place and exercise my Faith in God aright how to pay my Duties and Worship to him and consequently to my Salvation But now I am arrived at the Borders of the Controversy betwixt the Trinitarians and the Vnitarians the Athanasians and nick-nam'd Arians But to pass my Task 't is requisite to give yet a further Description of this One most High God which following Description is said to be drawn from Scripture consequences but is much more plainly set down in words at length in other Authors 1. I shall first cite the Athanasian Creed on this Subject The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says thus I believe in One God the Father Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God begotten of the Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made of one Substance with the Father by whom all things were made And in the Holy Spirit the quickening Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son and in like manner is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son and who spake by the Prophets 3. Next I shall cite the first of the 39 Articles of the Church of England There is but One living and true God c. and in Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity 4. Next I shall cite Mr. Joseph Wright in his Book intitul'd Brief Animadversions on five Articles pag. 2. So that we did then and do hold that there is One only true and living God the Father Son and Holy Spirit all three of the very same Divine Nature and Being And in the same Book pag. 3. lin 28. When we say these three are one we did and now believe that the Father Word or Son and Holy Spirit are all three of the same Divine Nature and Being from everlasting to everlasting the Creator and Governor of all things One only true and living God in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons Thus far Mr. Wright 5. Next I shall cite Dr. Owen in his Book intituled The Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated printed An. 1669 pag. 29. In the Declaration of this Doctrine unto the edification of the Church there is contained a further explanation of the things before asserted as proposed directed and in themselves the Object of our Faith namely how God is one in respect of Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being How being Father Son and Holy Ghost he subsisteth in these three distinct Persons And Pag. 112. The distinction which the Scripture reveals between Father Son and Holy Spirit is that whereby they are three Persons distinctly subsisting in the same Divine Essence or Being Now a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property subsisting in an especial manner as in the Person of the Father there is the Divine Essence or Being with its Property of begetting the Son subsisting in an especial manner in the Father and because this Person hath the whole Divine Nature all the essential Properties of that Nature are in that Person Page 122. Seeing here that the name of God supplies the place of a Species tho it be singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely singular and One and cannot be multiplied yet in respect of communication it is otherwise it is communicated unto more 6. I shall cite next Mr. John Preston in his Book intitul'd Life eternal or a Treatise of the Knowledg of the Divine Essence fourth Edition printed 1034 page 48 49. If there be two things in God then there is Multiplication now all Multiplication ariseth from some Imperfection from some want and defect for if one would serve two would be needless if one Medicine would cure two would be unnecessary so in all things else So that the reasâ—n of Multiplication is because one will not serve the turn Therefore God being all-sufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and entire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further thus Wheresoever there is any composition there must be two or three things so that there may be a Division they are separable tho not separated But where Division is there may be a Dissolution and so Destruction though it never be But of God we cannot say that this may be and consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most entire Being without all Composition and Multiplication If God be not simple there must be parts of which he is compounded but in God blessed for ever there are no parts because then there should be Imperfection for every part is imperfect I shall cite one Author more and then make some use of the whole 7. Mr. Thomas Monk in his notable Book of the Trinity intituled A Cure for the cankering Error Pag. 55. has these words Not to the end it should make a Multitude of Gods or divide the Essence but to distinguish the Persons because tho there be one Person of the Father another Person of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost yet the Father is not another thing or another God distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost neither is the Son another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost neither is the Holy Ghost another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Son because the Nature of God is but one and indivisible although the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another and therefore they are not of divers natures of another and divers Substance not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence the same Eternity the same Will the same Operation c. And page 57. ' Qu. Be there any parts or kinds in God Answ None at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit no Composition or Division and simply and in every respect of Unity one Having given you this Description of the Most High God both from the Holy Scriptures and those Authors I shall now come to make that use of it which at first I promised and intended and that is to shew that there is no essential but only a circumstantial difference in the Apprehensions of the Parties before named concerning the Most High God and the Description here given of Him Only note that that which concerns the difference about the Son and Holy Ghost will be here spoken unto but occasionally and in short
because I shall treat more largely distinctly and directly of them in their proper place Whereas I am now precisely treating of the Most High God But to the end that a plain Discovery of the Difference concerning the Most High which hath made such a Noise and Confusion in the World in many Ages and in our times may appear I shall state the Sum of the case in this one short Question Whether the most Glorious Eternal Intire Vncompounded Vndivided Vndividable Essence of the one Most High God do at the same time and at all times from Eternity to Eternity subsist all and whole both in one Person and also in like mâ—nner in three Persons or all and whole only in one Person Our dividing Brethren are for the first part of this Question and our accuâ—â—d Brethren are for the latter part thereof That this is the Sum of the Difference and that this Diffâ—rence is only Ciâ—cumstantial is now my business to make appear which I shall endeavour to do partly from the former Description and Quotations partly from the natural force of our Opinions and partly from further Quotations But in the first place give me leave to treat a little in the Negative Let us first observe where the difference is not The Question controverted is not whether or no any of the Idols of Israel of old or any of the Multitude of the Aegyptian Gods or antient Heathen Deities formerly worshipped by them or the false Deities worshipped by Infidels in foreign Parts now I say the Question is not whether any of these be the true God or no. Neither is the Question whether the glorious Essence or Godhead which the Scripture says is in Heaven whether He alone and only He be the Most High God and that we ought to pay our duty to none but Him and such as He shall delegate under him for these things are owned on all hands Neither is it at all questioned on either hand whether there be above one Most High God or whether his Essence be infinite eternal independent all Wisdom Power Greatness Holiness Justice Love Mercy Knowledg Bounty Goodness Truth Perfection Nay in all the Essential Properties of the Divine Nature which Holy Scripture and Reason do teach there is still a joint Consent and Agreement on all hands Where then is the difference as to cause so loud a noise of Heresy Heresy these Men deny the Foundation of all Christian Religion and Worship nay deny the true God! Why let us consider a little since there is an agreement about and in all the essential Properties of the true God and an Agreement which Essence is the true God Is there any known material difference about the Essence it self the matter of it let us examine No we find none here neither for that it is an intire uncompounded impartible undividable one Substance or Essence those supposed Hereticks say and so say we Let us look over the Quotations already cited First says Athanasius's Creed not dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says One Substance 3. The first of the 39 Articles says one living and true God without Body Parts or Passions of One Substance 4. Mr. Wright says that all three are in the same Divine Nature and being in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons and on that account grants that the Father is the only true God 5. Dr. Owen says God is One in respect of his Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being and further says that the name of God is a singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely sâ—ngular and One and cannot be multiplied 6. Mr. Preston says that God being Allsufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and intire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further says consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most intire being without all Composition and Multiplication and further he says there are no parts in him Lastly Mr. Monk says That the Persons tho distinct amongst themselves yet are not differing things one from another because the nature of God is but One and indivisible and further says they are not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence They are not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence c. And in answer to the Question Are there any Parts or Kinds in God answers none at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit of no Composition or Division and simple and in every respect of Unity One. Thus you see having summed up the Evidence as says the Foreman so they say all they are all agreed in their Verdict both Orthodox and Hereticks so called are thus far in all respects jointly and fully agâ—eed as with one Voice to publish that their apprehension of the one true God respecting his Essence is an undivided undividable intirely one Substance not subsisting or possible to be subsisting in parts or having any Parts in him And so says the Scripture God is a Spirit not Spirits And indeed this Doctrine of the Vnity of the Divine Essence we must maintain or else we do nothing for if once we admit of several parts in that Essence we may as well admit and there seems a necessity that it should be so many several Spirits and indeed so many Most High Gods which can be called one only by consent and agreement or at most one in kind But the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods most High is repugnant to Reason refuted by Scripture and abhorred by Mahometans Besides if you divide Essence in your thoughts then you must divide the Essential Properties such as Mercy Justice Wisdom Bounty and the rest I say you must divide them into as many parts as you divide the Essence in your thoughts As for example Suppose you divide it into three parts then you must suppose in your mind three Attributes of Justice three of Mercy three of Wisdom and so of all the rest or else you must imagine some of the Attributes in one part and some in another as thus Justice and Power in one Mercy and Wisdom in another Truth and Bounty in another and so of the rest or else you must imagine that some of the parts have none of the Attributes and that will be Blasphemy and Nâ—nsense since I think all will confess that nothing can be essentially God most High but that which is or hath all the Divine Essential Properties And so go which way to work you will if you admit of Parts you confound the Substance as Athanasius says But enough of this We are unanimously agreed in the Unity and Undividedness of the Divine Essence Well thus far are we come looking for the difference but
finding none Why where is it What is become of it that great difference that hath troubled the World and Church so many hundred years and set good men together by the ears Toâ—th and Nail occasion'd a great Volume of hard bitter sharp biting Words against each other and yet you see we are all agreed about the main Matter Substance or Essence of the most High nay and in all the essential Properties of him too And yet can there be any material difference about him notwithstanding that 's strange how can this thing be Why yes yet there is a difference but whether a material one or no must be left to my considering Reader to judg It is not whether this Divine undivided Essence about which and all its essential Properties we are fully agreed whether I say it subsist in one Divine Person For this is also jointly agreed on all hands as I shall presently shew But it is this Whether it subsist only in One Divine Person or both in One and also in like manner in Three The Orthodox is for the latter the Heretick affirms the former Thus near are we come and I doubt not anon to shew you that we are yet nearer than all this But first I 'll demonstrate this tho first of all we must treat of the word Person what in this Controversy is understood by it And because I am a little at a loss to explain the thing I will therefore give you Dr. Owen and Mr. Monk's Description First Dr. Owen if you look back to the first Quotations of him Now says he a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property of subsisting in an especial manner Secondly Dr. Hall as I find him quoted by Mr. Monk Page 46. of his Cure for the cankering Error hath these Words We may think here of one Substance in three Subsistences one Essence in three Relations one Jehovah begetting begotten proceeding Father Son Spirit yet so as the Son is no other thing from the Father but another Person or the Spirit from the Son Also Mr. Monk in his 63 page propounds this Question How doth the word Essence differ from the word Person in God his answer is Essence is the Nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them not without them subsisting by it self to wit the very Deity it self And therefore the essential Properties which be in them are one in number of one nature Now Person is the subsisting in the Divine Nature or the nature of God which having relation to others is distinguished by some incommunicable Properties for indeed the Persons are only distinguished not severed as indeed three men are indeed separated tho they be one in kind The Reason is because the Essence of God is infinite and impartible and therefore it is all in every Person which are not severed one from another but only distinguished amongst themselves But as for the Essence of Angels and Men it is finite and partible so that it is not all in every single Person but part in one and part in another One Passage he hath in page 39. Fourthly All the Attributes whether relative negative or positive or if any other in that they proceed from the Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person The Father is eternal the Son is eternal the Holy Spirit is eternal because the whole Essence is in every one of them I need not cite any more because so far as I am able to distinguish Dr. Owen Dr. Hall and Mr. Monk have spoken the general sense of all that have writ on this Subject And now having shewed you the Description that these men give if I can tread right in this narrow Path I will try to give you according to the best of my judgment the sense of what they mean by the word Person or Persons in the Divine Essence First then I do suppose by Person here is not intended a distinct separate Being from the Essence or from one another nor yet a distinct spiritual Substance for this were to divide the Substance into three distinct divided Persons Neither must it be supposed that Person hath a distinct Mind or Will from the Essence or the other Persons for that will necessâ—rily imply three or four Minds and Wills in the Most High which would be absurd Neither must the Person have any one part of the Divine Essence peculiar to it self for that would divide the Essence into parts and the Divine Properties also and so bring all into confusion as hath been shewn therefore Person must be supposed to be something not at all separated from any part of the Essence or of the other Persons Therefore says Mr. Monk Essence is the nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them and therefore concludes that the essential Properties which be in them are one in number that is that the essential Property of Love and the essential Property of Mercy and the essential Property of Justice and all the rest are all and whole in one Person and all and whole in another And therefore elsewhere says That all the Attributes both relative negative and positive or any other of the Divine Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person So that in short the thing is this that a Person separate from Essence is nothing but is only the whole undivided Essence subsisting in a certain manner or mode that is in one manner in the Father in another manner or mode in the Son and in another manner in the Holy Ghost that is not three distinct intelligent Beings but only one infinite intire distinct intelligent Being subsisting in three undivided inseparable Manners or Modes And this is the general sense so far as I was ever able to discern of all the Authors that ever I read on this Subject But if this be the Knot of the Controversy about the most High God perhaps some will say it is dark I say perhaps so too very like it may be so else what 's the matter think you that so many Men who have long been loving Friends and good Men yet by this Controversy have had their Eyes so blinded that they could not see one another with an Eye of Charity And what else should be the reason that in the Churches where it hath been controverted there hath oftentimes arose such a Mist and thick Darkness that many could not see their Seats at the Lord's Table And if any shall ask me the meaning of the matter I must answer with Mr. Monk page 43. That the perfect manner how one person is in
another is incomprehensible and unutterable in this Life And for my own part I shall much rather chuse to admire the matter than to illustrate my explanation and I will add with Mr. Monk in the aforesaid page to be wise above what is written is not Wisdom but perilous Sin and Folly And it will not out of my Head but that it had been much better for every body to have left off at the Description of the most High even there where we on all hands were so well agreed rather than to have run further for a plainer Description till we have almost lost our selves And now a word by the way to my Bâ—ethren who for distinction sake I call of the Athanasian Perswasion Many or most of you are not ignorant of the bitter Words and Deportment that have dropt from the Tongues and Pens of many against their Brethren because of their differing Apprehensions about the most High God and now thus far are we come scanning the difference and it remains in this narrow Corner for all are agreed that that Glorious Eternal Being whose Throne is in the Heavens or the Heavens is his Throne whom the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain whose Presence fills Heaven and Earth even that this Glorious Being or Essence and he only from everlasting to everlasting is the one and only most High God the Original of all Power Authority Wisdom Life Light Knowledg Nature Perfection Goodness Bounty Mercy Justice Love Action and Being And further you are all agreed that this very Essence is an impartible uncompounded Essence So that our differing Brethren own the same most High the same Essence for Number Nature and Kind owning all and whole of the Divine Essence and essential Properties as full in all respects as we our selves not abating one of them no nor any part of one of them worshipping it with the same and as much Adoration and Respect as we our selves owning the very same Substance and no other So that the difference is not about Substance Matter or Properties but only about a certain Manner or Mode of subsisting yea yet further both agreeing that whatever is God most High whether Essence or Property tho improper to distinguish it is all and whole in the Person of the Father This none of us all dare deny for then we shall throw down our own Opinion Root and Branch Nay further it is jointly agreed b◠〈◊〉 that whatsoever is God most High whether Essence Attribute or Person it is all in every one and consequently in the Father See Mr. Monk pag. 38. Because a Person signifies both the Essence and its Relative Property all the Persons having one and the same Essence it followeth that in respect of the Essence one person is in another Thus all amounts to thus much You say that Essence and all that we properly call God and worship is in the Person of the Father and so say they only you require them to confess that the Essence subsisteth not only thus but also in two other distinct Manners or Modes This is all And truly methinks it looks like a very hard case that our Brethren should own the whole Essence with all its Royal and Essential Properties and likewise own all his mighty Works of old and now whereby he hath made himself known and likewise reverence and honour it as highly as our selves and yet we must exclude them Communion at the Table of the Lord only and meerly for a Circumstance that is a differing Manner or Mode of subsisting which yet also is so dark and dubious that not one of us durst once touch it with our Peâ—â— to explain it Shall we then be so positive so highly conceited of our own Judgments in so intricate so mysterious a Matter which yet at most is but a Circumstance viz. a Mode or Manner of subsisting not any part of the thing it self the Essence it self Shall we censure condemn and stigmatize our good Brethren every way else as able for Parts Knowledg Purity of Manners and zealous for God and his Ways as our selves Shall we represent them Denyers of the true God Broachers of Heresies nay damnable Heresies Surely no Be it far from us lest it be thought that an evil Mind hath had dominion over us more especially since admitting their Sentiments to be in this case circumstantially erroneous for a Heresy I will not allow it yet it hinders not at all or is no Impediment to our paying Adoration or Worship to the most High as I shall come to shew in the next Section But first let me observe unto you that all those things respecting the Essence and essential Properties wherein we and all our Brethren are agreed both Scripture and Reason in all plainness teaches But this controversal part concerning the treble Manner or Mode of the subsisting of the Divine Essence is neither taught by Reason nor found in or is Scripture-Language I say it is not Scripture-Language but only drawn from some Inferences and Consequences of and from the holy Scripture I say when we have only Consequences to foot upon in a case of this nature and difficulty still it calls for the more Moderation and Tenderness towards persons of differing Apprehensions in such a tender point who withal are as orthodox in the main every way as our selves But now I come to the next point SECT III. Concerning the manner how we ought to pay our Worship and Adoration to this one most High God IN the creating of this I shall include and resolve this following Question Whether it be the declared Pleasure of the Almiâ—hty that his Subjects should pay their Adoâ—ation to the Matter subsisting or the â—â—â—â—r oâ— suâ—sisting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ully thus Whether it be the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—sure of the Almighty that his Subiects should pay their Adoration unto him with and under the Conception and Appellation of One Supream Soveraign single Substance unseparable in Essence and Divine Properties subsisting in one Person Or whether it be his pleasure it should be paid unto him under the notion and appellation of a single Essence subsisting in three distinct Manners Modes or Persons In the resolving of this Question I shall premise this by the way That the Order Manner or Mode of paying our Adâ—ration and our Conceptions of the Object of Worship in the Act of Worship ought not to be regulated by our Conceptions but to be decided merely by the Directiâ—n and Rule God is pleased to give us about it in his Word For it is not what we think fit but what he saâ— is most proper and our Duty And therefâ—re I take this fâ—r granted that the Hâ—ly Scrâ—ptures are our only whole sufficient Rule to â—uide us in all points of Faith and goâ—d Manners respecting Salvation to guide us in the understanding of the Object and Act of Worship and in our conception of the Object in the Act thereof And for want of keeping close to this Rule so many
I mislike the fashion of this Reason 1. I do not approve the Expressions of Idolatry and Blasâ—hemy being too gross to be bestown so liâ—erally on Persons so nearly united in the Faith of the true God and the true Christ and â—is Laws as I have in the foregoing sheets shewn they are Milder Constructions and Expressions better become the Cause 2. This manner of arguing seems to me too desâ—erate Mr. Tayâ—â—r takes this Weapâ—n pointâ—d at both endâ— and ventures to set one point at his own Breast trusting in the strenâ—th of the â—kin of his own Cause and so makes a thrust at his â—râ—thren Altho Mr. Taylor be a fallible Man yet he is so conâ—â—dent that his Conceptions are certainly right in this confessed Mystery and Controversy that hath puzled the most learned Men in all Ages and sadly divides them at this time that he ventures to proclaim it to the World that in case he be mistaken he is an Idolater and leaves himself so upon Record to Posterity I have heard of some who would hazard the loss of one of their Eyes rather than their Neighbours should enjoy both theirs Mr. Taylor will run the hazard of being accounted an Idolater in case he be in the wrong rather than his differing Brethren shall go without the Imputation of Idolaters and Blasphemers Secondly I see no ground for that Clause in his Reason viz. That they that disbelieve Christ to be essentially God are Idolaters I take Idolatry to be giving Divine Adoration and Worship to any Object as if he were the most High God when it is not the most High God Now these Unitarians that do not believe Christ to be essentially God most High do not worship him as such but as one receiving Power and Authority from another But if Mr. Taylor be of the opinion that it is Idolatry for any Reason to give Worship and Honour to any Creature as he seems to say pag. 23. therein I dissent from him for altho to worship any Creature as the most High when God allows it not that is when it doth not immediately represent him be Idolatry yet when Creatures shall and do immediately represent God mâ—st High and receive Authority from him I see not but we may without Idolatry worship them for else first we shall in a manner impute Idolatry to Abraham Moses David John and others f r I remember Abraham boâ—â—d his Head Gen. 18. whâ—n the three Angels came to him and maâ—â—â— intercessiâ—n tâ—â—ne of them for Sodom â—iâ—ing him the Denomination of my Lâ—rd I suppose nâ— body thinks this Angel was essentially God for then Aâ—raham could not have seen him Likewise Moses is commaâ—ded to pull off his Shoes in honour to the aâ—pearance of God by his Angel in the Bush Likewise David fell on his Face to the ground befâ—re the Angel and seems to direct his Prayer unto him 1 Chron. 21.10 17. Likewise Coâ—nelius gives the Denomination of Lord to the Angel Acts 10.4 Likewise John the Divine falls at the Angel's Feet Rev. 1.17 for tho the Revelation was Christ's which God gave him yet the discovery to John was made by the Angel Chap. 1.1 But again Mr. Taylor allows himself and others to worship a Creature without the imputation of Idolatry namely the human Nature of Jesus Christ which in his own Opinion is a Creature only yet it was worshipped when it was on Earth and Men begged Mercy of it It is and ought to be worshipped now and shall be worshipped hereafter But if Mr. Taylor reply that this is for this particular reason viz. because it is personally joined unto the Diâ—ine Nature and therefore is not a Creature only I answer 1st That if we may for any Reason give worship to a Creature without being Idolaters then at least his first Posâ—tion is not universally true viz. That to worship any Creature is Idolatry But 2ly Suppose what Union you will in an orthâ—dox Sense yet the Divine Nature is no part of the human Nature nor the human any part of the Divine Nature but they are really distinct therefore the human Nature and every part thereof is a Creature only And 3ly Holy Scripture if you 'l believe and heed that doth not any where say that we are to worship the Man Christ because it is personallly joined to the Divine Nature but the Reason given why we should worship it iâ— because it hath received and God hath given and committed unto it Power Authority and Judgment The principal Reason for so doing is that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father Likewise Phil. 2.9 10. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow both â—f things in Heaven and things in Earth But thirdly I further reply to Mâ— Taylor 's first Reason That altho in case he be mistaken he hath wilfully thrust himself into the numbâ—r of Idolaters and therefâ—re deserves but little pâ—ty yet out of Charity I will help him a little and endeâ—â—our to shew him that tho he should be mâ—â—â—ken yet he is no Idolater nor yâ—t the othe◠〈◊〉 My reason fâ—r it is this He dirâ—â—s Adoration and Worship to the whole Divine Eternal Being that created all things the true God allowing also in him all the essential Attributes Now he that worships the true God cannot be an Idolater It is true if Mr. Taylor be mistaken he iâ— in an Error because he worships this Essence in the wrong place to wit in the Person of Christ when it should be in the Person of the Father only in Heaven but sâ—ill it is the same Essence he intends that and no other than he who iâ— the God of Abraham And on the other hand if the Unitarians be mistâ—ken yet they intend to worship the same Essence all and whole and no other they belâ—eve it tâ— be in the Person of Christ â—ut not to be anâ—inted They conceive it tâ— be an intire Being subsisting in the Father yet still the very Essence that we worship and no other Therefore neither can they be Idolaters I will conclude my Answer to this first Reason with this Argument They that worship all and whole of the Diâ—ine Essence of the Eternal and Supream beinâ— who is the true God are not therein nor cannot be Idolaters or Blasphemers But both Trinitarians and Unitarians worship all and whole of the same Divine Essence of the Eternal and Supream Being who is the true God Ergo neither Trinitarians nor Unitarians are Idolaters or Blasphemers Thus I hope his first Reason is mortally wounded His second Reason is pag. 5. Because they that deny Christ is essentially God most High deny the Person of the Son of God and thereupon deny the true Christ and bring another in his stead He endeavours to prove this bold Assertion thus If the Persâ—n of Christ consist both of a divine and human Nature
which is the whole of his Person then they who deny both Natures in Christ deny the whole of his Pâ—rs n. I answer first I utterly deny and Mr. Taylor cannot prove that any of our Brethren disown both Natures in Christ But secondly as hath been shewn Mr. Taylor ought to have shewed what he intended by Divine Nature whether the Essence of God in kind in part or in whole or whether none of it but a Person only Thirdly I have heard some say that the human Nature was no part of the Person of Christ And they seem to argue not without Reason for say they if the second Person in the Trâ—nity be God then it was a perfect and compleat Person before its assuming Flesh for whatever is or is in God is perfect and compleat to a tittle now that which is perfect and compleat can have nothing added to it without making it imperfect as a Yard or Ell that is exact and perfect in measure can have nothing in the least measure added to its length but you make it thereby imperfect Therefore though it be believed that human Nature was joined to this Person yet it was no part of the Person and Mr. Taylor 's supposition that Chrâ—st's Person consisteth of a diviâ—e and human Nature cannot be true But Fourthly Mr. Taylor doth but suppose that Christ's Person consisteth of divine Nature or Essence he doth not here offer to prove it Now tho it should be true and granted that others have proved it and tho it be supposed that he can prove it yet till he has proved it it is but begging the Question And therefore I need here say no more to it But Fifthly Mr. Taylor improves this Reason p. 6. thus If they that deny what is essential to his Godhead may be said to deny God then they may be said to deny Christ who deny what is essential to his Person Whatever may be said to this I will not now quarrel with it I think I can give it him and yet not hurt my Cause But my eye is upon another Assertion p. 7. derived from this The divine Nature is essential to the Person of Christ To this I answer First as to the former Till this Assertion be proved the Question is but begg'd Secondly I do not see the Consequences of this Argument I confess they who deny that Christ received Power from God deny his Authority they that deny him to be anointed of God deny him to be the Christ of God they who deny him to be Christ who was born of Mary deny the true Person of Christ but how they who deny him to be the Essence of God deny his Person I verily do not see unless Mr. Taylor had first said and proved that Christ could not be a Person except he were essentially God or which is all one that to be of the Essence of God is an essential Property of a Person But I do not think that this can be thought or proved to be the necessary Part of a Person for then no Man can be a Person except he be of the divine Essence I conceive if any Man should deny that Christ had a Mind a Soul a Life c. he would indeed deny the Person of Christ because he denys him to have or to be that without which it is impossible to be a Person But to deny Christ to be a Person except he be essentially God is strange Logick to me and I doubt not to most considering Men. Now the Unitarians at least those whom I mainly vindicate do believe that Christ had all that needed to make him a compleat Person as Life Soul Mind c. They also believe that this Person was anointed of God which is sufficient to make him a compleat Christ and they are right in all and deny none of his Offices I 'll conclude my Answer to this Reason with this Argument They that believe that Jesus of Nazareth had all that was sufficient to render him a compleat Person and a compleat Christ cannot truly be said to deny the true Person of the true Christ But the Unitarians believe that Jesus of Nazareth had all that was sufficient to make him a compleat Person and a compleat Christ Therefore the Unitarians cannot truly be said to deny the true Person of the true Christ Thus this Reason lies a bleeding But his third Reason is p. 10. Because that a Man cannot be said to be a true Believer in Jesus Christ that denys Christ to be of the Essence of his Father And his ground for this Reason is this Because there can be no Act of Faith without the true Object of Faith This latter Assertion I can grant him Now the true Object of Faith in this case is Jesus of Nazareth but quite contrary to Mr. Taylor I argue If the Unitarians have the true Object of Faith then they are in that Particular true Believers in Christ but they have the true Object of Faith Ergo they are true Believers in Christ I prove the minor thus If Jesus of Nazareth be the true Object and they believe in him then they have the true Object of Faith But Jesus of Nazareth is the true Object of Faith and they believe in him therefore they the Unitarians have the true Object of Faith But if Mr. Taylor intends by having the Object of Faith that none can have a true Object of Faith except they understand and know the true Nature and Matter thereof and whereof it consisteth then I confess I am wholly of another Mind from him for at that rate we can have no Object of Faith because we are utterly ignorant of the original Nature of any Thing or Substance Must not Israel believe that the Manna was sufficient Food because they knew not the Original or the Nature of it Must not I believe that there is a Sun because I am ignorant from what that glorious Orb was produced Neither do we know its Nature nay we know not the Nature of any Being tho such as we daily converse with 'T is much controverted by some of the greatest Searchers into Nature's Secrets whether the Fire be Light or Heat or whether it be either or neither of them both Must not I believe I have a Soul tho ignorant of its Substance Neither do I certainly know its Original whether produced by natural Generation or Infusion Must not I believe there is a Wind tho I know not its Substance or Matter To conclude In the same hour I was writing this I cast my eye on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in page 7. I found these words It is so far from being a wonder to meet with any thing we do not perfectly understand that I know nothing in the world which we do perfectly understand it is agreed by all Men who ever considered this Matter that the Essence of things cannot be known but only their Properties and Qualities Thus far Dr. Sherlock