will be repugnant to what is overtur'd in that Letter And I the rather desir'd more room might be gained in this matter apprehending the Unitarians as they more lately affect to call themselves might upon the whole think you more theirs than ours and while they agree with you concerning the possibility of such a Trinity as you assert may judge their advantage against the other mentioned Doctrines no less than it was My desiring that letter of mine might not be printed was most agreeable to what I intended in writing it that was only to suggest to you somewhat very loosly that I reckon'd you more capable than any man I knew to cultivate and improve to the great service of the common Christian Cause And that you might seem to say what you might upon your own search find safe and fit to be said as meerly from your self without taking notice that occasion was given you by any such Letter at all Had I design'd it for publick view it should have been writ with more Care and with more expressed Respect to you But if upon the whole you judge there is nothing in it considerable to the purposes it mentions my further request is you will please rather to suppress that part of your Letter which concerns it for which I suppose there is yet opportunity and take no notice any such letter came to your hands I am Reverend SIR Your most Respectful Humble Servant Anonym Decemb. 19. 91. Summary Propositions collected out of the foregoing Discourses more briefly offering to view the substance of what is contained in them 1. Of the Unity of the Godhead there can be no doubt it being in reason demonstrable and most expresly often asserted in Scripture 2. That there is a Trinity in the Godhead of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost is the plain obvious sense of so many Scriptures that it apparently tends to frustrate the design of the whole Scripture-revelation and to make it useless not to admit this Trinity or otherwise to understand such Scriptures 3. That therefore the devising any other sense of such Scriptures ought by no means to be attempted unless this Trinity in the Godhead can be evidently demonstrated to be impossible 4. That the impossibility of it can never be demonstrated from the meer Unity of the Godhead which may be such as to admit these distinctions in it for ought we know 5. Nothing is more appropriate to the Godhead than to be a necessarily existent intelligent Being since all Creatures whether intelligent or unintelligent are contingent depending upon the Will of the necessary intelligent Being 6. If therefore the Father Son and Holy Ghost do coexist in the Godhead necessarily they cannot but be God 7. And if the first be conceived as the Fountain the second as by natural necessary not voluntary promanation from the first the third by natural necessary not voluntary spiration so as that neither of these latter could have been otherwise This aptly agrees with the Notions of Father Son and Spirit distinctly put upon them and infinitely distinguishes the two latter from all Creatures that depend upon will and pleasure 8. Whatever distinction there be of these three among themselves yet the first being the Original the second being by that promanation necessarily and eternally united with the first the third by such spiration united necessarily and eternally with both the other inasmuch as eternity and necessity of existence admit no change this union must be inviolable and everlasting and thereupon the Godhead which they constitute can be but One. 9. We have among the creatures and even in our selves instances of very different Natures continuing distinct but so united as to be one thing and it were more easily supposeable of congenerous Natures 10. If such Union with distinction be impossible in the Godhead it must not be from any repugnancy in the thing it self since very intimate Union with continuing distinction is in it self no impossible thing but from somewhat peculiar to the Divine Being 11. That peculiarity since it cannot be Unity which because it may admit distinctions in one and the same thing we are not sure it cannot be so in the Godhead must be that simplicity commonly wont to be ascribed to the divine Nature 12. Such simplicity as shall exclude that distinction which shall appear necessary in the present case is not by express Scripture any where ascribed to God and therefore must be rationally demonstrated of him if it shall be judg'd to belong at all to him 13. Absolute Simplicity is not a Perfection nor is by any ascribed to God Not by the Socinians themselves who ascribe to him the several intellectual and moral excellencies that are attributed to him in the Scriptures of which they give very different definitions as may be seen in their own Volkelius at large which should signifie them not to be counted in all respects the same thing 14. That is not a just consequence which is the most plausible one that seems capable of being alledg'd for such absolute simplicity that otherwise there would be a composition admitted in the Divine Nature which would import an imperfection inconsistent with Deity For the several excellencies that concur in it howsoever distinguished being never put together nor having ever existed apart but in eternal necessary union tho' they may make some sort of variety import no proper composition and carry with them more apparent Perfection than absolute omnimodous simplicity can be conceived to do 15. Such a supposed possible variety even of individual Natures in the Deity some way differing from each other infers not an unbounded Liberty of conceiving what pluralities therein we please or can imagine The divine revelation which could only justify doth also limit us herein mentioning three distinct I's or He 's and no more 16. The several Attributes which are common to these three do to our apprehension and way of conceiving things require less distinction no more for ought we know than may arise from their being variously modify'd according to the distinction of Objects or other extrinsecal things to which they may be referr'd We that so little know how our own Souls and the Powers and Principles that belong to them do differ from one another and from them must be supposed more ignorant and should be less curious in this FINIS Books printed for and sold by Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel A Body of practical divinity consisting of above 176 Sermons on the Lesser Catechisme compos'd by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster With a Supplement of some Sermons on several Texts of Scripture By Thomas Watson formerly Minister of St. Stephens Walbrook London Theological Dicourses in two Volumes The First Containing eight Letters and three Sermons concerning the Blessed Trinity The Second containing 13 Sermons on several Occasions By John Wallis D. D. Professor of Geometry in Oxon. An Account of the Blessed Trinity argued from the nature and perfection of the Supream Spirit coincident with the Scripture Doctrine in all the Articles of the Catholick Creeds together with its Mystical Federal Practical uses in the Christian Religion By William Burrough Rector of Cheynis in Bucks The confirming Work of Religion or its great things made Plain by their primary Evidences and Demonstrations whereby the meanest in the Church may soon be made able to render an account of their Faith By R. Fleming Author of the Fulfilling of the Seriptures Now Published by Daniel Burgess The Rod or the Sword the present Dilemma of the Nations of England Scotland and Ireland considered argued and improved c. A Family Altar erected to the Honour of the Eternal God or a Solemn Essay to promote the Worship of God in private Houses together with the best Entail or dying Parents living Hopes for their surviving Children grounded upon the Covenant of Gods Grace with Believers and their Seed By Oliver Heywood Minister of the Gospel 1 Joh. 5. Joh. 10. 1 Cor. 2. 11. Joh. 17. 3. P. 17. of these Considerations Prov. 8. Gen. 1. Prov. 8. Isa. 9. Mic. 5. Joh. 1. Joh. 3. Joh. 10. Joh. 21. Rom. 9. Phil. 2. Col. 1. 1 Joh. 5. Rev. 1. Chap. 2. Chap. 3. God 1 Cor. 2. Acts 5. 1 Joh. 5.
upon it More admirable Divine Patience spares us He hath only let us know that this is the State of his Essence whereof we should have been otherwise ignorant This is its constitution q. d. ita se habet comparatam thus it is in and of it self that there are three in it to be conceived under the distinct Notions of Father Son and Spirit without telling us expresly how far they are distinct in terms of Art or in Scholastick Forms of Speech But he considered us as Men reasonable Creatures and that when he tells us there are three existing in his being of each of which some things are said that must not be understood spoken of the other and yet that there is but one God We are not uncapable of understanding that these three must agree in Godhead and yet that they must be sufficiently distinct unto this purpose that we may distinctly conceive of apply our selves to and expect from the one and the other of them And the frame of our Religion is therefore ordered for us accordingly i. e. for us to whom he hath revealed so much Others to whom such Notices are not given he expects should deport themselves towards him according to the light which they have not which they have not XVII But an Hypothesis in this Affair which leaves out the very Nexus that natural eternal union or leaves it out of its proper place and insists upon mutual consciousness which at the most is but a consequence thereof wants the principal thing requisite to the salving the unity of the Godhead If two or three created Spirits had never so perfect a mutual Perspection of one another that would not constitute them one thing tho' it probably argue them to be so and but probably for God might no doubt give them a mutual insight into one another without making them one but if he should create them in as near an union as our Soul and Body are in vvith one another and it is very apprehensible they might be created in a much nearer and more permanent one both being of the same Nature and neither Subject to decay they vvould as truly admit to be called one something as such a Creature might vvell enough be called till a fitter name were found out notvvithstanding their supposed continuing distinction as fitly as our Soul and Body united are notvvithstanding their continuing distinction called one Man And I do sincerely profess such an union vvith perpetual distinction seems to me every vvhit as conceivable being supposed unmade uncreated and eternal as any union is among Creatures that must therefore be a made thing or a temporal production And vvhereas necessity of existence most unquestionably of an intellectual Being is a most certain and fundamental attribute of Deity The Father Son and Spirit being supposed necessarily existent in this united state they cannot but be God and the Godhead by reason of this necessary union cannot but be One yet so as that when you predicate Godhead or the name of God of any one of them you herein express a true but an inadequate conception of God i. e. the Father is God not excluding the Son and H. Ghost the Son is God not excluding the Father and the H. Ghost the H. Ghost is God not excluding the Father and the Son As our body is the man not excluding the soul our soul is the man not excluding the body Therefore their Union in Godhead being so strict and close notwithstanding their distinction to say that any one of them is God in exclusion of the other two would not be a true predication 'T is indeed said the Father is the only true God but that neither excludes the Son nor the H. Ghost from being the true God also each of them communicating in that Godhead which only is true It had been quite another thing if it had been said Thou Father only art the true God XVIII The order moreover is this way also very clearly preserved and fitly comply'd with of priority and posteriority not of time as every one sees but nature which the names Father Son and Spirit do more than intimate For the Father usually called by Divines the Fons Trinitatis being by this appellation plainly signify'd to be First in this sacred Triad the Son as that title imports to be of the Father and the Spirit to be of or from both the other Let these two latter be considered as being of or from the First not by any intervening act of will by which it might have been possible they should not have been so but by natural necessary eternal promanation so as that necessity of existence is hereby made as truly to agree to them as to the First which is acknowledged the most fundamental attribute of Deity This promanation is hereby sufficiently distinguisht from creation and these two set infinitely above all Creatures or the whole Universe of created beings Nor is there hereby any place left for that unapt application of a Son and Grandson deriving themselves from the Grandfather or two Brothers from one Father And altho' it be also true and readily acknowledged that there are numerous Instances of involuntary productions among the Creatures and which are therefore to be deemed a sort of natural and necessary productions yet that necessity not being absolute but ex hypothesi only i. e. upon supposition of their productive Causes and all things requisite to those productions being so and so aptly posited in order thereto all which depended upon one Sovereign will at first so that all might have been otherwise this signifies nothing to exempt them out of the state and rank of Creatures or invalidate this most unalterable distinction between created being and uncreated XIX But if here it shall be urged to me that one individual necessarily existent spiritnal Being alone is God and is all that is signifyed by the Name of God and therefore that three distinct individual necessarily existent spiritual Beings must unavoidably be three distinct Gods I would say if by one individual necessarily existent spiritual Being you mean one such Being comprehending Father Son and Holy Ghost taken together I grant it But if by one individual necessarily existent spiritual Being you mean either the Father Son or Holy Ghost taken sejunctly I deny it for hoth the other are truly signify'd by the Name of God too as well as that One. I therefore say the term individual must in this case now supposed as possible not as certain admit of a twofold application either to the distinct essence of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Ghost or to the entire essence of the Godhead in which these three do concur Each of these conceived by it self are according to this supposition individual essences but conceived together they are the entire individual essence of God For there is but one such essence and no more and it can never be multiplyed nor divided into more
of the same name and nature As the body and soul of a man are one individual body and one individual soul but both together are but one individual man And the case would be the same if a man did consist of two or three spirits so or more nearly united together as his soul and body are Especially if you should suppose which is the supposition of no impossible or unconceivable thing that these three spirits which together as we now do suppose do constitute a man were created with an aptitude to this united coexistence but with an impossibility of existing separately except to the Divine Power which created them conjunct and might separate them so as to make them exist apart which yet cannot be the Case in respect of three such uncreated spiritual Beings whose Union is supposed to be by natural eternal necessity as their Essences are and are therefore most absolutely inseparable XX. Or if it should be said I make the Notion of God to comprehend Father Son and Holy Ghost and a Godhead besides common to these three I answer nothing I have said or supposed implies any such thing or that the Notion of God imports any thing more of real being than is contained in Father Son and Holy Ghost taken together and most intimately naturally and vitally by eternal necessity united with one another As in a created being consisting of more things than one taken together and united a Man for instance there is nothing more of real entity besides what is contained in his Body and his Soul united and taken together 'T is true that this term a Man speaks somewhat very divers from an humane body taken alone or an humane soul taken alone or from both separately taken but nothing divers from both united and taken together And for what this may be unjustly collected to imply of composition repugnant to Divine Perfection it is before obviated Sect. 13. If therefore it be askt What do we conceive under the Notion of God but a necessary spiritual Being I answer that this is a true Notion of God and may be passable enough among Pagans for a full one But we Christians are taught to conceive under the Notion of God a necessary spiritual Being in which Father Son and Spirit do so necessarily coexist as to constitute that Being and that when we conceive any one of them to be God that is but an inadequate not an entire and full conception of the Godhead Nor will any place remain for that trivial Cavil that if each of these have Godhead in him he therefore hath a Trinity in him but that he is one of the three who together are the One God by necessary natural eternal Union Which Union is also quite of another kind than that of three Men as for instance of Peter James and John partaking in the same kind of Nature who notwithstanding exist separately and apart from each other These three are supposed to coexist in natural necessary eternal and most intimate Union so as to be one Divine Being Nor is it any prejudice against our thus stating the Notion of the Godhead that we know of no such Union in all the Creation that may assist our Conception of this Union What incongruity is there in supposing in this respect as well as in many others somewhat most peculiarly appropriate to the Being of God If there be no such actual Union in the Creation 't is enough to our purpose if such a one were possible to have been And we do know of the actual union of two things of very different Natures so as to be one thing and have no reason to think the Union of two or more things of the same sort of Nature with sufficient remaining distinction less possible or less intelligible XXI Upon the whole let such an union be conceived in the Being of God with such distinction and one would think tho' the Complexions of Mens minds do strangely and unaccountably differ the absolute perfection of the Deity and especially the perfect felicity thereof should be much the more apprehensible with us When we consider that most delicious society which would hence ensue among the so entirely consentient Father Son and Spirit with whom there is so perfect rectitude everlasting harmony mutual complacency unto highest delectation according to our way of conceiving things who are taught by our own Nature which also hath in it the Divine Image to reckon no Enjoyment pleasant without the consociation of some other with us therein we for our parts cannot but hereby have in our minds a more gustfull Idea of a blessed state than we can conceive in meer eternal solitude God speaks to us as Men and will not blame us for conceiving things so infinitely above us according to the Capacity of our Natures provided we do not assume to our selves to be a measure for our Conceptions of him further than as he is himself pleased to warrant and direct us herein Some likeness we may taught by himself apprehend between him and us but with infinite not inequality only but unlikeness And for this Case of delectation in Society we must suppose an immense difference between him an all-sufficient self-sufficient Being comprehending in himself the infinite fulness of whatsoever is most excellent and delectable and our selves who have in us but a very minute portion of being goodness or felicity and whom he hath made to stand much in need of one another and most of all of him But when looking into our selves we find there is in us a disposition often upon no necessity but sometimes from some sort of benignity of temper unto Conversation with others we have no reason when other things concur and do fairly induce and lead our thoughts this way to apprehend any incongruity in supposing he may have some distinct object of the same sort of propension in his own most perfect Being too and therewith such a propension it self also XXII As to what concerns our selves the observation is not altogether unapposit what Cicero treating of Friendship discourses of perpetual solitude that the affectation of it must signifie the worst of ill Humour and the most savage Nature in the World And supposing one of so sour and morose an Humour as to shun and hate the Conversation of Men he would not endure it to be without some one or other to whom he might disgorge the virulency of that his malignant Humour Or that supposing such a thing could happen that God should take a Man quite out of the Society of Men and place him in absolute solitude supplyed with the abundance of whatsoever Nature could covet besides who saith he is so made of Iron as to endure that kind of Life And he introduces Architas Tarentinus reported to speak to this purpose That if one could ascend into Heaven behold the frame of the World and the beauty of every Star his admiration would be unpleasant to him alone which would be most
delicious if he had some one to whom to express his sense of the whole We are not I say strictly to measure God by our selves in this further than as he himself prompts and leads us But if we so form our Conception of Divine Bliss as not to exclude from it somewhat whereof that Delight in Society which we find in our selves may be an imperfect faint resemblance it seems not altogether disagreeable to what the Scriptures also teach us to conceive concerning him when it brings in the eternal Wisdom saying as one distinct from the prime Author and Parent of all things then was I by him as one brought up with him and daily his delight XXIII However let the whole of what hath been hitherto proposed be taken together and to me it appears our conception of the sacred Trinunity will be so remote from any shadow of inconsistency or repugnancy that no necessity can remain upon us of torturing Wit and racking Invention to the uttermost to do a laboured and artificial violence by I know not what skrews and engines to so numerous plain Texts of Scripture only to undeify our glorious Redeemer and do the utmost despite to the Spirit of grace We may be content to let the word of God or what we pretend to own for a divine revelation stand as it is and undistorted speak its own sense And when we find the Former of all things speaking as WE or US When we find another I possessed by the Lord in the beginning of his way before his works of old so as that he says of himself as distinct from the other I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the Earth was And when he prepared the Heavens I was there c. When we find the Child born for us the Son given to us called also the mighty God and as in reference to us he fitly might the Everlasting Father When we are told of the Ruler that was to come out of Bethlehem-Ephrata that his goings forth were from everlasting That the Word was in the beginning with God and was God That all things were made by him and without him nothing was made that was made That this Word was made flesh That His glory was beheld as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father full of grace and truth Even that same he that above was said to have been in the beginning with God and to be God That when he who was said to have come down from Heaven was even while he was on Earth at that time said to be in Heaven That we are told by himself he and his Father are one thing That he is not only said to know the heart but to know all things That even he who according to the flesh came of the Israelites is yet expresly said to be over all God blessed for ever That when he was in the form of God he humbled himself to the taking on him the form of a servant and to be found in fashion as a man That 't is said all things were created by him that are in heaven and on earth visible and invisible thrones dominions principalities powers and that all things were created by him and for him than which nothing could have been said more peculiar or appropriate to Deity That even of the Son of God it is said he is the true God and eternal Life That we are so plainly told he is Alpha and Omega the first and the last he that was and is and is to come The Lord Almighty the beginning of the creation of The searcher of hearts That the Spirit of God is said to search all things even the deep things of God That lying to him is said to be lying to God That the great Christian Solemnity Baptism is directed to be in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost That it is so distinctly said there are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these three are one thing I cannot imagine what should oblige us so studiously to wiredraw all this to quite other meanings XXIV And for the leaving out of this last mentioned text in some copies what hath been said not to mention divers others by the famously learned Dr. Hammond upon that place is so reasonable so moderate so charitable to the opposite party and so apt to satisfie impartial and unprejudic'd minds that one would scarce think after the reading of it any real doubt can remain concerning the authentickness of that 7 th verse in 1 Joh. 5. Wherefore now taking all these texts together with many more that might have been mentioned I must indeed profess to wonder that with men of so good sense as our Socinian Adversaries are accounted this consideration should not have more place and weight viz. That it being so obvious to any Reader of the Scriptures to apprehend from so numerous Texts that Deity must belong to the Son of God and that there wants not Sufficient inducement to conceive so of the Holy Ghost also there should be no more caution given in the Scriptures themselves to prevent mistake if there were any in apprehending the matter accordingly And to obviate the unspeakable consequent danger of erring in a case of so vast importance How unagreeable it is to all our notions of God and to his usual procedure in cases of less consequence How little doth it consist with his being so wise and so compassionate a Lover of the souls of men to let them be so fatally expos'd unto so inevitable and so destructive a delusion That the whole Christian Church should thorough so many Centuries of years be even trained into so horrid and continued Idolatry by himself who so severely forbids it I cannot allow my self to think men of that perswasion insincere in their professing to believe the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures when the Leader and Head of their Party writ a book that is not without nerves in defence of it But I confess I cannot devise with what design they can think those Scriptures were written Or why they should count it a thing worthy of infinite wisdom to vouchsafe such a revelation to men allowing them to treat and use it as they do And that till some great Socinian wits should arise 1500 years after to rectify their notions in these things men should generally be in so great hazzard of being deceived into damnation by those very Scriptures which were professedly writ to make them wise to Salvation XXV Nor is it of so weighty importance in this controversie to cast the ballance the other way that a noted Critick upon what introducement needs not be determined chang'd his judgment or that his Posthumous interpretations of some texts if they were his interpretations carry an appearance of his having changed it because he thought such texts might
of the three Sacred Persons in the Godhead seem much more to challenge a greater distinction of the Persons than your Notion of a Person doth seem to admit That of sending and being sent spoken so often of the first in reference to the second and of the first and second in reference to the third as not to need the quoting of places If the same man were a King a General and a Judge methinks it would not well square with the usual forms of speaking among Men and God speaks to Men as Men to say that as the first he sends the two latter that is himself And one would think our being required to be Baptized in the distinct Names of the Father Son and Holy Ghost should signifie some greater distinction As also that three are said to bear witness in Heaven I doubt that in a Cause wherein our Law requires two or more Witnesses the same Man that should be a Father a Brother and a Son would scarce thereupon be admitted for three Witnesses And how the Incarnation of the Son can be understood according to your Notion of Person without the Fathers and Holy Ghosts Incarnation also I confess I cannot apprehend Your Notion of a Person contradistinct to the Scholastick Notion as was said before seems to leave the Godhead to be but one hypostasis or Person in the latter sense How then are we to conceive of the hypostatical union The assumed Nature will be as much hypostatically united with the Father or the Spirit as with the Son 3. And doth not this civil or meerly respective Notion of a Person the other being left fall in with the Antitrinitarian Will it not make us Unitarians only as they affect to call themselves Would any of them who as you are pleas'd to take notice Letter 6. p. 1 2. say none but a Mad-man would deny there may be three Persons in God have been so mad not yet professing themselves Converts as to say so if they had not suppos'd their Cause not hurt by this Notion of a Person For as you well say Letter 1. we need not be fond of words so the thing be agreed so have they equal reason to say we need not be afraid of words if in the sense you agree with us And with one sort of them I only desire you to consider how great an appearance the asserting only of three Persons in the one sense quitting the other will carry off an agreement And have they not all the advantage left them which they seek in arguing against the satisfaction made by our Saviour from the necessity of an alterity that in the business of making satisfaction there must be alter atque alter One who satisfies and another who is satisfy'd I do very well know what Instances are brought of humane Rulers making satisfaction for Delinquents but there is no parity in the Cases They being themselves Debtors to the governed Community as God is not who hath with most undoubted righteousness made all things for himself 4. And consider whether by your Notion of a Person you forsake not the generality of them who have gone as to this point under the repute of Orthodox Who no doubt have understood by three Persons three intelligent Hypostases tho' they have differ'd in thinking some of them that only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the genitum or spiratum as to the two latter a notion that is either too fine or too little solid for some Minds to grasp or take any hold of Others that the divine Nature might it self be some way said to be communicated to them But I pass to the II d Enquiry Whether some further distinction may not be admitted as possible The only thing that straitens us here is the most unquestionable unity or unicity as we may call it of the Godhead Which if it cannot be otherwise defended I must yet for my part notwithstanding these hardships and I know no man with whom I could do it with more inclination fall in with you But I must crave it of you so far to fall in with you know not who as to apply your clearer mind as I do my more cloudy one to consider whether it can or no You will here say further than what and what would I have further To the former of these I only say further than the asserting in very deed but one Hypostasis in the Godhead distinguished no otherwise into three than by certain relative capacities like those which may among men be sustain'd by one and the same man and which distinction as you after add is analogous to what in created beings is called distinctio modalis To the latter I desire you to observe what I generally propose not that we may positively assert any further determinate distinction as certain and known but only whether we may not admit some further distinction to be possible in consistency with the Unity of the Godhead I do equally detest and dread to speak with rash and peremptory confidence about things both so Mysterious and so Sacred But may we not modestly say that if to that Oeconomy which God hath represented himself in his Word to bear and keep afoot towards his Creatures any further distinction than hath been assigned is necessary it is also possible and may be for ought we know if indeed we know nothing to the contrary What is impossible we are sure cannot be necessary But God himself best and only knows his own nature and what his own meaning is in the representation he hath made to us If we sincerely aim to understand his meaning that we may bear our selves towards him accordingly he will vvith mercifull indulgence consider our shortor mis-apprehensions But vve need not say there is not this or that distinction if really vve do not knovv there is not While vve knovv so little of natures inferiour to our ovvn and even of our ovvn nature and hovv things are distinguished that belong to our selves vve have little reason to be shy of confessing ignorance about the Nature of God Therefore I most intirely agree to the tvvo Conclusions of the Ingenious W. J. vvherevvith he concludes his Letter But in the mean time and pursuantly enough thereto cannot but doubt the concludingness of his very acute reasonings against at least some of the expressions of that learned Person Dr. Sherl vvhich he animadverts upon as I perceive you also do p. 16. of your 7 th Letter And even W. J. himself for vvith a pious modesty he tells us concerning infinite Natures he presumes not to determine Letter p. 8. What he objects against that Authors having said the divine Persons are three beings really distinct vvherein I instance not intending to run thorough that elaborate Letter that then there must be three distinct Essences seems to me a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt not the Author vvill easily admit it But what will be the consequence That therefore there are three Deities
these is God and the other God I know a formal distinction is commonly admitted i. e. that the conception of the one is not included in the conception of the other But are these different conceptions true or false If false why are they admitted if true there must be somewhat in the Nature of the thing corresponding to them But if we say they are distinct but most intimately and eternally united in the Divine Being by a necessary natural Union or that it is not impossible so to be what we say will I think agree with it self and not disagree with any other conception we are obliged to have concerning the blessed God In the mean time I profess not to judge we are under the precise Notions of Power Wisdom and Goodness to conceive of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor that the Notions we have of those or any other divine Perfections do exactly correspond to vvhat in God is signify'd by these Names but I reckon that vvhat relief and ease is given our minds by their being disentangled from any apprehended necessity of thinking these to be the very same things may facilitate to us our apprehending the Father Son and Spirit to be sufficiently distinct for our affirming or under standing the affirmation of some things concerning some one without including the other of them XIV But some perhaps will say while we thus amplify the distinction of these glorious three we shall seem to have too friendly a look towards or shall say in effect what Dr. Sherlock is so highly blam'd for saying and make three Gods I answer that if with sincere minds we enquire after truth for its own sake we shall little regard the friendship or enmity honour or dishonour of this or that man If this were indeed so doth what was true become false because such a man hath said it But it is remote from being so There is no more here positively asserted than generally so much distinction betweeen the Father Son and Spirit as is in it self necessary to the founding the distinct attributions which in the Scriptures are severally given them that when the word or wisdom was said to be with God understanding it as the case requires with God the Father in the creation of all things we may not think nothing more is said than that he was with himself that when the Word is said to be made flesh 't is equally said the Father was made flesh or the Holy Ghost that when the Holy Ghost is said to have proceeded from or have been sent by the Father or the Son he is said to have proceeded from himself or have sent himself But in the mean time this is offered without determining precisely how great distinction is necessary to this purpose It is not here positively said these three are three distinct substances three infinite minds or spirits We again and again insist and inculcate how becoming and necessary it is to abstain from over-bold enquiries or positive determinations concerning the limits or the extent of this distinction beyond what the Scriptures have in general made necessary to the mentioned purpose that we may not throw our selves into guilt nor cast our minds into unnecessary straits by affirming this or that to be necessary or impossible in these matters XV. The case is only thus that since we are plainly led by the express revelation God hath made of himself to us in his Word to admit a trinal conception of him or to conceive this threefold distinction in his Being of Father Son and Spirit since we have so much to greaten that distinction divers things being said of each of these that must not be understood of either of the other since we have nothing to limit it on the other hand but the Unity of the Godhead which we are sure can be but One both from the plain Word of God and the nature of the thing it self since we are assured both these may consist viz. this Trinity and this Unity by being told there are three and these three i. e. plainly continuing three are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one thing which one thing can mean nothing else but Godhead as is also said concerning two of them elsewhere there being no occasion then to mention the third I and my Father are one thing We are hereupon unavoidably put upon it to cast in our own minds and are concerned to do it with the most religious reverence and profoundest humility what sort of thing this most sacred Godhead may be unto which this Oneness is ascribed with threefold distinction And manifestly finding there are in the Creation made Unions with sufficient remaining distinction particularly in our selves that vve are a soul and a body things of so very different natures that often the Soul is called the Man not excluding the Body and the body or our flesh called the Man not excluding the Soul we are plainly led to apprehend that it is rather more easily possible there might be two Spirits so much more agreeing in nature so united as to be one thing and yet continuing distinct and if two there might as well be three if the Creator pleased And hence are led further to apprehend that if such a made Union with continuing distinction be possible in created being it is for ought we know not impossible in the uncreated that there may be such an eternal unmade union with continuing distinction And all this being only represented as possible to be thus without concluding that thus it certainly is sufficiently serves our purpose that no pretence might remain of excluding the eternal Word and the eternal Spirit the Godhead as if a Trinity therein were contradictious and impossible repugnant to reason and common sense Where novv is the coincidency XVI Nor is there hereupon so great a remaining difficulty to salve the Unity of the Godhead when the supposition is taken in of the natural eternal necessary Union of these three that hath been mentioned And it shall be considered that the Godhead is not supposed more necessarily to exist than these three are to coexist in the nearest and most intimate union with each other therein That Spiritual Being which exists necessarily and is every way absolutely perfect whether it consist of three in one or of only one is God We could never have known 't is true that there are such three coexisting in this one God if he himself had not told us What Man knoweth the things of a Man but the Spirit of a Man that is in him even so the things of God none knoweth but the Spirit of God In telling us this he hath told us no impossible no unconceivable thing It is absurd and very irreligious presumption to say this cannot be If a Worm were so far capable of thought as to determine this or that concerning our Nature and that such a thing were impossible to belong to it which we find to be in it we should trample
please you by doing a thing in it self so inept and so insignificant to you I shall better do both if I shall offer any thing to you concerning this mentioned Subject your further consideration whereof may prove a further benefit to the World In what you have already said concerning it you have used that great Caution and so well guarded your self as not so far as I can apprehend to give an adversary in this single point the least advantage That which I would in the general humbly offer is whether you have said so much as with safety might be said and as the Case may require for the gaining of a just advantage to the common Christian Cause We design in fight not only to keep our selves safe but to overcome and not in praelio only but in bello In Wars indeed of this sort both our own safety and victory are less to be valued than truth Which being of a piece can be injured in no part without some dammage to the whole frame of congenerous Truth And as it is very possible while an Enemy is withstood attacking some one Fort a greater loss may not be provided against elsewhere it may so fall out in Affairs of this kind too that the Care of defending some one Truth may be accompany'd with a present not attending to the jeopardy of divers others The nearer we approach an Adversary within just limits in these rational decertations the less he can have to say against us But being well resolved our selves about the main point of disagreement we then take Care not to come so near as to fall in with him pass into his Tents and give away our main Cause I am worthiest Sir far from assuming so much to my self or detracting so much from you as to give a judgment that this really is done in your Discourses about the Trinity I only submit it to your own most penetrating judgment what may be further requisite and possible in this matter to take away any appearances hereof and prevent ill consequences that may too easily ensue I have for my own part long impos'd it upon my self to abstain from any positive Conceptions concerning the Godhead beyond what I find expresly contain'd in the divine revelation or what the reason of things either antecedently thereto or consequentially thereupon doth most evidently perswade and require and do greatly approve the same caution which I cannot but observe with you But desire it may be weigh'd whether such measures may not and must not lead us further As for the word person you prudently profess not to be fond of it the thing being agreed thô you also truly judge it a good word and sufficiently warranted For the Notion signify'd by it you all along seem to decline that of the Schools or the Metaphysical one which you know makes it to be a rational or intelligent suppositum and to take up with what I think I may wanting a fitter i. e. a more comprehensive word call the Civil Notion of it which will allow the same man to be capable of sustaining three or more persons supposing his circumstances or qualifications to be such or such as to that purpose you speak both in your Letters and Sermons Now whereas you have also told us Letter 1. that by personality you mean that distinction whatever it be by which the three persons are distinguished each from other that which with great submission and most profound respect to you I propose to your further Consideration will be capable of being resolved into these two Enquiries 1. Whether only such a distinction of the Divine Persons as this amounts to will be sufficient to found the several attributions which the Holy Scriptures give distinctly and severally to them and to preserve the Scheme of Christian Religion entire which is wont to be deduced from these Sacred Writings 2. Whether some further distinction may not be admitted as possible consistently with the salved unity of the Godhead As to the former 1. Whereas you think the word Person to be a good word and sufficiently warranted by Scripture Heb. 1. 3. where the Son is called the express Image of his Father's Person alledging that so we render the word Hypostasis which is there used and do mean by it what you think to be there meant I desire you would please to consider whether the word Hypostasis according to the common use of it will admit to be so taken as you explain your self to mean by the word Person For thô the Latine word persona as you say according to the true and ancient sense may well enough admit to be so taken as that the same Man might sustain three persons I offer it to your re-consideration whether ever you have observ'd the word Hypostasis in any sort of Authors when it signifies any Person at all for I know that it frequently signifies somewhat else than a Person to be taken in that sense And whether one Hypostasis so taken as it uses to be when it signifies a Person may not be capable of sustaining three of those Persons which you here describe And whether according to this sense you mean not God to be only one such Hypostasis 2. Be pleas'd further hereupon to consider how well it agrees with this supposition of God's Being but one Hypostasis or intelligent suppositum so frequently to speak as the Holy Scriptures do of the Father Son or Word the Spirit or Holy Ghost as three distinct I's or He 's The Lord possessed me as the Divine Word or Wisdom is brought in speaking in the beginning of his way I was set up from everlasting Prov. 8. 22 23. When he prepared the Heavens I was there vers 27. Then was I by him vers 30 c. The Word was with God Joh. 1. 1. He was in the World vers 10. We beheld his glory vers 14. And of the Spirit He dwelleth with you Joh. 14. 17. The Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name He shall teach you all things vers 26. And whom I will send you from the Father he shall testifie of me Chap. 15. 26. And when he is come he will reprove the World Ch. 16. 8. And the observation seems to me as weighty as it is usual that in some of the mentioned Chapters the somewhat hard Synthesis of construing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the nearer Suppositum but in one place a very remote one and one would think too remote to be referr'd to ch vers 13 14. is rather chosen to be used than that the Spirit should not be spoken of as a distinct he or rather than he should be called it which could not so fitly notifie a Person If the same man were a King a General and a Father I doubt whether that would give sufficient ground to his being called He and He and He. 2. But the distinct Predicates spoken