Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	rome_n	transubstantiation_n	3,421	5	11.4318	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing T1221; ESTC R10019	21,341	116

no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture V. Def. of Brief Hist. of Unit. p. 4 and 6. But oh were the Press as free for the Unitarians as 't is for other Protestants how easily would they make it appear that the Follies and Contradictions so justly charged on Transubstantiation are neither for Number Consequence nor Clearness any way comparable to those implied in the Athanasian Creed and that the Trinity hath the same and no other Foundation with Transubstantiation So that we must of necessity admit Both or neither V. Acts of Athanasius p. 16. This is the Sum of what they Object To which I expect an Answer according to your Promise A. As preparatory to a just Answer I cannot but observe how exactly these Socinians do Symbolize with the Papists For as on the one hand they of the Church of Rome are so fondly and obstinately addicted to their own Errors how mishappen and monstrous soever that rather than the Dictates of their Church how absurd soever should be called in question they will question the truth even of Christianity it self and if we will not take in Transubstantiation and admit it to be a necessary Article of the Christian Faith they grow so sullen and desperate that they matter not what becomes of all the rest And rather than not have their Will of us in that which is Controverted they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not controverted on either Side In like manner These Unitarians are so impertinently zealous in their designs against the Trinity that rather than admit that Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith they will plead for Transubstantiation and this even contrary to the Light and Dictate of their own Conscience For the Socinians are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the Absurdity of it with great advantage V. Arcbishop Tillotson ' s Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. Have you nothing further to say in this matter A. You must give me leave to add I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon without an Answer to Two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an Argument to bring in Transubstantiation as that is now now alledged for casting off the other But I must do them that right to tell the World That at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues which I saw and wished it might be Printed that the World might be satisfied about it and them But they thought fit to forbear And in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated there is but once that I can find any notice taken of those Dialogues and that in a very superficial manner for the main Design and Scope of them is past over V. Vind. of Trinit p. 287. And I must needs remind these Unitarians that it is not fair nor Scholar-like so insultingly to repeat the Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation which hath been so fully confuted in those Two Dialogues Q. You promised an Answer and you bring me a Challenge Which I shall send to the Unitarians Who indeed are obliged in point of Honour to give Satisfaction by a just Reply to those Two Dialogues A. If they would consult their Reputation and credit their Cause they ought not to defer it For those Two Dialogues were writ by an Author Who to give you the very words of an Unitarian hath all the Properties for which an Adversary may be either feared or Reverenced He understands perfectly the Doctrine of the Church and the Points in Question He will commit no oversights through Ignorance Hast or Inadversion He is too experienced and Judicious to hazard his Cause as others have lately done on the Success of a Half-thought Hypothesis a Crude Invention a pretty New Querk In a word we can only say of him since there is no Remedy Contenti simus hoc Catone V. Consid c. in a Letter to H. H. p. 3. Such an Adversary as this is worthy the Pens of their Ablest Writers If therefore at this Juncture when the Press is open these Unitarians shall not Answer those Dialogues I must with freedom tell them It is not because they dare not but because they cannot Q. Leaving these Unitarians to defend their Parallel at their leasure let me now hear your Answer which you were pleased to Promise A. I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Objection and such a One as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced Mind that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal Reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation Vid. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. First Let us examine whether there be equal Reason for the Belief of these Two Doctrines A. If this Suggestion of theirs be of any force we must suppose that there is equal Evidence and Proof from Scripture for these Two Doctrines Q. How do you prove there is not A. From the Confession of our Adversaries themselves For several Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have freely acknowledged that Transubstantiation can neither be directly proved nor necessarily concluded from Scripture But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this That if I am bound to Believe what I am sure God says though I cannot Comprehend it then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation concerning it Q. You think then that as there is not equal reason for the Believing so neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these Two Doctrines A. This the Objection supposes Which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these Two Grounds Either 1. Because these Two Doctrines are equally Incomprehensible Or 2. Because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions Q. As to the First Is not the Trinity as Incomprehensible as Transubstantiation and as such equally to be rejected A. It is not good ground of rejecting any Doctrine merely because it is Incomprehensible as I have abundantly shewed already But besides this there is a wide difference between plain matters of Sense and Mysteries concerning God And it does by

they think so I wonder they do not think of another thing which is the begging all Trinitarians for Fools because they cannot count One Two and Three and an Unitarian Jury would certainly cast them One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books for they take it for granted that all depends upon Counting But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels St. Augustin mentions it as such when he saith The Infidels sometimes ask us What do you call the Father we answer God What the Son we answer God What the Holy Ghost we answer God So that here the Infidels make the same Objection and draw the very same Inference Then say they the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods But what saith St. Augustin to this Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One He saith plainly that there are not three Gods The Infidels are troubled because they are not Inlightned their heart is shut up because they are without Faith By which it is plain he look'd on these as the proper Objections of Infidels and not of Christians But St. Augustin doth not give it over so When you begin to count saith he you go on One Two and Three But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been counting The Father is the Father the Son the Son and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost What are these Three Are they not Three Gods No. Are they not Three Almighties No. They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other but not as to their Essence which is but one V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindic. of the Trin. p. 58. Will men never learn to distinguish between Numbers and the Nature of Things For Three to be One is a Contradiction in Numbers but whether an Infinite Nature can communicate it self to Three different Subsistences without such a Division as is among Created Beings must not be determined by bare Numbers but by the Absolute Perfections of the Divine Nature which must be owned to be above our Comprehension Id. Serm. on 1 Tim. 1. 15. p. 16. This is plain and convincing to all Modest Unprejudiced Persons But it seems our Unitarians are not thus to be convinced Who do further Object That it is as ridiculous to affirm That the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost being Three Persons are One God as it is to say that Peter James and John being Three Persons are One Man Q. If I rightly apprehend them their Argument is this Three Human Persons are Three Men Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods And this they repeat with great Triumph in several of their Pamphlets What Answer therefore can you return to this A. How can any Man of Sense be satisfied with such kind of Arguments as these One would think they wrote only for such as would take their words they join so much Confidence with so very little appearance of Reason For is not this great skill in these Matters to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead and Peter James and John Do they think there is no Difference between an infinitely perfect Being and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are Do they suppose the Divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals as Human Nature is Q. No they may say but ye who hold three Persons must think so A. For what reason We do assert Three Persons but it is on the account of Divine Revelation and in such a manner as the Divine Nature is capable of it For it is a good Rule of Boethius Talia sunt praedicata qualia subjecta permiserint We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity but in such a manner as is agreeable to the Divine Nature and if that be not capable of Division and Separation then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence Id. Vind. p. 102. So that herein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty by considering the difference between the Humane and Divine Nature The Humane Nature being finite is capable of Division Multiplication and Separation But the Divine Nature being Infinite is not capable of any Division Multiplication and Separation Now the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God that can be but One and therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But because the same Scripture which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence doth likewise join the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes Operations and Worship therefore as to the mutual Relations we may reckon Three but as to the Divine Essence that can be no more than One. Here then is the true Reason why we affirm That Three Human Persons Peter James and John are Three Men and yet Three Divine Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are but One God Because The Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation as the Human Nature is Id. p. 64 76. Q. This is full and to the purpose and hath given great Satisfaction to my Self as well as others But is there nothing further Objected against the Doctrine of the B. Trinity wherein I may be instructed by you A. There is an Objection lately started and I wonder you have not charged me with it Q. Pray let me hear it A. 'T is this Three Divine Substances are Three Gods But Three Divine Persons are Three Divine Substances Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods This hath most insultingly been repeated by our Unitarians and hath made no little noise in their late Papers and Pamphlets Q. Who revived this old Objection and how came it now to be brought again upon the Stage A. To understand this matter rightly we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad some years since a Learned and Worthy Person of our Church who had appeared with great Vigour and Reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign which ought not to be forgotten undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians and the Notes of the Athanasian Creed But in the warmth of Disputing and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by still retaining the same Fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence but explaining it in such a manner as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own V. Bishop of Worcester's Pref. to Vind. of Trin. p. 20. Q. Let me hear the Opinion of that Learned Person more distinctly A. In short it is this That the same Author asserts 1. That it is gross Sabellianism to say That there are not three Personal Minds or Spirits or Substances 2. That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance

A Seasonable VINDICATION OF THE B. Trinity Being an Answer to this Question Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury And the Right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Now Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill MDCXCVII THE PREFACE OUR Modern Socinians who are pleased to call themselves Unitarians having not only Disputed but most Blasphemously Ridiculed the Doctrine of the B. Trinity for the Conviction of such Gainsayers and the Confirmation of Others it is thought fit to Publish the following Discourse faithfully Collected from the Learned Works of Archbishop TILLOTSON and Bishop STILLINGFLEET Concerning Bishop STILLINGFLEET I shall say nothing because he is alive to Answer for himself But as to Archbishop TILLOTSON I hope it will appear even from this Collection That his Grace was very far from being a Socinian however his Memory hath been very unworthily Reproached in that as well as other Respects since his Death A VINDICATION OF THE B. TRINITY Q. WHY do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity A. Because it is a very Rational Doctrine that is there is the highest Reason to believe it Q. What do you mean by this word Trinity And What Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief A. I shall Answer this Question in the very words of the Church of England Whose Doctrine I am fully perswaded is Orthodox and Catholick There is but one living and true God everlasting without Body Parts or Passions of infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible And in Unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons of One Substance Power and Eternity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Art 1. The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance For there is one Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet they are not Three Gods but One God Athan. Creed It is very meet right and our bounden Duty that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto thee O Lord Almighty Everlasting God Who art One God one Lord not one only Person but three Persons in one Substance For that which we believe of the Glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any difference or inequality Pref. on the Feast of Trinity O holy blessed and glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God have mercy upon us miserable Sinners Lit. This is what we believe concerning the Trinity And that this is very Rational Doctrine and that we have the highest Reason thus to believe I shall endeavour to evince when I have first explained the Nature of Faith in General by shewing What it is to Believe and what this act Believe doth denote when applied to any Object Q. What is Faith or Belief in General A. Belief in general I define to be an Assent to that which is Credible as Credible V. Bishop Pearson on the Creed p. 2. Q. What is meant by this word Assent A. By the word Assent is expressed that Act or Habit of the Understanding by which it receiveth acknowledgeth and embraceth any thing as a Truth Id. Ib. Q. But are there not several other kinds of Assent besides Faith by which the Soul doth receive and embrace whatsoever appeareth to be true A. This Assent or Judgment of any thing to be true being a general Act of the Understanding is applicable to other Habits thereof as well as to Faith Id. Ib. Q. How then is this Assent which we call Faith specified and distinguished from those other kinds of Assent A. It must be specified as all other Acts are by its proper Object Id. Ib. Q. What is this Object of Faith A. This Object of Faith is that which is Credible as Credible Q. Why do you repeat the word Credible and say Credible as Credible A. To denote the twofold Object of Faith viz. Material and Formal Q. What is the Material Object of Faith A. The Material Object of Faith is the thing to be believed or something which is credible Q. What is the Formal Object of Faith A. That whereby it is believed or the Reason why it is believed Q. What is it to be Credible A. That is properly Credible which is not apparent of it self either in respect of our Senses or Understanding nor certainly to be collected either antecedently by its Cause or reversely by its Effect and yet though by none of these ways hath the Attestation of a Truth V. Bishop Pearson p. 3. Q. What then is that kind of Assent which is called Faith A. When any thing propounded to us is neither apparent to our Sense nor evident to our Understanding in and of it self neither certainly to be collected from any clear and necessary Connexion with the Cause from which it proceedeth or the Effects which it naturally produceth nor is taken up upon any real Arguments or Relations to other acknowledged Truths and yet notwithstanding appeareth to us true not by a Manifestation but Attestation of the Truth and so moveth us to assent not of it self but by virtue of the Testimony given to it In plain terms When we therefore acknowledge a thing to be true for this only reason because we are told that it is so Then and in such a Case we do properly believe it And the Assent that we give to such a Truth thus attested is neither Science nor Opinion but Faith Id. Ib. Q. The nature of Faith in general being thus explained I am now prepared to be instructed by you in this important Question Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity A. Though this Doctrine of the Trinity viz. That there are Three distinct Persons in One and the same undivided Divine Essence is neither apparent to my Sense nor evident to my Understanding for being a great Mystery I could never have known it unless it had been Revealed and now it is Revealed I am not able to comprehend it yet since it is testified and declared by an All-knowing and most just and faithful God who can neither deceive nor be deceived I do therefore give my Assent unto it as a most credible Truth and as such I do firmly believe it Now that God who is infinite in Wisdom and Knowledge doth fully know himself and perfectly understand his own Nature And also that He who is infinitely Good and Faithful cannot deceive us for it is impossible for God to Lye this I shall not pretend to prove but can fairly

Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense V. Consid. on Expl. of the Trinity in a Letter to H. H. p. 4. Now what Reply hath his Lordship made to this A. This is a very bold Charge and not very becoming the Modesty and Decency of such who know at the same time that they oppose the Religion publickly established and in such things which they look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith V. Vind. of the Trinity p. 54. These words contain in them so spiteful so unjust and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that I could not but think my self concerned especially since they are Addressed to me to do what in me lay as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit towards the clearing the Fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion as they call it viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at by them V. Pref. p. 2. Q. 'T is a seasonable Service to the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that a Person so eminent for Learning and Prudence hath at this juncture undertaken the Defence of the B. Trinity But in what manner doth his Lordship propose to Defend it A. Without running into any new Explications or laying aside any old Terms for which he could not see any just occasion For however thoughtful Men may think to escape some particular Difficulties better by going out of the common Roads yet they may meet with others which they did not foresee which may make them as well as Others judge it at last a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for that purpose Why then are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them We had much better satisfy our selves with that Language which the Church hath received and is expressed in the Creeds than go about with new Terms to raise new Ferments especially at a time when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries No Wise and Good Men can be fond of any new Inventions when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them And it is a great pity that any new Phrases or Ways of Expression should cause unreasonable Heats among those who are really of the same Mind Vtd. Pref. p. 2. and 31. and Vind. p. 106. Q. But how can these Unitarians pretend that the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to Reason How and in what manner have they attempted to prove it What Grounds have they for such a Charge as this of Contradiction and Impossibility A. I shall draw up the Charge in their own Words Theirs they say is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible But wherein lies this Impossibility That they soon tell us Because we affirm that there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them true God and yet there is but One true God Now say they this is an Error in counting or numbring which when stood in is of all others the most Brutal and inexcusable and not to discern it is not to be a Man V. Hist. of the Unit. p. 9. n. 7. For we cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three We are most certain that One is not Three and Three are not One. V. Def. of Hist. of Unit. p. 7. So that here is an Arithmetical as well as Grammatical Contradiction For in saying God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost yet not Three Gods but One God a man first distinctly numbers Three Gods and then in summing them up brutishly says not Three Gods but one God V. Acts of Athanasius p. 13. Which is plainly as if a man should say Peter James and John being three Persons are one Man and One Man is these Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Is it not now a ridiculous Attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under pretence of teaching them a Creed V. Notes on Athanasius's Creed p. 11. This is their Charge And 't is very freely spoken with respect not merely to our Church but the Christian World which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward Kicking as for their Stupidity V. Bishop of Worcester's Defence of the Trinity p. 101. It is strange boldness in men to talk thus of Monstrous Contradictions in things above their reach But some have so used themselves to the Language of Jargon Nonsense Contradiction Impossibility that it comes from them as some men swear when they do not know it Id. p. 76. But that the Rudeness of these Unitarians in thus condemning the Christian Church may more fully appear let us proceed very distinctly to examine this matter Do you therefore First give their Objection its full strength and then through Divine Assistance I 'll return you my Answer Q. Are not Peter James and John Three distinct Humane Persons A. 'T is granted Q. Are not Peter James and John Three distinct different Men A. Who doubts it Q. Is it not a Contradiction to say That Peter is James or that James and John are Peter A. This likewise must be acknowledg'd Q. Is it not a Contradiction to affirm That Peter James and John being Three Men are but One Man And is it not equally absurd to Declare That One Man is these Three Men A. Sure I cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three But am most certain That One is not Three and Three are not One. But what of all this Q. Observe what follows Are not the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Athanasian Creed Three distinct different Divine Persons A. I firmly believe it Q. And if these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Gods is it not a Contradiction to say there is but One God A. To say there are Three Gods and yet but One God is doubtless a Contradiction But who affirms There are Three Gods Q. Doth not the Athanasian Creed A. No. That Creed expresly saith There are not Three Gods but One God Q. If you will not renounce your Reason I do thus prove it to you The Father is God There is One. The Son is God There is Two The Holy Ghost is God There is Three Are not here Three Gods Do you think me such a Fool that I cannot count One Two and Three A. Thus indeed the Unitarians do wisely argue But can these Men of Sense and Reason think that the Point in Controversy ever was Whether in Numbers One could be Three or Three One If

no means follow that if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which he cannot comprehend he hath no reason afterwards to Believe what he himself Sees This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing because it strikes at the Foundation of all Certainty and sets every Man at Liberty to deny the most plain and evident Truths of Christianity if he may not be humoured in having the absurdest things in the World admitted for true The next step will be to persuade us that we may as well deny the Being of God because his Nature is incomprehensible by our Reason as deny Transubstantiation because it evidently contradicts our Senses Id. Ib. p. 32. Q. As Transubstantiation evidently contradicts our Senses So these Unitarians pretend that the Trinity as evidently contradicts our Reason And then say they are not these Two Doctrines loaded with the like Absurdities and Contradictions A. So far from this that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is delivered in the Scriptures and hath already been explained hath no Absurdity or Contradiction either involved in it or necessarily consequent upon it But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is big with all imaginable Absurdity and Contradiction As the Unitarians themselves do acknowledge And therefore I am not now concerned to prove it Q. However you are concerned to defend the Trinity The Contradictions and Absurdities of which as these Unitarians pretend are as great as those of Transubstantiation A. I cannot help their Pretences But if their Prejudices will allow them to examine my Reasons I shall yet further endeavour their Conviction And that I may do it the more effectually I shall desire You as their Advocate and in their Name to produce those Absurdities which appear the most dreadful Q. I shall reduce all to these Two which comprehend the rest 1. How there can be Three Persons and but One God 2. How these can agree in a Third and not agree among themselves For the First it seems very absurd that there should be Three Persons really distinct whereof every one is God and yet there should not be Three Gods For nothing is more Contradictious than to make Three not to be Three or Three to be but One. A. I hope now you will give me leave to make an Answer to your Difficulty as distinct as possible It is very true that according to Arithmetick Three cannot be One nor One Three But we must distinguish between the bare Numeration and the Things numbred The repetition of three Units certainly makes three distinct Numbers but it doth not make Three Persons to be Three Natures And therefore as to the Things themselves we must go from the bare Numbers to consider their Nature We do not say that Three Persons are but One Person or that One Nature is Three Natures but that there are Three Persons in One Nature If therefore One Individual Nature be communicable to Three Persons there is no appearance of Absurdity in this Doctrine And on the other side it will be impossible there should be three Gods where there is one and the same Individual Nature For Three Gods must have Three several Divine Natures since it is the Divine Essence which makes a God V. Two Dial. Part. II. p. 24. But of this there hath been given so full an Account in this Collection that those who shall seriously and attentively consider it will I hope through God's Blessing receive Satisfaction Q. But yet you have not Answer'd the other great Difficulty in Point of Reason viz. That those Things which agree or disagree in a Third must agree or disagree One with the Other And therefore if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the Father If not then they are really the same and really distinct the same as to Essence distinct as to Persons and so they are the same and not the same which is a Contradiction A. Now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel because you say it implies a Contradiction Which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at But this terrible Argument is grounded on this mistaken Supposition viz. That the Divine Essence is no more capable of communicating it self to Three distinct Persons than any Created Being is The Reason of that Axiom being That Created Things by reason of their finite Nature cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one and therefore those which agree in a Third must agree together But supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Individuals it would be presently answered The Axiom did hold only where they did adequately and reciprocally agree and not where they did agree only in Essence but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence For where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible in the same Individual Nature the Agreement in that cannot take away that Difference which is consistent with it which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature Q. But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question and therefore this is a Petitio Principii or taking that for granted which is in Dispute A. I do not think it to be so where the Reason is assigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Nature to which there can be no Parallel And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians to send us to Created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment concerning a Being acknowledg'd to be Infinite Q. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite as well as the Divine Nature And therefore as Created Persons do take in the whole Nature so Infinite Persons will do the Infinite Nature A. No question but the Persons are Infinite in regard of the Nature which is so but if an Infinite Nature be communicable to more Persons than One every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self Q. If the Difference be on the account of Infinity then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence A. I answer that infiniteness of Number is no Perfection and as to the Number of Persons we follow not our own Conjectures nor the Authority of the Church but Divine Revelation which hath assured us that there is but One God and yet there are Three that are One. Which depends not merely on the Place of St. John but the Form of Baptism is remarkable to this purpose which joyns together the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost without any other distinction besides that of Order and Relation And it is against the Fundamental Design of Christianity to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religion And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love