the Socinian Doctrine and his were indeed the same a Sicinian he says would not be offended at this Explication of a Trinity of Persons Person here not being intended for a subsisting Person as a particular Man is but for a Capacity only of a really subsisting Person And whereas the Socinian Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity had said if Dr. S th and the Nominal Party believe but one Divine Substance in Number which hath one only Understanding one Will one Energy or power of Action in Number he is a Socinian or Unitarian for in very Deed this is but one really subsisting Person Dr. S th nothing abash'd with his usual dexterity and presence of Mind answers to this effect That so he believes and so the Church believes and that 't is a good hearing that the Socinians are come over to him and to the Church or fal in with him and the Church I cannot at present find the particular page of Tritheism charged where this is said not having made a mark against those Lines but I remember well that I report rightly the Sense of the Passage His words need no Comment they are a plain acknowledgment that by that way of expressing themselves the Socinians fall in with the Church and with him But whereas he saith they fall in with the Church as the Socinians are content that in Honour to the Church it be so said so the English Vnitarians or as they call us Socinians claim it as their right to be owned the first Discoveres that all the Heats between the Church and the Socinians have arose from this only this they mistook one anothers true meaning by occasion of the canting un-scriptural Terms Trinity Persons and such like used by the Church For it is most true that tho for Peace-sake we submit to the Language of the Church as 't is interpreted bby the Nominals yet the Church's Terms are very improper for the same single numerical subsisting Person as the Church and the Socinians believe God to be is not now in any Language called three Persons by occasion of three Relations Modes or Properties adhering to him tho 't is confessed the Roman Classical Authors so spake But whereas the Nominals or the Church since the Council of Lateran that they may seem not to have departed from the Fathers still talk of Trinity Paternity Generation Procession Hypostatical Union Father Son and Spirit on which as we have seen they put such a meaning even those of them that speak most Harshly and Improperly as no ways destroys the Unity of God or that he is but one physical and subsisting Person and hereupon the Realists insult them as People that know not or at best heed not what they say the Socinians think 't is even necessary nay a due Justice to have more regard and respect for these their weak Brethren First We consider that after all the improper Terms impertinent Language and unsignificant and sometimes dangerous Words used by the Nominals all the Denominations of them agree at length in this Sound and Orthodox Explication and Conclusion that there is but one Divine intellectual Substance but one infinite Spirit but one subsisting Person of God Secondly The Nominals choose indeed to speak almost a Realist would say altogether Nonsensically and to retain the dangerous Tritheistical Terms of the Fathers Trinity c. but this was that they might restore the true Faith and genuine Christianity without Noise and Tumult the School-Divines and Council at Lateran reformed the corrupted Doctrine of the Church by only interpreting soberly and dextrously the Language and Terms which their Tritheistick Predecessors had brought into the Church into her very Liturgies and Creeds So many Councils so many Fathers and from them so many Nations had affirmed a Trinity of Divine Persons that to oppose this Doctrine would have begot endless Strises bitter Contentions and Persecutions and
Christ and in Heaven by his Exaltation above the Angels And secondly That neither is there any need of this for those Texts may be thus translated all things were made for him and without regard to him was nothing made that was made Were made for him that is to say they were originally made by God for the Messiah namely to subject them in fulness of Time to him and to his Law Which is the Interpretation of St. John Chrysostom a most Learned Trinitarian in the Opus Imperfectum on St. Matthew In short I would not have it said that the current of Scripture is much less is clearly on their side who contend for a Trinity of Divine subsisting Persons because 't is so well known that this senseless extravagant boast of some small Writers of Controversy is the Jest and Sport of their own Criticks and Interpreters of Note who have far more scorn for such Sciolists than they have Enmity to the Socinians Of the Unitarians their Agreement with the Church THE Unitarians called also Socinians are a Sect or Party or Denomination of Christians who have indeavoured to perfect that Reformation that was so happily begun by Dr. M. Luther Mr. J. Calvin and here in England by Archbishop Cranmer Dr. Luther subverted the Infallibility and Supremacy of the Pope the Worship and Invocation of Angels and Saints the superstitious monastick Vows the Merchandize of Indulgencies by which poor Sinners had been long cozen'd into a Belief that they could buy the Pardon of their Sins from the Pope and his Factors and this not only without Restitution Amendment or Repentance but without Confession for that also was sometimes a Clause in their Bulls of Indulgence that the Purchaser should be absolved of all his Sins whether Confessed or not Confessed The forms of Indulgences were so ample that is so General and Comprehensive that Men of any Wealth never cared what Sins they were guilty of because they knew they could at any time whether Dead or Alive purchase their Pardon if they had neglected it in their Life Time 't was but leaving so much Money by Will for Masses and Indulgences and they were sure all should be forgiven The Story of the French Gentleman is well known who being admonished by his Friend of his horrible Cursing and Blaspheming answered Man there is no fear cannot I buy my Pardon of the Friars Austins I would be forgiven for an Ounce of Gold though I had ravish'd the Mother of God and cut off both her Breasts This was the state of Things when Dr. Luther appeared and opposed himself so successfully to these Corruptions as I said he intirely ruin'd the Market of Indulgences Monastick Vows Invocation of Saints and Angels the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Chair of Rome Mr. J. Calvin besides that he greatly strengthned and confirmed what Dr. Luther had begun by his extraordinary Erudition fine Wit and indefatigable Diligence in all which Mr. Calvin excelled the very greatest of the first Reformers he carried the Reformation somewhat farther than Luther had done He took away the use of Images which can serve only for a snare to the Weak and for an Avocation and Amusement to the Discerning His Doctrine concerning the Sacraments has fewer Follies than not only that of Rome but than Luthers he rejected the Consubstantiation as well as the Transubstantiation and was not imposed on by the Doctrine of Ubiquity I need say nothing of Arch-bishop Cranmer because his Reformation is known to every Englishman his Doctrine and Discipline being expressed in the 39 Articles the Books of Homilies of Canons and the Common-Prayer All Protestants have a great Reverence for these famous and excellent Men even those of us who think that their Reformation is yet very incompleat I may add that as much as these Reformers are detested by the Papists the very Papists all Orders of them from the highest to the lowest from the Pope to the Begging and discalceate Friar are greatly in their Debt For now they have Learned Priests Holy Popes and the Kings and States of the Roman Communion are no longer the Slaves of the Pope all which was otherways when there were no Protestants of whom the Pope and Conclave and the rest of their Hierarchy might stand in some awe The Popes consider now that they must act Soberly live Exemplarily and inspect the Conduct and Sufficiency of the Clergy else the Princes and People now in their Communion will desert to the Protestants It was Dr. Luther as odious as his Name among them is who took off the Yoke and filed the Chains from the Necks and Hands of Emperours of Kings and Nations From laying prostrate under the Feet of the Pope from holding his Bridle and his Stirrup from expecting after their Election by the Princes of the Empire till the Pope should please to crown them and thereby give them the Name and Power of Emperours from Trembling every time that a crouching Friar was turned into a boisterous Pope I say from this miserable Vassalage the German Emperors and other Catholick Kings and States are delivered and care now just so much and no more for his Holiness's Love or Anger as the Example of his Life or the actual Assistance he can lend to 'em shall merit Since Luther the Clergy also of the Roman Communion are Learned and exemplary Men in their own Defence and for their own Security they must be so And they dare now withstand any new Incroachments on their Privileges or their Revenues by the Court of Rome Nay they have retrieved in some Degree their antient Rights and Authority for Rome dreads and ever will dread another Luther in case she should unjustly or rashly either oppress or offend the inferior Clergy Those of the Lay-Communion of that Church are now led with a Pastoral-Staff not hared with the Church's Thunder Excommunications and deliverings up to Satan They are sent of no more Errands to Syria and Asia in pretence to rescue the Holy Sepulchre in Deed to inlarge the Papal Bounds and Authority They are fed now with much sounder Doctrine and led by a better Example For now the necessity of Repentance and Amendment are taught Indulgences are now owned to be only Prudential and Charitable relaxations of Penance Images are now used only as Memorials of departed Saints and Incentives to imitate their Example the Sacrifice of the Mass is now only a commemorative Sacrifice which even Protestants believe it to be the Virgin Mary and the Saints are prayed to only to pray with us and for us and the like abatement is made in other Articles And whereas with reference to the Example of their Priests it has been a Proverb in some Places He that will give his Child to the Devil let him make him a Priest now and for almost two Ages last past their danger from the Protestants as was said before has reformed their Manners These are the Services done by the first Reformers as well
to the Papists themselves as to us of the Reformation their Memory is glorious and ought to be precious also among us But we say also that the Augéan Stable was too foul to be absolutely cleansed at once even by Hercules and his Companions Dr. Luther did a great deal the Labours of his Companions and Seconds were very laudable but much Filth is still left behind We desire to be fairly and candidly heard concerning some corruptions in the Faith and some abuses in the Morality still taught and particularly which is the Subject of these present Papers concerning the Object of our Faith and Worship Almighty GOD. We see we own that the Doctrine of the Church meaning by the Church the Nominal Trinitarians is sound as to the Sense and Intention of it but we humbly offer that the Terms in which 't is expressed are Vnscriptural and very Dangerous The words Trinity Incarnation Hypostatical Vnion are never used in Scripture nor is God ever there called Persons but Person And 't is evident that by occasion of these Terms the Vulgar have such a conception of the Trinity as is certain Tritheism When the People hear of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost they know not that thereby are meant only so many Relations of God either internal Relations to himself or external Relations to the Creature but they conceive in their Minds such a Father Son and Spirit distinct from both as are so many several subsisting Spirits so many distinct All-perfect Beings in very Deed so many Living Gods and not one God under three several Conceptions For tho they are taught to say three Divine Persons and but one God and that God the Father God his Son and God the Holy Ghost tho each of them is God yet all of them are but one God this last all of them but one God because they know not how 't is to be conceived with the other namely that each of them is God and one of them is God the Father another God the Son they utterly lose the Conception of one God and retain only what is intelligible to them namely three Divine Persons each of them a God We think that the Church having gained her Point against the Fathers and Realists in the Lateran Council and having been in Possession of the Truth for near 500 Years together she may now fling off the Disguise hitherto used the dangerous Tritheistick terms Trinity Persons and the rest she may now begin to declare the Truth she owns in Terms and Words that are proper for it Why does she frown upon those nay persecute them that believe the Unity of God in the Sense that she holds it only because they would cast out the Terms that so plainly favour the Tritheists that is the Realists What has the Church to fear has not the Lateran Council and all Writers ever since declared the Realists to be Hereticks therefore what need is there to retain their Terms when we have discharged the Notions intended by them 'T is true we can say as the Church does three Divine Persons the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God taking these words in the Church's Sense not for subsisting Persons that is to say Living Spirits but for Relations Properties Modes or such like We can say God was Incarnate meaning he did inhabit the Lord Christ after an ineffable manner and without Measure which is really as much as the Church intends by the word Incarnation We own the eternal Generation of the Son or Word and Procession of the Spirit by and from the Father explaining our selves with the School-Divines the Church and divers Fathers thus that God or the Father or original Wisdom conceived a most perfect Image of himself by understanding and considering his own Perfections and that he loveth or willeth as well as understandeth himself We can even say three Divine subsisting Persons intending with Dr. S th the Schools the Lateran Council and the Church Relative Subsistences whose Subsistence is nothing else but their Relation Which are Dr. S th's express words Tritheism charged p. 156. I cannot but ask it again why does the Church keep or impose on us such Words and Terms as in their present Signification destroy the Faith we both imbrace the Faith of the real Vnity of God We can say as the Church says we can use her Terms because we know her meaning but we cannot but say of them as Mr. Calvin did when ask'd his Opinion of the English Common-Prayers Tolerabiles Ineptiae For in very Deed 't is meer Trifling and something worse when the signification of these Terms and Words is wholly altered from what it antiently was yet still to retain them while the Church knows at the same Time that they give wrong Notions to the Vulgar making all our People Tritheists and serve also to animate and harden the Realists in their Heresy But I must do the Church this right to confess that most of her greatest Men particularly the first Reformers have publish'd to all the World their hearty desire that all these terms of the Realists were abolish'd and all were obliged to use the Scripture-Language and Words only which would heal all our Breaches and perfectly restore our Peace not only in this but in almost all other Questions and Strifes Let us hear of so many as might be alledged Dr. M. Luther and Mr. J. Calvin M. Luther complains The word Trinity sounds odly it were better to call Almighty God God than Trinity Postil major Dominic Mr. Calvin is yet less pleased with these kind of Terms he says I like not this Prayer O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity It savours of Barbarity the word Trinity is barbarous insipid profane an human Invention grounded on no Testimony of God's Word the Popish God unknown to the Prophets and Apostles Admon 1. ad Polon Decemb. 17. 1695. FINIS