Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
say that there is but One man is no more than to say there is but One Humanity and to say there are Three men is to say there are Three Humanities or Three Human Natures and the Name of Nature cannot be a proper Name of distinction and therefore ought not to be multiplied for that which is the same in all cannot distinguish one Person from another This he observes all men are very sensible of for when they would call any particular Person out of a Crowd they do not call him by the Name of Nature that is they do not say you man come hither for this being a common Name as the Nature is common no man could tell who was meant but they call him by the Name of his Person Peter or Iames for though there are many who partake of the same Human Nature yet there is but One man or One Humanity in them all Persons are distinguished and divided and multiplied by peculiar personal properties and therefore may be numbred but Nature is One united with it self a perfect indivisible Unity which neither increases by addition nor is diminished by Substraction but though it be in a Multitude of Individuals is whole entire and undivided in all And therefore as a People an Army a Church are named in the single number though they consist of Multitudes so in exactness and propriety of Speech man may be said to be One though there are a Multitude who partake of the same Human Nature So that hitherto all that the Father hath said tends only to justifie this Form of Speech as having nothing absurd or incongruous in it to acknowledge that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there is but One Divinity or Godhead not Three Gods for though this sounds as harsh as to own that Peter is a man and Iames a man and Iohn a man and yet there are not Three men but One man which Custom has made very absurd and contradictious to say which is the Objection he was to Answer yet he observes that according to strict propriety of speaking this is no absurdity to say there are not Three men but One man nay that it is an abuse of Speech to say otherwise because man is the Name of Nature not of a Person and therefore there is but One man as there is but One Human Nature in all those who partake of it for Human Nature is but One whole and indivisible in all and therefore cannot distinguish One Person from another and therefore not be a Name of Number But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words and oppose the common and ordinary Forms of Speech Did he in good earnest believe that there is but One man in the World No! No! he acknowledged as many men as we do a great Multitude who had the same Human Nature and that every One who had a Human Nature was an individual man distinguished and divided from all other Individuals of the same Nature what makes him so zealous then against saying that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men Only this that lie says Man is the Name of Nature and therefore to say there are Three men is the same as to say there are Three Human Natures of a different kind for if there are Three Human Natures they must differ from each other or they can't be Three and so you deny Peter Iames and Iohn to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Nature and for the same reason we must say that though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet there are not Three Gods but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Godhead and Divinity lest we destroy their Homoousiotes or the Sameness of their Nature and introduce Three Gods of a different Nature like the Pagan Polytheism which is the first reason he gives why we do not say there are Three Gods to avoid the suspicion of Polytheism in numbring and multiplying Gods as the Heathens did which he says is a sufficient Answer for ignorant and unskilful People But to say this in gross will not satisfie more inquisitive men and therefore he assigns the reason for it that Individuals in strict propriety of Speech ought not to be numbred by the name of their Nature because that argues a diversity in their Natures to say Three men is to say there are Three different Humanities whereas Humanity is One and the same in all and as men are not distinguished so they ought not to be numbred by the Name of Nature and that this is all his meaning appears from the reason he gives why this improper way of speaking may be tolerated without any inconvenience when we speak of men that we may say there are Three men but it is very dangerous to apply this to the Divinity and say there are Three Gods because there is no danger by this Form of Speech that that there are Three or more men that any one should be betrayed into that Conceit that we mean a Multitude of Humanities or many different Human Natures but there is danger lest our naming more Gods or saying that there are Three Gods men should imagine that there are divers and different Natures in the Divinity that is that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not all of the same Nature Here St. Gregory lays his Foundation That we must not say there are Three Gods because there is but One Divinity Father Son and Holy Ghost being all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature whereas God being the Name of Nature to say there are Three Gods is to say there are Three different Divinities or Divine Natures which destroys the Homoousiotes of the Godhead which is the Sum of his Argument against using the Name of Nature Plurally to say there are Three men or Three Gods There is nothing more plain than this in the Dialogues of Maximus who all along explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and the One Humanity by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Sameness of Nature and therefore there can be but One Nature though it subsist in several Persons or Individuals Now indeed had they gone no farther in explaining the Unity of the Godhead than this Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature there had been some reason to quarrel with them but they do not stop here but proceed to show how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature in all Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity proves a true Numerical and Essential Unity of the Godhead which it does not and cannot do in created Natures without this it is evident there can be no Essential Unity unless we will allow of a Composition of different Natures in the Godhead where the Nature is the same it may be One not only by a Logical but by a Real and Essential Unity Gregory Nyssen
Nature as suppose Humanity should subsist in Twenty several Persons without the least variation I should not doubt notwithstanding the Specifick Unity of Nature to say there are Twenty subsisting Human Natures and Three Minds and Spirits which have no other difference are yet distinguished by self-consciousness and are Three distinct Spirits and therefore to help this out he sometimes adds that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no difference either of Nature or Energie in the Deity and at other times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Nature is invariable and undivided which all the ancient Fathers added to explain the Unity of the Trinity that inseparate Union of Nature which is between the Divine Persons that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inseparable from each other But however he might be mistaken in his Philosophy he was not in his Divinity for he asserts a numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not a meer Specifick Unity which is nothing but a Logical Notion nor a Collective Unity which is nothing but a Company who are naturally many but a true subsisting numerical Unity of Nature and if the difficulty of explaining this and his zeal to defend it forced him upon some unintelligible Niceties to prove that the same numerical Human Nature too is but one in all men it is hard to charge him with teaching that there are Three Independant and Coordinate Gods because we think he has not proved that Peter Iames and Iohn are but One man This will make very foul work with the Fathers if we charge them with all those Erronious Conceits about the Trinity which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable Mystery especially when they compare that mysterious Unity with any Natural Unions I am sure St. Gregory was so far from suspecting that he should be charged with Tritheism upon this Account that he fences against another Charge of mixing and confounding the Hypostases or Persons by denying any difference or diversity of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which argues that he thought he had so fully asserted the Unity of the Divine Essence that some might suspect he had left but One Person as well as One Nature in God But though the Homoousiotes or Coessentiality of the Divine Persons is not sufficient alone to prove this Unity of the Godhead yet as I before observed this is necessary to an essential Unity for they must all have the same Nature or they cannot be One and therefore this was the first thing to be considered in the Unity of the Godhead Secondly To this Homo-ousiotes the Fathers added a numerical Unity of the Divine Essence This Petavius has proved at large by numerous Testimonies even from those very Fathers whom he before accused for making God only collectively One as Three Men are One Man such as Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril Maximus Damascen which is a demonstration that however he might mistake their explication of it from the Unity of human Nature they were far enough from Tritheism or One collective God For we must observe though all the Fathers assert the singularity of the Godhead or the numerical Unity of the Divine Essence yet they do not assert such a numerical Unity as there is where there is but One Person as well as One Essence but such a numerical Unity as there is between Three who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the very same nature but are not meerly united by a specifick Unity but by an essential Union and therefore are Three and One This as Maximus truly says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both a wonderful distinction and union but though several Fathers attempt several ways of explaining it they all agree in the thing that Father Son and Holy Ghost Three distinct Divine Persons are united in one numerical Nature and Essence And I cannot but observe that Petavius greatly commends Boethius's explication of this Mystery which is the very same he had before condemned in Gregory Nyssen and those other Fathers That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God not Three Gods Cujus conjunctionis ratio est indifferentia the reason or manner of which Union and Conjunction is their indifference that is such a sameness of Nature as admits of no difference or variety or an exact Homo-ousiotes as he explains it Eos enim differentia comitatur qui vel augent vel minuunt ut Ariani qui gradibus meritorum Trinitatem variantes distrahunt atque in pluralitatem deducunt Those make a difference who augment and diminish as the Arians do who distinguish the Trinity into different Natures as well as Persons of different worth and excellency and thus divide and multiply the Trinity into a plurality of Gods Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est Proeter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit intelligi potest For the beginning of plurality is alterity for we know not what plurality is but alterity that is there must be some difference in the Nature of Things to make them Two or Three but when the Nature is exactly the same they are but One which is exactly the same account which Gregory gave of it as I have already shewn and why this should be little better than Heresie in him and very good Divinity in Boethius is a little mysterious for after all this numerical Unity of Essence is nothing else but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Maximus speaks such an invariable sameness of Nature as has no differences to distinguish it and therefore must be One For these Fathers apprehended that where there was such an exact sameness of Nature they did mutually exist in each other and were but One Power and Energie Will and Counsel and therefore but One Godhead and Monarchy This Gregory Nyssen insists on as I shewed before and Petavius has quoted a remarkable Testimony from Damascen to this purpose which shews also that though they asserted but One Humanity yet they were far enough from thinking that the Three Divine Persons are One God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man where he tells us That the distinction and separation between Peter and Paul is real and visible their union and community of Nature only Notional for we conceive in our minds that Peter and Paul are of the same kind and have but One common Nature thus common Nature is discerned by Reason but yet it subsists by Parts and separately by itself and is distinguished from itself as it subsists in individuals by many things some peculiar marks and properties but especially that they do not subsist in each other but separately and therefore may be called Two or Three or many Men and Gregory Nyssen says the same as Petavius himself owns but in the most sacred Trinity it is otherwise for there the community of Nature is not a Logical Notion but is real from the same Eternity Identity of Substance Action Will
perfect equality and subordination of the Divine Persons ibid. And shows how each Person is God and all but one God 82 This gives an Account of the different modi subsistendi of which the Schools speak 83 And how the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all Three Persons 85 An Answer to the Absurdities and Contradictions charged on the Doctrine of the Trinity by the Brief Notes 87 SECT V. The Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools about a Trinity in Unity reconciled to the foregoing Explication of it page 100 That the Fathers made the Three Divine Persons Three distinct infinite Minds 101 That Father Son and Holy Ghost are as distinct Persons as Peter James and John how to be understood 104 How the Fathers Explain the Unity of the Godhead 105 1. By the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coessentiality of the Divine Persons 106 What they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. How they proved the Unity of Essence from the sameness of Nature Gregory Nyssen's reasoning in this matter and vindicated from the Mesrepresentation of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth 109. c. 2. To this the Fathers added a Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence 121 Concerning the Unity of Energy and Power 123 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circumincession is Self-consciousness 125 St. Austin explains the Unity of the Divine Persons by Examples of Self-consciousness 126 The Unity of the Godhead consists in the Unity of Principle 128 How the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to the Notion of One God explained at large 129 c. SECT VI. Concerning expounding Scripture by Reason 140 The Arguments against a Trinity in the History of the Unitarians Letter 1. particularly answered 153 c. His first Argument 154 His second Argument 155 1 Coloss. 17. The first-born of every Creature explained 156 The Mediatory Kingdom of Christ explained at large 159 His third fourth and fifth Arguments answered 176 His sixth Argument 178 His seventh Argument 184 His eighth Argument from those Texts which declare that the Father only is God ibid. His ninth Argument That if Christ were God there was no need of giving the Holy Spirit to his Human Nature 187 His tenth and eleventh Arguments 188 His Arguments against the Godhead of the Holy Ghost ibid. Concerning the Personality of the Holy Ghost 189 That the Spirit is obtained of God by our Prayers therefore it self is not God Answered 193 Father Son and Holy Ghost the entire Object of Worship page 193 Those who do not worship the Trinity do not worship the true God if Father Son and Holy Ghost be God 194 No need of any new Cammand to worship the Holy Ghost when it is revealed that he is One God with the Father and Son ibid. That the Scripture speaks of God as One Person Answered 196 Whether the Socinian Faith be a reasonable and accountable Faith 198 The Socinian Faith ridicules the Scriptures 199 This is particularly shown in the Expositions of Scripture contained in the History of the Unitarians ibid. The Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost explained 209 1 John 1 2. In the beginning was the Word c. explained and vindicated 215 How this Historian has represented Grotius 220 Socinianism makes the Iewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable 231 Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion 238 SECT VII An Answer to what remains in the Brief Notes 256 Concerning the Generation of the Son ibid. The equality and coeternity of the Persons in the Trinity 259 Concerning the Incarnation 262 How an infinite and finite Being may be united into one Person 263 What makes a Personal Union 266 A VINDICATION Of the DOCTRINE OF THE Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY AND OF THE Incarnation of the SON of GOD In ANSWER to the Brief NOTES on the Greed of St. Athanasius SECT I. Concerning the Nature of a Contradiction and how to know it BEFORE I particularly Examine the Brief Notes on Athanasius 's Creed which under a pretence of exposing that Creed charge the Christian Faith itself of Three Persons and One God with the most monstrous Absurdities and Contradictions I shall 1. Shew what a Contradiction is and in what cases we can judge of a Contradiction 2. I shall take a brief view of the Athanasian Creed and shew that it signifies no more than that there are Three Persons and One God or a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that if we own this we must own the particular Explications of the Athanasian Creed First As for the first A Contradiction is to deny and affirm the same thing in the same sense as to say that a thing is and is not at the same time that there is but One God and that there is Three Gods that is that there is and that there is not but One God for if there be Three Gods then it is not true that there is only One God Things which are so contrary as to contradict each other can never be both true for all Contradictions finally resolve into this It is and It is not which is absolutely impossible But when we come to apply this to the nature of Things we may easily fancy Contradictions where there are none For a Contradiction in the nature of Things is such a Notion or Idea of any thing as implies a Contradiction and then it is impossible any such thing can be as it is impossible that such a Proposition whose terms contradict each other should be true but then before we can pronounce that such a Notion or Idea is contradictions we must be sure that we perfectly understand and comprehend the nature of that Being otherwise the Contradiction may not be in the thing but in our manner of conceiving it It is not enough in this case to say we cannot understand it and know not how to reconcile it but we must say that we do perfectly understand it and know that it cannot be reconciled As for instance Some new Philosophers will tell you that the Notion of a Spirit or an immaterial Substance is a Contradiction for by Substance they understand nothing but Matter and then an immaterial Substance is immaterial Matter that is Matter and no Matter which is a Contradiction but yet this does not prove an immaterial Substance to be a Contradiction unless they could first prove that there is no Substance but Matter and that they cannot conceive any other Substance but Matter does not prove that there is no other Thus the Atheist discovers a great many Contradictions or Absurdities in the very Notion and Idea of a God or of an Eternal Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniscient Being For to be without a cause and without a beginning without time and without succession to be present every-where and to fill all Places and yet to have no parts no extension to be able to create a World and to annihilate it
Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal This is so far from being a Nicity that it is no less than a Demonstration if we confess Three Persons and One God for if there be Three Persons then the Person of the Father the Person of the Son the Person of the Holy Ghost must be distinct Persons or they cannot be Three if there be but One God then the Godhead of all the Three Persons is but One for if the Godhead were more than One there must be more than One God for the Godhead makes the God and there must be as many Gods as there are Godheads as there must be as many Men as there are particular Humane Natures And if the Godhead be but One then with respect to the same One Godhead all Three Persons must have the same Glory and Majesty for there cannot be Three different Glories and Majesties of the same One Godhead and therefore as it follows Such as the Father is such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father Vncreate the Son Vncreate and the Holy Ghost Vncreate The Father Incomprehensible the Son Incomprehensible the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible The Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal As also there are not Three Incomprehensibles nor Three Vncreated but One Vncreated and One Incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty And yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are Three Gods or Three Lords This is the sum of all that as the Catholick Religion both Natural Mosaical and Christian requires us to believe that there is but One God so especially the Christian Religion teaches us that there are Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who are this One God Now if each Person with respect to the same Divine Nature be God then all the essential Attributes and Perfections of a God must be allowed to each Person that he is Uncreated Infinite or Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord unless we will say that there may be a Created Finite Temporal Impotent God that is a God who is not in truth either God or Lord and yet though we must acknowledge each Person to be God and Lord we must not assert Three distinct Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which is the true sence of the Article of which more anon for that is to make not One but Three Gods and Lords which overthrows the Unity of the Godhead Now whatever difficulty there may be in conceiving this which I do not now dispute if that be any fault it is no fault of the Athanasian Creed but of the Doctrine of the Trinity itself the Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe if we believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God And I challenge any Man who sincerely proffesses this Faith to tell me what he can leave out o◠this Exposition without destroying either the Divinity of some of the Three Persons or the Unity of the Godhead If each Person must be God and Lord must not each Person be Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty If there be but One God and One Lord can there be Three separated Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which must of necessity be Three Gods and Three Lords This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are Three Persons each of which is God and yet but one God of which more hereafter but only asserts the Thing that thus it is and thus it must be if we believe a Trinity in Unity which should make all Men who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians more cautious how they express the least dislike of the Athanasian Creed which must either argue that they condemn it before they understand it or that they have some secret dislike to the Doctrine of the Trinity Nor is this to make any additions to the Christian Faith as some object no more than to explain what we mean by GOD is an addition to the Faith This was all the Christian Fathers aimed at in their Disputes against Arius and other Enemies of the Catholick Faith and in those Creeds they framed in opposition to these Heresies to assert the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit in such express terms as would admit of no evasion For this reason they insisted so immoveably upon the term Homo-ousios which signifies that the Son was of the same Nature with the Father as he must be if he be true and real God whereas had he been only like the Father as the Arians asserted he could not be One God with him for that which is only like something else is not the same Now though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in Scripture yet this is no unscriptural addition to the Faith because all that is signified by it is there that is that Christ is the Eternal and Only Begotten Son of God a true and real not a made or created or nominal God And the Athanasian Creed as far as it relates to this matter is only a more particular explication of the Homo-ousios or in what sense the Son is of the same Nature with the Father and One God with him In the next place the Athanasian Creed having very explicitely declared the Unity of the Godhead in Three Persons it proceeds to the distinct Characters of each Person and their Unity among themselves and here also it teaches nothing but what seems essential to the Distinction and Unity of the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding So there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts The Distinction then between these Three Divine Persons if I may so speak is in the manner of their Subsistence That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of Himself the Original Fountain of the Deity not made nor created for then he would be a Creature not a God nor begotten for then he would be a Son not the first Father and Origine of all The Son is of the Father alone which is essential to his being a Son not made nor created for there was no time when he was not as all things made or created must have a beginning but
therefore St. Austin represents this much better by that Self-consciousness which is between those distinct Faculties in us of Memory Understanding and Will which know and feel whatever is in each other We remember what we understand and will we understand what we remember and will and what we will we remember and understand and therefore these Three Faculties which are thus intimate to each other make one Man and if we can suppose Three Infinite Minds and Persons thus conscious of whatever is in each other as they are of themselves they can be but One numerical God But that this may not be thought a meer arbitrary and groundless conjecture I shall shew you that this is the true Scripture Notion of the Unity of the Godhead or of Three Persons and One God That the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Infinite Minds really distinct from each other that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son is so very plain in Scripture that I shall not spend time to prove it especially since it is supposed in this Controversie for when we enquire how these Three Infinite Minds or Persons are One God it supposes that they are distinct and if there were any Dispute about it what I shall say in explaining their Unity will prove their Distinction that they are Three distinct infinite minds 1. Let us then consider what the Unity is between the Father and the Son for so our Saviour tells us I and the Father are One 10 Iohn 30. And how they are One we learn from several places in this Gospel which as the Ancients tell us was wrote on purpose in opposition to the Heresie of Carinthus to prove that Christ was not meer Man but the Eternal Son of God and One with his Father Now 1 Iohn 1. the Evangelists call him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Word of God the Eternal Wisdom and Reason of God and therefore as intimate to God as his own Eternal Word and Wisdom as intimate as a Man 's own Wisdom and Reason is to him and therefore he adds that this Word which was in the beginning was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with God as we translate it which cannot signifie a local presence but an essential union or a being in God as Christ tells us The Father is in me and I in him 10 Iohn 38. for before place was made or any thing to fill it to be with God could signifie nothing else but to subsist in him and therefore v. 18. the Apostle expounds this being with God by being in the bosome of the Father which cannot signifie an External Union because God has no External Bosom but Bosom signifies the very Essence of God and if we could distinguish Parts in God the most inward and secret Recesses of the Divine Nature Now this intimate Union and In-being when we speak of an essential Union of pure and infinite Minds is a mutual consciousness and if I may so speak an inward sensation of each other to know and feel each other as they know and feel themselves To represent this plainly and intelligibly if it be possible to the meanest understanding I shall consider wherein the most perfect Union of created Spirits consist which are distinct and seperate Beings from each other wherein the Union of the Divine Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity answers this and wherein it excels it Now created Spirits as Angels and Humane Souls are then most perfectly united to each other when they most perfectly know one another and know all that each other knows and perfectly agree in all they know which is an Union in Knowledge when they perfectly love one another have the same will the same affections the same interests and designs when they are a kind of Unisons which move and act a like as if one Soul animated them both This is that perfect Unity which is so frequently and earnestly recommended to Christians both by Christ and his Apostles as we may see every-where in Scripture And the very same Union with this there is between the Persons of the Ever Blessed Trinity an Union in knowledge in love in will in works The Son perfectly knows the Father and therefore knows all that the Father knows this St. Iohn means when he tells us That he is in the Bosom of the Father 1 Iohn 18. No man hath seen God at any time that is no Man ever had a perfect knowledge of God which is here called seeing because sight gives us the most distinct and perfect knowledge of things The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him Where it is plain to be in the bosom of the Father is put to signifie the most perfect and intimate knowledge of him as in ordinary speech to take any Man into our bosom signifies to impart all our Secrets to him but our Saviour tells us this in plain words that the Father perfectly knows the Son and the Son the Father 10 Iohn 15. As the Father knoweth me so know I the Father Thus the Father loveth the Son 3 Joh. 25.5 Joh. 20. And the Son loveth the Father 14 Iohn 31. Thus the Son has no will but his Fathers 5 Iohn 20. I can of my own self do nothing as I hear I judge and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me 6 John 38. For I came not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me 4 John 34. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work Thus whatever Christ did or spake it was in conformity to his Father what he saw and heard and learnt of him 5 John 19. The Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do for whatsoever things he doth these also doth the Son likewise 12 John 49. I have not spoken of my self but the Father that sent me he gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak This is as perfect an Union as Union signifies agreement and concord as can possibly be between two minds and spirits The like may be said of the Holy Ghost He perfectly knows the Father and his most secret Councels For the spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2.10 He is the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation who inspired the Prophets and Apostles to declare God and his will to the World and therefore is most intimately acquainted with it himself Thus our Saviour comforts his Apostles when he was to leave them himself with the Promise of the Spirit who should guide them into all truth 16 Ioh. 13 14 15. Howbeit when he the spirit of truth is come he shall guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak and he will
has two ways of doing this 1. He observes that the Name God and so those other Names which are ascribed to the Divinity do not so properly signifie the Divine Nature as declare something relating to it for the Divine Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which has no Name and which no words can express and signifie as the Scripture teaches but the Names given to God only teach us either what we ought not to attribute to the Divine Nature or what we ought but not what the Divine Nature it self is This is a fair Introduction such as becomes a wise man who considers how unknown the Essences of all Things are to us much more the Substance and Essence of God and how it confounds our Minds when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the Godhead to have the least conception or thought about the distinction and union of Natures and Essences and therefore he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Inspector and Governour of the World that is it is a Name of Energie Operation and Power and if this Vertue Energie Operation be the very same in all the Persons of the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost then they are but One God but One Power and Energie and thus he proves it is and that not as it is among men who have the same Power and Skill do the very same Things profess the same Art are Philosophers or Orators alike and yet are not all One Philosopher or One Orator because though they do the same thing yet they act apart every one by himself and have no Communion nor share in what each other do but their Operations are proper to themselves alone but in the Divine Nature it is not so the Father does nothing by himself nor the Son by himself nor the Holy Ghost by himself but the whole Energie and Operation of the Deity relating to Creatures begins with the Father passes to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit The Holy Trinity does not act any thing separately there are not Three distinct Operations as there are Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but one motion and disposition of the good Will which passes through the whole Trinity from Father to Son and to the Holy Ghost and this is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any distance of Time or propagating the Motion from one to t'other but by One thought as it is in One numerical Mind and Spirit and therefore though they are Three Persons they are but one numerical Power and Energie By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied That this Father does not make the Persons of the Trinity Three Independent and Coordinate Gods who are no otherwise One than Three men are by a Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature but has found out such an Unity for them as he confesses cannot be between Three men even such an Unity as there is in a Spirit which is numerically One with it self and conscious to all its own Motions for I leave any man to judge whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this one single Motion of Will which is in the same instant in Father Son and Holy Ghost can signifie any thing else but a mutual consciousness which makes them numerically One and as intimate to each other as every man is to himself as I have already explained it Petavius was aware of this and therefore will not allow this to belong to the same Argument but to be a new and distinct Argument by it self Now suppose this yet methinks he should have suspected he had mistaken the Fathers Sense when he found him contradict what he apprehended to be his Sense within the compass of two Pages but indeed the mistake is his own for the Father pursues his intended Argument to prove that though the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we ought not to say that there are Three Gods but One God This he proves first because God is the Name of Nature and the Name of Nature must not be expressed in the Plural number when the Nature is the same without any the least conceivable difference for to say there are Three Gods is to say that there are Three different Divine Natures which introduces Polytheism as to say there are Three men is to say there are Three different Human Natures for if they be the same they are not Three and therefore the Name of the Nature must not be expressed plurally how many Persons soever there are who have the same Nature This was to secure the Homoousiotes of the Divine Nature and if he had stopped here Petavius and Dr. Cudworth might have said what they pleased of him but having secured the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature which was the great Dispute of those days between the Orthodox and the Arians he proceeds to show how this same Nature in Three distinct Persons is united into one numerical Essence and Godhead and this he does first by showing that God signifies Power and Energie and that all the Three Persons in the Trinity have but One numerical Energie and Operation and therefore are but One God which is only the improvement of his former Argument for the Sameness of Nature is necessary to the Sameness of Operation for Nature is the Principle of Action especially in God whose Nature is a pure and simple Act and an unity and singularity of Energie and Operation is a demonstration of One numerical Essence for the same single individual Act cannot be done by Two separate Beings who must act separately also Secondly As for those who are not contended to contemplate God as a pure and simple Act or Energie which easily solves this difficulty how Three Persons are One God they having but One numerical Energie and Operation I say as for those who not contented with this inquire after the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts that this perfect Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature without the least difference or alteration makes them numerically One and returns to what he had first said That the Name of Nature should not be expressed Plurally it being One entire undivided Unity which is neither encreased nor diminished by subsisting in more or fewer Persons I confess I do not understand his reasoning in this matter he seems to destroy all Principles of Individuation whereby One thing is distinguished from another where there is no difference or diversity of Nature for Things he says must be distinguished by Magnitude Place Figure Colour or some other diversity in Nature before we can number them and call them Two or Three and therefore since the Divine simple unalterable Nature admits of no Essential diversity that it may be One it will not admit of any number in it self but is but One God Whereas I confess to my understanding if the same pure unmixt
Agreement of Counsels Identity of Authority Power Goodness I do not say Likeness but Identity The numerical Unity then of the Divine Essence resolves itself into those two Principles the Unity and Identity of Power and Energie and that which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or circumincession or in-being of the Three Divine Persons in each other which preserves the distinction of Persons but makes the Divine Essence numerically One and indeed these Two are but One and both of them nothing more than what I have explained I think a little more intelligibly by a mutual consciousness whereby all Three Divine Persons are mutually in each other and have but One Energy and Operation That the Fathers universally acknowledged That the Operation of the whole Trinity ad extra is but One Petavius has proved beyond all contradiction and hence they conclude the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence for every Nature has a vertue and energy of its own for Nature is a principle of Action and if the Energy and Operation be but One there can be but One Nature and if there be Two distinct and divided Operations if either of them can act alone without the other there must be two divided Natures This is certainly true but yet it gives no account how Three distinct Persons come to have but One Will One Energy Power and Operation and there is no account to be given of it that I know of but what I have now given viz. mutual consciousness and that is a very plain account of it for if all Three Persons be conscious to each other as every Man is to himself there can be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gregory Nazianzen speaks but One and the same motion and Will of the Deity they must move and act all together according to the order and subordination of the Divine Persons and it is impossible they should do so without this mutual consciousness as it is that Three Men who are not conscious to each other should have but one single motion of Will in One single and undivided Act The Fathers then and I agree in this that the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence consists in the singularity of Operation I only add how this Energy and Operation is and must be one by a mutual consciousness and if this be a reasonable and intelligible account I hope it is no fault And there is no other account to be given of that mutual In-being of the Divine Persons in each other which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Christ tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me the necessity of this they saw from what our Saviour says and because it is impossible they should be One without such an inseparable and intimate Union and Presence and Inhabitation in each other and therefore Damascen tells us that they cannot go out of each other nor be separated but are united and mutually penetrate each other without confusion Such an Union as this they all agreed in as Petavius largely shews but how to explain it they know not sometimes they are thus intimately united by the sameness of Nature but this might be the cause of this Union but does not explain what this intimate Union is sometimes they represent it by corporeal similitudes which raise gross and material Images in the mind unworthy of the pure and simple Essence of God as the mixture and union of the Light of several Candles in the same Room and of the Colours of the Rainbow c. which is owing to a material conception of the Divine Substance and the Union of Substances which we know nothing of but had they contemplated God as a pure Mind it had been easie to explain this Perichoresis or In-dwelling of the Divine Persons in each other for there is and can be no other Union of Minds but consciousness and by a mutual consciousness they are as intimate to each other as they are to themselves and are whatever each other is as I have explained it at large and I hope this is no fault neither to give an intelligible Explication of that which all the Fathers taught but were not always equally happy in their Explications of it But to do St. Austin right though he do not name this consciousness yet he explains this Trinity in Unity by examples of mutual consciousness I named one of his Similitudes before of the Unity of our Understanding Memory and Will which are all conscious to each other that we remember what we understand and will we understand what we remember and will and what we will we remember and understand and therefore all these Three Faculties do penetrate and comprehend each other But his Ninth Book De Trinitate is spent wholly upon this Argument It is very familiar with the Ancient Fathers to represent the Father as the infinite Original Mind the Son the Wisdom of the Father his Image or reflex knowledge of himself and the Holy Spirit that Divine Love wherewith Father and Son love each other St. Austin takes this similitude of a Mind its knowledge of itsself and love of itsself and shews how these are Three and One which he makes a faint Image of and resemblance of a Trinity in Unity Now the Mind when it knows its whole self its knowledge comprehends its whole self and when it perfectly loves itself it loves its whole self and its love comprehends its whole self and this proves them to be of the same Substance for the Mind knows itself and loves itself and these are so Three that the Mind is known and loved by nothing else and therefore it is necessary that these Three have One Nature and Essence He proceeds to shew that this Unity is without all manner of confusion and mixture as it is in the Sacred Trinity where the Persons are united but distinct for mixture of Persons destroys the Trinity and shews how each of them are distinct and then how they are alternately in each other for the Mind that loves is in the love and love in the knowledge of the Lover and knowledge in the knowing Mind and how each of them is in the other two for the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and love and the love of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in its own knowledge and the knowledge of the Mind which knows and loves itself is in the Mind and in its love because it loves itself knowing and knows itself loving and thus also two are in each for the Mind which knows and loves itself with its knowledge is in love and with its love is in knowledge for love and knowledge are together in the Mind which loves and knows itself and the whole is in the whole for the whole Mind loves itself and knows its whole self and knows its whole love and loves its whole knowledge I need not tell
any Man that this is the mutual consciousness which I have described and by this St. Austin represents the Trinity in Unity and I hope his Authority will defend me from the charge of Innovation and I am sure the reason of the thing will defend itself But for the better understanding of this we must further observe that the Fathers resolve the Unity of the Godhead into the Unity of Principle that is though there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost yet the Father is the Original Fountain of the Deity who begets the Son of his own Substance and from whom and the Son the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds of the same Substance with Father and Son So that there is but one Principle and Fountain of the Deity and therefore but One God But this as Petavius well observes does not of itself prove the Unity of the Godhead but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sameness of Nature and therefore the Fathers add That God begets a Son not without but within himself for the Wisdom of God is within him and inseparable from him This they illustrated by the Sun its light and splendour which are coaeval and inseparable by the Fountain and its Streams by a Tree and its Branches which are united in One which Comparisons must not be strained farther than they were intended as if Father Son and Holy Ghost were one in the same manner as the Sun and its Light or the Tree and its Branches or the Fountain River and Streams but only that there is such a natural and essential Union between the Divine Persons as makes them One numerical God But there is something still to be added to this to compleat this Notion that as the Father is the Fountain of the Deity and the Son and Holy Ghost inseparably united to him so Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to One God as St. Austin calls the Trinity Vnam quandam summam rem One Supreme Thing And as all acknowledge that the Three Persons are One God and since God is the most necessary Being all Three Persons are necessary and essential to One God That there must necessarily be Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead and there can be no more For the explication of this I shall proceed by these steps which are all plain and universally acknowledged 1. That there are no Accidents nor Qualities nor Faculties in God as there are in created Spirits but whatever is in God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Substance a pure and simple Act. This is universally acknowledged by all Christians St. Austin affirms That there are no Accidents in God Athanasius That there is no Composition in God as between Substance and Accident and it is much alike as to Mind and its different Faculties and Powers which is a Composition but that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pure simple Act but there is no need of Testimonies to prove that which Natural Reason proves for nothing can be Eternal and Self-orginated but a pure and simple Act for what is compounded is made for it wants a Maker 2. That it is essential to an eternal Mind to know itself and to love itself for this is essential to a Mind no human Mind can be without it much less the most perfect and excellent Mind and therefore God does know himself and love himself and his own Image 3. That Original Mind and Wisdom and the Knowledge of it self and love of it self and its own Image are distinct Acts and never can be One simple individual Act. They are distinct Powers and Faculties in men Knowledge Self-reflexion and Love and are so distinct that they can never be the same Knowledge is not Self-reflection nor love either Knowledge or Self-reflection though they are inseparably united they are distinct 4. Therefore these three Acts which are so distinct that they can never be the same must be three substantial Acts in God that is three Divine subsisting Persons for there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God no Accident or Faculties as there are in Creatures 5. That these are the true and proper Characters of the distinct Persons in the ever blessed Trinity The Father is Original Mind and Wisdom the Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father that is the reflex knowledge of himself which is the perfect Image of his own Wisdom the Holy Ghost that Divine Love which Father and Son have for each other It would be very impertinent to confirm this by the Authority of the ancient Fathers because all men who know any thing of them know that this is their constant language I am sure this is very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Answers all those Characters we find there of the Son and Holy Ghost The Son is expresly called the Word and the Wisdom of God That Word which was in the beginning which was with God and was God 1 Iohn 1. For God did certainly always know himself and therefore this Word was always with God intimately present with him not as our transient and vanishing Reflections are but as a permanent and substantial Word the subsisting and living Image of his Fathers Wisdom as he is called the Brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Person 1 Heb. 2. His Fathers Glory and Person is Eternal and Original Wisdom He is his Fathers begotten Wisdom or the bright Reflexion of his Wisdom which is as perfect and exact as the Fathers Knowledge of himself And therefore St. Iohn might well say No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him 1 Iohn 18. And our Saviour might well tell us As the Father knoweth me even so know I the Father 10 Iohn 15. that he seeth all that the Father doth That he receiveth all his Commands from the Father that he that seeth him seeth the Father and many such like Expressions he uses to signifie his perfect knowledge of his Father for he is that Wisdom and Knowledge wherewith his Father knows himself and if the Father perfectly knows himself he is the perfect Image and Wisdom of the Father For this reason he is called the Son because he is the perfect Image of the Father begotten of his own Eternal Wisdom by a reflex Act upon himself for he begets his own Son in his own likeness by knowing himself and therefore the Son must be of the same Nature the very Wisdom of the Father unless the Father knows himself otherwise than he really is This is the Eternal Son and Word of God whereby he made the Worlds for it is this reflex Knowledge and Wisdom which makes all things The Eternal Ideas of Truth and Wisdom in the Divine Mind effect nothing no more than meer Speculation does in us till it is brought into Act by reflexion for it was this reflex
when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his Words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me authority to Expound the Words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every mans private Conceits and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such Matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any Sense of it much less to give such a Sense of it as the Words will not bear This shows that men may pretend to Expound Scripture according to Reason when the Dispute is nothing else but a Clash of Reason with Scripture as this Author phrases it for so it is when the usual signification of the Words and the Scope and Circumstances of the Place require one Sense and men force another Sense on it upon pretence of Expounding Scripture by Reason that is to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words signifie that is the Sense of Scripture and when they will not admit this Sense because they apprehend it contrary to Reason though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place that is nothing else but a Controversie between Scripture and Reason My present Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity or by others for it this is a voluminous Work and has often been done by others and if there were any just Occasion of doing it again it deserves a Treatise by it self but indeed it is the Doctrine it self which the Socinians dislike more then our Expositions which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough were the Doctrine so but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason and therefore must never allow that the Scripture teaches such a Doctrine which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind reconcile men to the Doctrine and the Scripture is plain without any farther Comment this I have now endeavoured and I believe our Adversaries will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expositions of Scripture but yet I am unwilling to dismiss this Argument without some few Observations about the Sense of Scripture This Author refers us to the History of the Vnitarians which though it be but a little Book in all Senses is too large to be particularly examined now but however I shall give some taste of it In the first Letter the Author marshals those Texts which he thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful Readers I shall more particularly examine that He reduces the Scriptures under several Topicks or Heads of Arguments 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than he none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious for though Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the Godhead the equality and sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of Persons a Son is equal to his Father by Nature but inferiour to him as his Son if the Father as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wisdom the Son a personal subsisting but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is superior to the Image the Father to the Son and therefore though I know such Texts as he alleadges My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's Human Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to his Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and the Son is God of God and therefore the Father may be called his God As for Christ's receiving Commands from the Father though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office and so concerns him as God Incarnate as by the Dispensation of the Gospel he is the Minister of God's Will and Pleasure yet I grant even as God he receives Commands from his Father but it is no otherwise than as he receives his Nature from him by Nature he is the Word the Wisdom the Command of the Father his reflex Image whereby he produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and Counsel into act Thus St. Austin answered the Arrian Objection That Christ was but God's Instrument and made the World by God's Command Let them consider with what other words the Father commanded his only Word But they frame to themselves an Imagination of two near one another but separated by their distinct Places one commanding another obeying Nor do they understand that the Fathers Command it self that all things should be made is no other Word of the Father but that by which all things are made that is the substantial Word and Wisdom and Command of the Father his only begotten Son 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that he is the Creature the Possession the Servant and Subject of God It is well he added absolutely and without restriction but he had done better if he had remembred it in his Proofs that Christ is called a Creature he proves because he is the first-born of every Creature but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction for he is so to the first-born of every Creature that he is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies That by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all
Expiation of his Blood And though Christ be the Eternal Son of God and the Natural Lord and Heir of all things yet God hath in this highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that at or in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth and that every tongue some of all Nations Languages and Tongues shall confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father For when God exalts and magnifies himself or exalts his Son it does not and cannot signifie any addition or increase of their essential Greatness and Glory for neither the Father nor the Son can be greater than they are but yet God is exalted when his Greatness and Power is more visible and more universally acknowledged and adored and thus God has highly exalted his Son too by conferring the Mediatory Power and Kingdom on him as to shew this particularly but briefly This makes the Son more universally known acknowledged and adored The Notion and Belief of one God is Natural to Mankind that there are three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead is not known by Nature but by Revelation There are some obscure hints and intimations of this even in the History of the Creation more plain in the Types and Prophesies of the Jewish Law which relate to the Messias and possibly this was more particularly explained in their Cabala which some learned men industriously prove contained this Mystery of the Trinity but all this while this Mystery was very obscure and the Glory of the Son little known in the World for though now we certainly know from the Exposition of Christ and his Apostles that the Prophets spake of Christ under the name of Lord and God and Jehovah yet all went in the Name of God But when Christ appeared in the World then God owned him for his Son this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Christ owned himself for the Son of God his only begotten Son and upon all occasions calls God his Father and that in such a distinguishing manner that the Jews understood him to mean that he was the Son of God by Nature and charge him with Blasphemy for making himself God He appealed to those mighty Works he did in his Father's Name to prove the Truth of what he taught them that he was indeed the Son of God But then God visibly owned him for his Son when he raised him from the dead and bestowed a Kingdom on him a Name which is above every Name as St. Paul tells us That he was declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the Dead And for this reason that of the Psalmist Thou art my Son this day have I begotten Thee is applied to the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead We deliver unto you glad tydings how that the promise that was made to the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same to us their Children in that he hath raised up Iesus again as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten Thee Which it is plain does not signifie that God then first begot him for he owned him for his beloved Son long before at his Baptism and Christ calls himself his only begotten Son long before and the Socinians themselves attribute his Sonship to his miraculous Conception in the Womb of the Virgin and St. Paul we see expounds God's begetting him at his Resurrection by his being declared the Son of God by the Resurrection from the Dead which supposes he was his Son before and that not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Flesh for so he was the Seed of David but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Spirit of Holiness or his Divine Nature for so its opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves it must signifie He was the only begotten Son of God from eternal Ages but the World did not fully know him to be so till God declared this by his Resurrection from the Dead and by bestowing a Kingdom on him and then he visibly appeared in the Glory and Majesty of the Son of God as if he had been begotten by him that day and this seems to be the meaning of our Saviour's Prayer And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with that glory which I had with Thee before the World was that is now publickly own me to be thy Son which I always was but was never yet sufficiently declared so to the World And therefore when he was raised from the Dead and advanced into his Kingdom which he was to administer not by Human Force and Power but by the Power of the Divine Spirit it was time to let the World know this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity because each Divine Person has his distinct and proper part in this mysterious oeconomy and therefore he commands his Disciples to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that is into the belief and worship of One God Father Son and Holy Ghost of which more presently But this is not all the Son is not only now made known and manifest to the World and publickly owned by his Father but he has a peculiar Authority invested in him distinct both from the Father and the Holy Spirit as he is a Mediatory King There being but One Supreme and Soveraign God Father Son and Holy Ghost who are but One Energy and Power but One Monarchy but One Maker and One Lord of the World in the Natural Government of the World there is no distinction of the Divine Persons no peculiar Offices and Administrations to distinguish them not one thing done by the Father another by the Son and a third by the Holy Ghost but the whole Trinity made and governs the World by One individual Operation and therefore the Creation and Government of the World is the Work of One God and therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father who is the Fountain of the Deity who is that Original Mind and Wisdom who made and who governs the World by his Son and holy Spirit so that in the Natural Government of the World the Son has no Kingdom of his own but reigns as One Supreme God with the Father and the Holy Spirit and all attributed to the Father as the beginning of Energy and Power But in the oeconomy of man's Salvation the Son has a Kingdom of his own which is peculiarly his administred in his Name and by his Soveraign Authority The Father is atoned by him and has committed to him all Power both in Heaven and in Earth He is made the Head of all Principalities and Powers which are now immediately subjected to him and must receive their Commands and
Personal Authority which is given him as the Son of Man as an Incarnate and Mediatory King And hath given him Authority to execute Iudgment also because he is the Son of Man And therefore now it is given him to have Life in himself as the Father hath Life in himself The Father hath Life in himself as the Original Fountain of all Life by whom the Son himself lives all Life is derived from God either by eternal Generation or Procession or Creation and thus Christ hath Life in himself also in the new Creation he is the Fountain of Life he quickeneth whom he will he is the bread of life that came down from Heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me I am the Resurrection and the Life he that believeth in me though he were dead yet shall he live and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never dye This is the Authority of his Mediatory Kingdom which he hath received from his Father that he hath Life in himself and hath Authority and Power to give Life to the World This is a Kingdom in a Kingdom the Mediatory Kingdom of the Son in the Natural Kingdom of the Father which restrains the Father's Justice dispenses his Grace and directs the Exercise of his Power in the Government of the World which though it be upon these accounts a Superiour Authority and therefore a high Exaltation of the Son yet it is no diminution to the Father The confessing Iesus Christ to be Lord is to the glory of God the Father 1. Because this Mediatory Kingdom is erected by the Father and by the Father given to the Son it is he who gave him this Authority because he is the Son of Man And therefore Christ every where owns that he was sent by God I am not come of my self I am come in my Fathers Name I proceeded forth and came from God neither came I of my self but he sent me I seek not my own will I seek not my own glory I came not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me Which Scriptures make up the fourth Argument in the History of the Vnitarians against Christ's being God because Almighty God doth all things in his own Name and by his own Authority but Christ comes in the Father's Name and does his will and seeks his glory Which proves indeed that he receives this Power from the Father that he fulfils his will and serves his glory in it but if he receive this Kingdom he has it and a very glorious Kingdom it is in some respects superiour to the Natural Government of God as it sets bounds to it But this only proves that he is not the Father but the Son and the King of God and this Authority being given him of the Father to reduce Mankind to their Obedience it is no lessening of the Fathers Authority from whom he receives this Mediatory Power 2. This can be no Diminution to the Father because he is his only begotten Son One God with himself the brightness of his glory and the express Image of his Person the Natural Heir of his Power and Greatness and the Natural Lord of the World As a Son he is by Nature equal to his Father but yet subordinate and therefore cannot be his Rival as a Son his advancement is the glory of the Father that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father and therefore it is no derogation to the Father though he commit to the Son a more glorious Authority then he exercises himself the Authority of a Mediatory Kingdom or Soveraign Grace which is a more glorious Authority to Sinners then Natural Justice and Dominion for all men know a Son must receive all from his Father and if the Father for wise Reasons of which more presently give the Son the more glorious Power it is the Father who is glorified in it As he is God the Eternal Son of God and One with the Father he is the proper Object of Religious Worship and therefore all those Divine Honours and Adorations which are paid him upon account of his Mediatory Kingdom and Power are no Injury to the Divine Nature as they would have been had God conferred this Power on a Creature which had been to give his glory to another which God detests and declares his abhorrence of and which all Arians and Socinians do who worship Christ believing him to be only a Creature or a meer Man The Command in Scripture to worship him and pay Divine Honours to him is a much better Argument to prove that he is God then to justifie the worship of any Creature which God universally prohibits and is a much greater Contradiction to the Principles of Natural Religion than a Trinity in Unity is to Natural Reason 3. To this we must add That his Kingdom is the Reward of his Obedience and Sufferings that is it is founded in the Expiation of his Blood Is an Authority to dispence that Grace and Mercy which he has purchased with his Blood so that his Kingdom and Power is founded in the most perfect submission to his Father is the Reward of his Obedience whereby he glorified his Father on Earth and therefore let his Power be never so great and glorious his receiving it from God as the Reward of his Obedience secures the Prerogative and Glory of the Father 4. Especially when we add That the Exercise and Administration of this Kingdom is not by way of any direct Authority and Power over God which would necessarily Eclipse the glory of the Father and make him subject to the Son but by way of Mediation and Intercession as an Advocate and High-Priest He first makes Atonement to God and reconciles him to Sinners does not command or over-rule but propitiate the Divine Justice and then Exercises a Soveraign Authority in forgiving sins in destroying his Enemies in governing Kingdoms and Empires in subserviency to his Spiritual Kingdom and at the last Day in judging the World 5. And therefore the time shall come when Christ shall deliver up this Kingdom again to the Father for it is not a Natural Kingdom and therefore must not last always no longer then till it has attained the ends for which it was erected when Mankind are reduced into Obedience to God when the Kingdom of the Devil is destroyed and the Devil and his Angels and all bad men cast into the Lake of Fire which is the second Death and good men raised out of their Graves and rewarded with Eternal Life that is when Christ has accomplished the work of his Mediation that there is no longer any need of a Mediator then the Mediatory Kingdom ceases Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God even the Father when he shall
of the Father is not the One Supreme God and the Holy Ghost who proceeds from Father and Son is not the One Supreme God The Major is as self-evident as any Proposition in Euclide whoever understands the Terms must confess it to be true that the One Supreme God cannot be begotten nor proceed from any other the Minor is confessed by Trinitarians that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son how then shall we avoid the Conclusion That the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God Indeed no way that I know of for the thing is true the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God nay nor the Father the One Supreme God considered separately from each other but Father Son and Holy Ghost or a Trinity in Unity is the One Supreme God Now of this One Supreme God it is certainly true that he is not begotten nor proceeds from any other for then there must be a God above this One Supreme God but if there be Three Persons in this One Supreme God this does not hinder but the Father may beget the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son and yet the One Supreme God neither be begotten nor proceed for it is not the One Supreme God that is begotten but the Divine Person of the Son who is God and with the Father and Holy Spirit One Supreme God nor is it the One Supreme God that proceeds but the Divine Person of the Holy Ghost who also is God and together with Father and Son One Supreme God This is plain and what every one may understand at first sight and the fallacy of the Argument consists in this That whatever may be affirmed of the One Supreme God is applied to each Divine Person in their Personal Capacities as if each Person considered separate from the other Divine Persons were the One Supreme God Now this is false for the One Supreme God is not any One Person distinct and separate from the rest but all Three Persons essentially united into One God and therefore the Application must be false too when what is true of the One Supreme God is applied to every distinct Person in the Godhead It is certain the One Supreme God can neither be Father Son nor Holy Ghost If he be a Father he must beget a Son who is not One with him and yet is God For the Son of God who is begotten of his Father's Substance and has the same Nature with him which is the proper Notion of a begotten Son must be God as the Son of a man is a man And if the Father himself in his own proper Person as begetting the Son be the One Supreme God the whole entire Deity then he must beget a Son without not within himself who is not and cannot be that One Supreme God that the Father is The One Supreme God is One in himself and separate from all other Beings And therefore if the One Supreme God be a Father he must beget a Son separate from himself if he be a Son he must have a Father separate from himself and so of the Holy Ghost In the One Supreme God there may and must be a Trinity of Divine Persons within the Unity of the Godhead there is a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost but the One Supreme God is neither neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds for all Three Persons are the One Supreme God and what belongs to the Godhead belongs to them all as considered in the Unity of the same Godhead but not as considered in their distinct Personal Capacities as One is the Father the other the Son and the third the Holy Spirit And thus it is in the present Case the One Supreme God can no more be sent then he can be begotten can receive no Commands from any other cannot be given by any other cannot be subject to any other Will but his own c. but the Divine Persons may send and be sent and interceed with each other for though in the Unity of the Godhead they are all the One Supreme God yet there is a mutual Relation and Subordination between the Divine Persons as I have already explained it As to instance in Intercession or Prayer for himself or others which is a Contradiction to the Notion of a Supreme God as it is to the Notion of an Absolute and Soveraign Prince But yet a Soveraign Prince may interceed with himself his own Wisdom his own Mercy Clemency and Compassion may interceed with him and prevail too without any diminution to his own Soveraign Power Thus though the Supreme God can interceed with no other Being yet the Son may interceed with the Father his own eternal and begotten Wisdom may interceed with him and make Atonement and Expiation for sinners and thus God interceeds with no body but himself for it is his own Wisdom which interceeds with him and makes the Atonement And if we will consider things aright we shall find that there can be no other Advocate with the Father but the Son but his own eternal and begotten Wisdom When a man interceeds with himself it is done by reflecting on his own Mind and examining the Reasons and Motives he finds there to pity and spare and to do good that is by his reflex Wisdom and Knowledge of himself which in the Godhead is the Son God's reflex Knowledge of himself or his begotten Wisdom that Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word which Philo calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High Priest For let us consider what it is to interceed with God and what kind of Intercession is consistent both with the Soveraign Authority and Soveraign Goodness of God An infinitely wise and just and good Being cannot be moved by meer Entreaties nor by the bare Interest and Favour of the Advocate for this is weakness in men and therefore cannot be incident to the Divine Nature Now if you set aside Entreaties and Importunities and Favour there can be no other Advocate with the Father but his own Eternal Wisdom It is his own Wisdom that must Atone him that must reconcile him to sinners that must obtain Pardon and all other Blessings for them for if this cannot be done wisely God cannot do it and therefore his own Wisdom must do all this for no created Wisdom can But God loves his own Wisdom his only begotten Son and therefore Wisdom is a powerful Advocate and must prevail with the Father So that the Son's Intercession with the Father is so far from being incongruous or inconsistent with his being God that the Divine Nature can admit of no other Advocate or Intercessor properly so called To intercede with a never-failing Effect and Success is an Act of Power and Authority and for God to make a Creature-Advocate and Mediator is to give a Creature Authority over himself which
cannot be for it is a debasement of the Divine Nature and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom as if God did not better know how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy than any Creature does For Creatures to pray to God for themselves or others as humble Supplicants is part of the Worship which Creatures owe to God but to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator is above the Nature and Order of Creatures and God can no more give this to any Creature than he can commit his own Soveraign Power and Authority to them But his own Eternal Wisdom can intercede with Authority for Original Mind and Wisdom must yield to the Intercessions of his own Eternal Wisdom which is not to submit to any Foreign Authority but to his own To proceed 7. His next Argument to prove that Christ is not God is this That Iesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and described to be the Son of God and the Image of God This we own and he has no need to prove it and this is a wonderful Argument to convince those who acknowledge Three distinct Persons in the Godhead to prove that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father for so according to the Language of Scripture God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and the Holy Spirit as all men grant and to say 'T is as impossible that the Son or Image of the One true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image that very thing whose Image it is is meer Sophistry for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God they are the same One true God and yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father 8. His next Argument is from many Texts which expresly declare that only the Father is God Now this I confess would be a demonstration could he produce any one Text which asserts the Father only to be God in opposition to the Son and to the Holy Ghost for then the Father must signifie the Person of the Father in opposition to the Person of the Son and to the Person of the Holy Ghost but when the Father is called the Only true God only in opposition to all the false Gods which the world then worshipped there Father does not signifie personally but that One Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source and Fountain and Original he being that Eternal and Original Mind which begets his own Image or Eternal Son and from whom and the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds in the Unity of the same Godhead When the Father is said to be the only true God and the One God that the Son and Holy Ghost are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead is evident from those other Texts of Scripture which plainly teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost for if the Scripture teaches that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God it can never separate the Father from his only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit and therefore the Dispute will issue here Whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit When the Father is called the only true God it must be in opposition to all those who were at that time worshipped for Gods in the World but were not true Gods and therefore when Christ calls his Father the only true God it could not be in contradistinction to himself and the Holy Spirit for they were not then distinctly worshipped And when St. Paul calls the Father the One God he expresly opposes it to the many Gods of the Heathens For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven the Sun and Moon and Planets and Deified men or in the Earth the several Elements Birds Beasts c. as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him where the One God and One Lord and Mediator is opposed to the many Gods and many Lords or Mediators which were worshipped by the Heathens These Texts indeed do plainly distinguish between the Father and Christ This is Life eternal to know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent And to us there is but One God the Father and One Lord Iesus Christ which is no more than what St. Paul teaches There is one God and One Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Iesus The One God and the One Mediator ought to be distinguished for the whole Christian Religion and the salvation of sinners depends upon this distinction but this does not exclude Christ from being One God with the Father though he have a distinct additional Glory of a Mediatory Kingdom I consider farther when the Father is called the One God and the only true God it can be understood only of those who are distinct and separated Gods from the Father and are not One God with him but it cannot exclude those who are united in the Unity of the same Godhead for they are but One God with the Father And this is plainly signified in the Title of the Father and the Father of our Lord Jesus which is God's peculiar Name under the Gospel as the Maker of Heaven and Earth was before for the Title of the Father does not exclude but includes the Son and therefore if it appears from Scripture that this Son is true and real God begotten of his Father from Eternity the Son at least must be included in this Character of the only true God His other Texts which he cites under this Head prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God not that Christ is not One God with the Father 9. He adds If Christ were indeed God as well as Man or as Trinitarians speak God the Son incarnate in an Human Nature it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature as a Director and Guide for what other help could that Nature need which was One Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell Now the account of this is plain and short for the whole Trinity is but One Energy and Power and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra what the Father does that the Son does and that the Holy Ghost does by one individual Act as I have shown at large but the sanctification of all Creatures and such the Human Nature of Christ is is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit and he might as well have asked Why the sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Holy Spirit for the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ the Head from
only in the superior and governing Nature as it ought to be because in that the Natures are united into One Person and that must govern and take care of the whole Thus the Mind in man is conscious to the whole man and to all that is in man to all the motions of Reason and Sense but Sense is not conscious to all the Actings of Reason which is the superior Faculty though it is conscious as far as is necessary to receive the Commands and Directions of Reason for the Body moves at the command of the Will and it is so far conscious to its Commands Thus in the Person of Christ who is God-man the Divine Word is conscious to his whole Person not only to himself as the Divine Word but to his whole Humane Nature not by such Knowledge as God knows all men and all things but by such a Consciousness as every Person has of himself But it does not hence follow that the Humane Nature is conscious to all that is in the Word for that destroys Humane Nature by making it Omniscient which Humane Nature cannot be and its being united to the Person of the Word does not require it should be for an inferior Nature is not conscious to all that is in the superior Nature in the same Person This Union of Natures does require that the inferior Nature be conscious to the superior as far as its Nature is capable and as far as the Personal Union requires for so Sense is in some degree conscious to Reason and it cannot be one Person without it And therefore the Human Nature in Christ is in some measure in such a degree as Human Nature can be conscious to the Word feels its Union to God and knows the Mind of the Word not by External Revelations as Prophets do but by an Inward Sensation as every man feels his own Thoughts and Reason but yet the Human Nature of Christ may be ignorant of some things notwithstanding its Personal Union to the Divine Word because it is an inferior and subject Nature And this I take to be the true account of what our Saviour speaks about the Day of Judgment Of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the Angels in Heaven but my Father only where our Saviour speaks of himself as a man and as a man he did not at that time know the Day of Judgment though personally united to the Divine Word who did know it for as he is the Divine Word so our Saviour tells us That he seeth all that the Father doth and therefore what the Father knows the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father must know also But yet the Human Nature of Christ was conscious to all the actings of the Divine Word in it as we may see in the Story of the Woman having an Issue of Blood twelve years who in the midst of a great Crowd of People came behind him and touched his Garment and was immediately healed our Saviour presently asked who touched him and when all denied it and Peter wondered he should ask that Question when the Multitude thronged him and pressed him Iesus said some body hath touched me for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me he felt the miraculous Power of the Divine Word working in him as a man feels what is done in himself This I think gives some account how God and Man may be united into One Person which though it be a great Mystery which we cannot fully comprehend yet is not wholly unintelligible much less so absurd and contradictious as this Author pretends As for what he adds about believing and professing this Faith let him apply it to Christ's being the Messias or any other Article of the Creed and see what Answer he will give to it for what if men can't believe it are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it whether we can or no doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation No! but if it be credible and what a wise man may believe and what he has sufficient Evidence to believe he shall be damned not because he can't but won't believe it But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it if he profess against his Conscience he sins and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned then God requires some men to sin in order to their Salvation God requires no man to profess against his Conscience but he shall be damned for not believing it not for not professing what he does not believe it looks like a Judgment upon these men that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest Reason they impose upon themselves or hope to impose upon the World by the most Childish Sophistry and Nonsense And now I shall leave our Note-maker to harangue by himself and perswade Fools if he can that the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing but Popery or must be parted with for the sake of Iews or be made a Complement to the Morocco Ambassador and his admired Mahomet or must be sacrificed to Peace and Unity and to secure men from damnation who will not believe I will not envy him the satisfaction of such Harangues it being all the Comfort he has for I am pretty confident he will never be able to Reason to any purpose in this Cause again Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end Amen THE END ADVERTISEMENT A Preservative against Popery in two Parts with a Vindication in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran a Jesuit 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church 4 o. A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor Novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. A Practical Discourse concerning Death The Fifth Edition 8 o. The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England with a more particular Respect to the Oath lately enjoyned of Allegiance to Their Present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary The Fifth Edition 4 o. By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Printed for W. Rogers The Creed Brief Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Vossius de tribus Symbel dissert 3 Cap. 29 30. Cap. 31. Ibid. Cap. 48. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 44. Dissert 2. c. 1. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Answer Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Aug. lib. contra Serm. Arrian c. 16. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Cont. Arium Disput. Tom. 1. p. 116. Paris 1627. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ita est filius quoque ipse
again to make all things of nothing and to reduce all things to nothing again to know all things past present and to come especially the most contingent Futurities the freest Thoughts and Counsels of Men before they think them or some Ages before they themselves are in being without imposing a Fatal Necessity on Humane Actions I say the Notion of such a Being is very much above our conception and to an Atheist who is for believing nothing but what he can fully comprehend seems very absurd and contradictious This shews that Men may easily mistake in charging the Nature and Notions of Things with Contradictions and therefore we must enquire how we may discover when such an appearing Contradiction is not real but is wholly owing to our imperfect conception of things I. Now in the first place we have great reason to suspect this when it relates to such things as all Mankind agree we do not and cannot fully understand or comprehend for it is a vain and arrogant presumption to say what is or what is not a Contradiction when we confess we do not understand or comprehend the thing we speak of A Contradiction in the Nature of Things is what is contrary to the Nature of that Being of which we speak Now so far as we understand the Nature of any Being we can certainly tell what is contrary and contradictions to its Nature As that Accidents should subsist without their subject that a Body should be without extension or an organized Body without any distinction of parts that the same individual Body should be in Heaven and on Earth and in a thousand distant places at the same time that Flesh and Blood should lie invisible under the Species of Bread and Wine that a Body suppose of five or six foot long should be concealed under the least crum of Bread these and such like are the manifest Absurdities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation and we know that they are so because we know the Nature of a Body and know that such things are a contradiction to the essential Properties of a Body But now all Men must confess that they have not a clear and comprehensive Notion of the Nature and Essential Properties of a Spirit especially of an infinite Spirit as God is and it is impossible to know what is contrary to the Nature of a Spirit if we know not what the Nature of a Spirit is and that Man who shall pretend to comprehend all that is possible in an infinite Nature is as contemptibly ridiculous as if he should challenge to himself infinite Knowledge for without that no Man can comprehend what is infinite II. It is a sufficient proof that such seeming Contradictions are not in the nature of things but in our imperfect manner of conceiving them when we have other evident proofs that the thing is though we cannot comprehend it for nothing can be which involves a Contradiction in its nature and therefore if it is the contradiction is not real but imaginary As for instance As unconceivable as the Notion of Eternity is yet all Mankind even Atheists themselves must confess that something was from Eternity for if ever there was nothing it is impossible there ever should have been any thing for that which once was not can never be without a cause and therefore whatever Difficulties there may be in the Notion of an Eternal Being we must acknowledge something Eternal and that is proof enough that there is nothing absurd or contradictious in the Notion though we cannot comprehend it and I am sure the Notion of a first Eternal Cause is much more easie and natural than to make either Matter or the World and all the Creatures in it Eternal Whatever we can certainly prove to be either by Sense Reason or Revelation if there be any difficulty in conceiving it we must attribute that to the imperfection of our own Knowledge not to any Absurdity or Contradiction in the thing itself This shews how unreasonable that Method is which is taken by Atheists Infidels and Hereticks to dispute against the being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it and some pretended Absurdities and Contradictions in it when there are very plain proofs that the thing is and such as it is impossible for them fairly to answer this is the fundamental miscarriage which is not owing to a prudent caution as is pretended but to wilfulness and obstinacy and pride of Understanding or to a fixed prejudice and aversion to the belief of such matters and therefore I shall not only observe but particularly prove the unreasonableness of it The proof of this comes to this one point that we may have sufficient evidence of the being of a thing whose nature we cannot conceive and comprehend he who will not own this contradicts the sense and experience of Mankind and he who confesses this and yet rejects the belief of that which he has good evidence for meerly because he cannot conceive it is a very absurd and senseless Infidel And the reason of this is very plain because all the ways whereby the being of any thing can be proved are obvious and intelligible to all Mankind but the nature of most things are very dark and obscure and such as the wisest Men know little or nothing of And therefore we may certainly know that a great many things are whose nature and essential properties we cannot conceive As to shew this particularly 1. The proofs that any thing is are either from Sense from Reason or from Revelation What is evident to Sense is evident to all Men who have their Senses what is plainly proved by Reason and it is not a sufficient proof if it be not plain is plain to all Men who can use their Reason and what is plainly revealed every Man may know who can read and understand the Scriptures the being and nature of things are known very different ways and the being of things not only may but most commonly is known without knowing their natures Any Man may know the first but few Men in any measure can know the second Whoever has his Senses about him knows that there are such things as he sees hears or feels but the Philosophy of Nature is not learnt by Sense Reason will convince us by some visible and sensible effects that there are some invisible causes without informing us distinctly what the nature and powers of such causes are and God may and does reveal many things to us which we either are not capable of fully comprehending or the nature of which he does not think fit particularly to explain to us and in all these cases we may certainly know that things are without understanding the Nature and Philosophy of them 2. It is so far from being a wonder to meet with any thing whose nature we do not perfectly understand that I know nothing in the World which we do perfectly understand It is agreed by all Men whoever considered this matter that
the essences of things cannot be known but only their properties and qualities The World is divided into Matter and Spirit and we know no more what the substance of Matter than what the substance of a Spirit is though we think we know one much better than the other We know thus much of Matter that it is an extended substance which fills a space and has distinct parts which may be separated from each other that it is susceptible of very different qualities that it is hot or cold hard or soft c. but what the substance of Matter is we know not And thus we know the essential properties of a Spirit that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will and is capable of different Vertues or Vices as Matter is of sensible qualities but what the substance of a Spirit is we know no more than what the substance of matter is Thus as for the essential properties operations and powers of Matter Sense Experience and Observation will tell us what they are and what causes constantly produce such effects and this is all we do or can know of it and he who will not believe that Matter is extended that the Fire burns that Water may be condensed by Frost into a firm and solid Pavement that Seed sown in the Earth will produce its own kind again that a Body can move from one place to another that a Stone falls to the ground and Vapours ascend and thicken into Clouds and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showers c. I say he who will not believe these things till he can give a Philosophical account of them must deny his Senses in complement to his Understanding and he who thinks that he does understand these matters would make a Man question whether he has any Sense Thus it is also with reference to a Spirit We feel within ourselves that we can think and reason that we can choose and refuse that we can love and hate and desire and fear but what these natural powers and passions are we know not how thoughts rise in our minds and how one thought begets another how a thought can move our Bodies or fix them in their Seat how the Body can raise thoughts and passions in the Soul or the thoughts and passions of the Soul can affect the Body The Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Secrets and Mysteries in Nature which we understand nothing of nor are concerned to understand them no more than it is our business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge which would serve no end but Curiosity and that is reason enough why our wise Maker should not communicate this knowledge to us were we capable of it because it does not belong to our Natures as no Knowledge does which we can make no use of the perfect Notions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that Almighty Mind which can give being to them Now this plainly shews what the Natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are how far we may attain to a certain Knowledge and where we must give off our Enquiries unless we have a mind to impose upon our Understandings with some uncertain and fanciful Conjectures or to perplex our selves with inexplicable Difficulties 1. As first We have certain ways of discovering the being of Things which fall within the compass of our Knowledge this our Senses Reason or Revelation will acquaint us with and therefore we may know what Things there are in the World as far as they fall under the notice of Sense or are discovered by Reason or Revelation 2. We may know what Things are or what their essential Properties Qualities Operations and Powers are whereby we can distinguish one sort of Beings from another as suppose a Body from a Spirit Bread from Flesh and Wine from Blood and can Reason from Effects to Causes and from Causes to Effects with as great certainty as we understand what the Causes or Effects are 3. But the Essences of Things and the Philosophy of their Natures the Reasons of their Essential Properties and Powers which immediately result from their Natures the manner of their Production and the manner of their Operations are Mysteries to us and will be so do what we can and therefore here our Enquiries must cease if we enquire wisely for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such Questions which we can no more answer than we can make a World The sum is this when we charge any Doctrine with Absurdities and Contradictions we must be sure that we understand the thing for if it be such a thing as we do not and cannot understand the Nature of we may imagine a thousand Absurdities and Contradictions which are owing wholly to our Ignorance of Things SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the Trinity and Incarnation II. LET us now take a view of the Athanasian Creed which this prophane Author makes the Subject of his Drollery and Ridicule and examine whether there be any thing in it which a good Catholick Christian can reject without rejecting the Catholick Doctrines of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY and the Mysterious Incarnation of the SON of GOD for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief and what every Christian who believes these Doctrines must profess then all these Scoffs which are cast upon the Athanasian Creed do indeed belong to the Christian Faith itself if the Trinity and Incarnation be Christian Doctrines As to begin with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Athanasian Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity that is that we worship One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and this all Christians grant to be the Catholick Faith except Arians Macedonians and Socinians and such like Hereticks And how we must worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is explained in the next Paragraph Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance Which must be acknowledged if there be Three Persons and One God for if we confound the Persons by saying that they are all but One Person under Three different Names and Titles or Denominations then we destroy the Distinction of Persons if we divide the Substance by saying that every Person has a separate Divine Nature of his own as every Man has a separate Humane Nature then we make Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men which is to overthrow the Doctrine of One God and therefore the Creed adds For there is One Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the God-head of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the
begotten which is the proper term whereby we express Generation and whereby the eternal Generation of the Son is expressed in Scripture What it signifies we know not any further than this that it is the Eternal communication of the Nature and Image of the Father to him as an earthly Parent communicates his own Nature and Likeness to his Son The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son not made nor created for no Creature not begotten for no Son but proceeding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of which we understand no more than the manner of the Eternal Generation but there is this plain difference between being begotten and proceeding that though the Holy Spirit have the same Nature with the Father and the Son yet he represents the Person of neither as the Son does the Person of the Father as being the brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Person and therefore is said not to be begotten but to proceed But the difficulty of this is with reference to the Dispute between the Greek and Latin Church about the Filioque or the Spirits proceeding from the Father and from the Son the reason why the Latin Church insists on this is to preserve the Unity and Subordination of the Divine Persons to each other The Son is united and subordinate to the Father as begotten by him The Holy Ghost is united and subordinate to Father and Son as proceeding both from the Father and from the Son but if the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father not from the Son there would be no Union and Subordination between the Son and the Spirit and yet the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as of the Father and that these Three Persons be One God it is necessary there should be an Union of Persons as well as One Nature But then the Greek Church confesses That the Spirit proceedeth from the Father by the Son though not from the Son and by and from are such Niceties when we confess we understand not the manner of this Procession of the Holy Spirit as ought to have made no Dispute much less a Schism between the two Churches The Greek Church acknowledges the Distinction of Persons and their Unity and Subordination That there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts that the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped which is all this Creed requires as necessary to Salvation He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity that is must acknowledge and worship a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which the Greek Church does and therefore are not excluded from Salvation in this Creed upon the nice Dispute of the Spirit 's proceeding from or by the Son That which seems to sound harshest in this Creed is what follows And in this Trinity none is afore or after other none is greater or less than another But the whole Three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal And yet this we must acknowledge to be true if we acknowledge all Three Persons to be Eternal for in Eternity there can be no afore or after other and that we cannot conceive an Eternal Generation or Procession is no great wonder when we cannot conceive an Eternal being without any beginning or any cause As for greater or less and the equality of Three Persons this we must confess also if we believe all Three Persons to be one Supream and Soveraign God for in one Supream Deity there cannot be greater or less but then we must distinguish between Subordination and Equality Persons who are equal may be subordinate to each other and though there be not a greater or less yet there is Order in the Trinity Equality is owing to Nature Subordination to Relation and Order which is indeed a greater and less in Relation and Order without an inequality of Nature and it is the Equality of Persons with respect to their Nature not to their Order and Subordination of which the Creed speaks for in this sense the Father is greater than the Son and the Father and the Son than the Holy Spirit as being first in Order but their Nature is the same and their Persons with respect to this same Nature co-equal And now I see no reason to make such Exclamations as some Men do against that damnatory Sentence That except every One do keep this Faith whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly and that he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity which refers to no more than the belief of Three Persons and One God or a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which I take to be the true Christian Faith and as necessary to Salvation as any part of the Christian Faith is but of this more anon Thus much for the Doctrine of the Trinity as for the Doctrine of the Incarnation no Man can reasonably except against that Explication which is given of it in the Athanasian Creed without rejecting the Doctrine it self and then we may as well part with the Doctrine of the Incarnation as with the Athanasian Creed As to shew this particularly For the right Faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man for otherwise the Son of God is not Incarnate has not taken Humane Nature upon him God of the Substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds as he must be if he be God Man of the Substance of his Mother born in the World for he could not be true Man if he did not partake of Humane Flesh and Blood Perfect God and perfect Man for otherwise he were neither God nor Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting for a perfect Man consists of Soul and Body and unless he have both he is not a Man in opposition to those Hereticks who thought that the Divine Nature animated a Humane Body instead of a Soul but that Christ had no humane reasonable Soul though he had a humane Body and therefore was no more a Man than a humane Body without a Soul is a Man but a God cloathed with Flesh and Blood Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead for he is perfect God of the same Substance with the Father and inferiour to his Father as touching his Manhood for a Man is inferiour to God and therefore inferiour to the Father though united in one Person to the Son Who although he be God and Man yet he is not Two but One Christ. One not by the Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking the Manhood into God One altogether not by Confusion of Substance but by Vnity of Person For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ. All this is necessary to the belief of the Incarnation that the same Jesus Christ is both God and Man for if
he be but One Christ he must be God and Man in one Person for two Persons make two Christs and if the same One Christ be both God and Man then the Divine and Humane Nature continue distinct without any mixture or confusion he is perfect God and perfect Man in opposition to the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches the first of whom divided the Persons the second confounded the Natures the first made God and Man two distinct Persons and two Christs the second swallowed up the Humanity in God This may serve for a brief Vindication of the Athanasian Creed that it teaches nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God and I thought fit to premise this to let the World see that all the spight against Athanasius's Creed is not so much intended against that Creed as against the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation which are so fenced and guarded from all Heretical Senses and Expositions in that Creed that there is no place left for Tricks and Evasions And now I come to consider the Brief Notes and to expose the Venome and Blasphemy of them which deserves a sharper Confutation than this And that this Author may not complain of unfair usage I shall examine them Paragraph by Paragraph SECT III. Concerning the Necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a brief History of Athanasius WHosoever will be saved before all things 't is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith A good Life is of absolute necessity to Salvation but a right belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God is in no degree necessary much less necessary before all things He that leads a profane and vicious Life sins against a plain acknowledged Rule and the plain and unquestioned Word and Letter of the Divine Law and the Dictates of Natural Conscience he wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his wickedness But he that errs in a Matter of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all his Error is pure ignorance not a culpable Ignorance For how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Enquiry This I must confess is as artificial an Introduction to these Notes as could have been invented for it makes Faith a very useless and Heresie a very innocent and harmless thing and then Men need not be much concerned what they believe if they take care to live well The Creed affirms That the Catholick Faith is before all things necessary to Salvation if this be true then how vertuously soever Men live they may be damned for Heresie and this is a dangerous point and will make Men too much afraid of Heresie to trade in such Notes as these and therefore this must be confuted in the first place to take off the dread and fear of Heresie Now can we hope that any thing should escape the Censures of such a Critick who will not allow the Catholick Faith to be necessary to Salvation For if the Catholick Faith is not necessary no Faith is and then we may be saved without Faith and yet the Scripture tells us that we are justified and saved by Faith and if any Faith saves us I suppose it must be the Catholick Faith and then whoever does not hold this saving Catholick Faith must be damned So that at best he has placed this Note wrong he should only have opposed the necessity of Athanasius's Catholick Faith to Salvation not of the Catholick Faith in general and yet this seems not to be a mistake but design for his Arguments equally hold against all Faith as well as against Athanasius's Creed and will serve a Turk a Iew or a Pagan as well as a Heretick For if what he says is true He that errs in a Question of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all How comes an Atheist or an Infidel a Turk or a Jew to be in any fault and if they be good Moral Men and many of them are or may be so why should they be damned for their Atheism or Infidelity for their not believing a God or not believing in Christ at all For are not these Questions of Faith whether there be a God and a Providence and whether Christ be that Messias who came from God Or does our Author think that no Atheist or Infidel no unbelieving Jew or Heathen ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed Whatever he can say against their reasonable diligence I doubt will be as easily said against the reasonable diligence of Socinians and other Hereticks If you say he confines this to such Points as have always been controverted in the Churches of God I desire to know a reason why he thus confines it For does not his Reason equally extend to the Christian Faith it self as to those Points which have been controverted in Christian Churches And why then should not Infidels as well have the benefit of this Principle as Hereticks But I desire to know what Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by some Hereticks or other And whether then this does not give sufficient scope to Infidelity to renounce all the Articles of our Creed which have been denied or corrupted by some professed Christians But what he would insinuate in this that these Points of the Athanasian Creed have always been matter of Controversie in the Christian Church is manifestly false as appears from all the Records of the Church The Anti Nicene Fathers were of the same Faith before the Definition of the Council of Nice as the Learned Dr. Ball has abundantly proved this was always the Faith of the Christian Church and those Hereticks who taught otherwise either separated themselves from the Church or were flung out of it and I hope the Disputes of Hereticks against the Catholick Faith shall not be called Controversies in the Churches of God And yet I desire to know why that may not be the Catholick Faith and necessary to Salvation which has always been matter of Controversie Has the Catholick Faith any such Priviledge as not to be controverted Or is it a sufficient proof that nothing is a point of the Catholick Faith which has been disputed and controverted by some or other in all Ages of the Church And if Men of perverse Minds may dispute the most necessary Articles of Faith then if any Faith be necessary it may be of dangerous consequence to err with our reasonable diligence in such necessary and Fundamental Points as are and have been disputed But before I dismiss this Point it may be convenient to instruct this Author if he can use any reasonable diligence to understand how necessary it is to Salvation and that before all other things to
go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under a pretence of teaching them a Creed and Things Divine to despoil them of their Reason the Image of God and the Character of our Nature But let us in two words examine the Parts of this monstrous Proposition as 't is laid down in the Creed itself Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we not but confound the Persons that have say they but One numerical Substance and how can we but divide the Substance which we find in Three distinct divided Persons Our Author should have kept to Athanasius's Creed which he undertook to expose and then we had not heard of this Objection for the Creed does not say that there are Three Persons in One numerical Substance but in One undivided Substance nor does it say that there are Three divided Persons in this One undivided Substance but Three Persons which may be Three and yet not divided but intimately united to each other in one undivided Substance Now tho' we should grant it unconceivable how Three distinct Persons should have One numerical Essence that the Essence of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost should be numerically the same and yet their Persons distinct for it is not easie to distinguish the Essence or Substance from the Person and therefore not easie to tell how there should be but One Substance and Three Persons yet it is no Absurdity or Contradiction to say that Three real substantial Persons should subsist in One undivided Substance and then there is no necessity either to confound the Persons or divide the Substance We must allow the Divine Persons to be real substantial Beings if we allow each Person to be God unless we will call any thing a God which has no real Being as that has not which has not a real Nature and Essence whereas all Men grant there are no Accidents or Qualities or Modes in God but a pure and simple Essence or pure Act and therefore the Three Divine Persons are substantially distinct though in One undivided Substance which shews that to say That the One true God is Three distinct Persons and Three distinct Persons are the One true God is not plainly as if a Man should say That Peter James and John being Three Persons are One Man and One Man is Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Because Peter Iames and Iohn are not only distinct but divided and separate Persons which have Three divided and separate Substances which therefore cannot be One Man as Three distinct Persons in One undivided Substance are One God This is sufficient to vindicate the Athanasian Creed which only asserts Three distinct Persons in One undivided Substance which has nothing absurd or contradictious in it but because this Author founds his Objection upon One numerical Substance let us briefly consider that too for the Divine Essence or Substance is certainly numerically One as there is but One God and the difficulty is how Three distinct substantial Persons can subsist in One numerical Essence I will not pretend to fathom such a Mystery as this but only shew that there is nothing absurd in it and take down the confidence of this vain Pretender to Reason and Demonstration Let us then enquire what it is that makes any Substance numerically One that if there be any Absurdity in this we may find out where it lies Now in unorganiz'd Matter it is nothing else but the union of Parts which hang all together that makes such a Body One whether it be simple or compounded of different kinds of Matter that is One numerical Body whose Parts hang all together In Organical Bodies the Union of all Parts which constitute such an organized Body makes it One entire numerical Body though the Parts have very different Natures and Offices but this is of no use to explain the numerical Oneness of the Divine Essence because the Divine Substance has no Extension and no Parts and therefore cannot be One by an Union of Parts In finite created Spirits which have no Parts and no Extension neither that we know of no more than a Thought or an Idea or a Passion have Extension or Parts their numerical Oneness can be nothing else but every Spirit 's Unity with itself and distinct and separate subsistence from all other created Spirits Now this Self unity of the Spirit which has no Parts to be united can be nothing else but Self-consciousness That it is conscious to its own Thoughts Reasonings Passions which no other finite Spirit is conscious to but itself This makes a finite Spirit numerically One and seperates it from all other Spirits that every Spirit feels only its own Thoughts and Passions but is not conscious to the Thoughts and Passions of any other Spirit And therefore if there were Three created Spirits so united as to be conscious to each others Thoughts and Passions as they are to their own I cannot see any reason why we might not say that Three such Persons were numerically One for they are as much One with each other as every Spirit is One with itself unless we can find some other Unity for a Spirit than Self-consciousness and I think this does help us to understand in some measure this great and venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Vnity For God being present every-where without Parts and without Extension we must strip our Minds of all material Images and Figures when we contemplate the Unity of the Divine Nature Though we should suppose but One Person in the Godhead as well as One God as this Author does yet we must consider his Unity not as the Unity of an infinite Body but an infinite Mind which has no distinct Parts to be united and let any Man who can give me any other Notion of the numerical Oneness of an infinite Mind but Self-consciousness that though present every-where it is still intimate with itself and in the very same way and for the very same reason Three Divine Persons who are as intimate to each other and if I may so speak as mutually conscious to each other as any One Person can be to itself are truly and properly numerically One. This I suppose is what several Ancient Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circumincession which I confess is an ill word and apt to raise very material Imaginations in us as if the Divine Persons were united in One Substance as Three Bodies would be could they touch in every Point whereas we know not what the Substance of an infinite Mind is nor how such Substances as have no Parts or Extension can touch each other or be thus externally united but we know the Unity of a Mind or Spirit reaches as far as its Self-consciousness does for that is One Spirit which knows and feels itself and its own thoughts and motions and if we mean this by Circumincession Three Persons thus intimate to each other are numerically One And
imagine how any Substance should be without a beginning how it should be present in all places without Parts and without Extension how Substance Essence Existence and all Divine Attributes and Powers which are distinct things in created Spirits should be all the same one simple Act in God and yet Reason tells us we must allow of no Composition no Qualities or Accidents in the Divine Nature for a compounded Being must have Parts and must be made for that which has Parts must have some Maker to join the Parts together and to endow it with such Qualities and Powers But now if we consider God as Wisdom and Truth which is his true Nature and Essence without confounding our Minds with some material conceptions of his Substance these things are plain and easie For it is demonstrable that Truth is eternal had no beginning no Maker for when we speak of original and essential Truth and Wisdom what was not always Truth and Wisdom could never begin to be so And if Truth be the only real thing and necessarily eternal there is an eternal Mind which is nothing else but eternal Truth for he who can imagine Truth and Wisdom to be eternal without an eternal Mind ought not to pretend to either unless he can tell us how Truth can subsist without a Mind Thus it is demonstrable that Truth and Wisdom has no Parts no Extension no more than Thought has Truth and Wisdom is confined to no place fills no space but is every-where the same without Extension and Parts and therefore has a necessary and essential Omnipresence There is a faint resemblance of this in finite and created Spirits even humane Wisdom and Reason Thoughts and Passions have no Extension nor Parts which is a good argument that a created Spirit has no Extension nor Parts neither for nothing which has Extension and Parts can be the subject of that which has none All the Qualities of Bodies are extended as Bodies are for the Properties and Qualities of all Things must conform to the Nature of the Subject in which they are and therefore Faculties Powers and Operations which have no Extension or Parts as the Will the Understanding the Memory the Thoughts and Passions have none must be seated in a Subject which has no Parts nor Extension neither Thus Thought is confined to no place but in a Minute surrounds the Earth and ascends above the Heavens and visits all the empty Capacities of infinite space which is an imperfect imitation of the Omnipresence of an Infinite Mind Thus what can be a more pure and simple Act than Wisdom and Truth Now though we conceive the Divine Attributes and Perfections under different Notions and Characters such as Wisdom Love Justice Goodness Power they are indeed nothing else but Infinite Truth and Wisdom which receives several Characters and Denominations from its different effects as the same Sea or River does different Names from the Countries by which it passes For what is intellectual Love but the perfect Idea's of Truth or the true knowledge and estimation of Things What is Justice and Goodness but an equal distribution of Things or a true and wise proportion of Rewards and Punishments What is perfect Power but perfect Truth and Wisdom which can do whatever it knows This last will not be so easily understood because in Men we find Knowledge and Power to be very different things that Men may know a great deal which they cannot do And yet if we consider this matter over again we shall find it a mistake For even among Men it is only Knowledge that is Power Humane Power and humane Knowledge as that signifies a Knowledge how to do any thing are commensurate whatever humane Skill extends to humane Power can effect nay every Man can do what he knows how to do if he have proper Instruments and Materials to do it with but what no humane Power can do no humane Knowledge knows how to do We know not what the Substance or Essence of any thing is nor can we make any Substance we cannot create any thing of nothing nor do we know how it is to be done which shews that Knowledge and Power in Creatures are equal and that proves a very near relation between them especially when we add that Knowledge is not only the Director of Power but is that very Power which we call Force For it is nothing but Thought which moves our Bodies and all the Members of them which are the immediate Instruments of all humane Force and Power excepting Mechanical Motions which do not depend upon our Wills such as the motion of the Heart the circulation of the Blood the concoction of our Meat and the like all voluntary motions are not only directed but caused by Thought and so indeed it must be or there could be no motion in the World for Matter cannot move it self and therefore some Mind must be the first Mover which makes it very plain that infinite Truth and Wisdom is Infinite and Almighty Power So that if we set aside all material Images of Essence and Substance and contemplate God as Eternal Truth and Wisdom the Notion of a God is very plain and easie as far as we are concerned to know him in this state The same cause has confounded and perplext the Notion of a Trinity in Unity and given occasion to some vain and arrogant Pretenders to Reason profanely to deride and ridicule that most Sacred and Venerable Mystery They puzzle and confound themselves with some gross and corporeal Idea's of Essence and Substance and how Three Divine Persons can subsist distinct in the same numerical Substance but would they but consider the Three Divine Persons as Three Infinite Minds distinguished from each other by a self-consciousness of their own and essentially united by a mutual consciousness to each other which is the only way of distinguishing and uniting Minds and Spirits and then a Trinity in Unity is a very plain and intelligible Notion Now certainly this is much the most reasonable way For what the Essence and Substance of a Spirit is when we distinguish it from Understanding and Will which we call the Powers and Faculties of a Spirit for my part I know not no more than I do what the naked Essence and Substance of Matter is stript of all its Qualities and Accidents as I observed before the naked Essences of Things are not the Objects of our Knowledge and therefore it is ridiculous to dispute about them to say peremptorily what is or what is not in matters which we know nothing of And therefore as we frame the Notion of Bodies from their external and sensible Qualities so we must frame the Notion of a Spirit from its intellectual Powers of Will and Understanding c. and when we dispute about the distinction or union of Spirits we must not dispute how their Substances which we know nothing of can be distinguisht or united but how two Minds considered as intellectual
perfect or which has all possible Perfections which has no other end of its Perfections but Perfection itself that is a finite imperfect Being that wants any Perfections that is an infinite Being not which has no end of its Perfections but which actually has all Perfections and can be no more perfect than it is For there is a measure of the most absolute and in this sense infinite Perfections before which no Being is absolutely perfect and beyond which there are no new degrees of Perfection for if we do not grant this there can be no Being absolutely perfect As for Instance Infinite Wisdom Knowledge Goodness Justice Power have fixt and set bounds to their Perfections beyond which they cannot go Infinite Knowledge and Wisdom knows all things that are knowable and that are wise infinite Goodness can do all things which are good infinite Justice is perfect Justice which observes the exact proportions of Right and Wrong infinite Power can do all things which can be done To know what is not to be known to do what is not to be done to be good or just beyond the perfect measures of Goodness and Justice is a contradiction for it is neither Wisdom nor Power nor Goodness nor Justice The Nature of Wisdom Power Justice and Goodness is fixt and determined and the utmost bounds of them is absolute perfection The Divine Nature is the Original Rule and Standard and utmost bounds of them and therefore absolutely perfect These Perfections indeed may be called infinite in the Negative sense with respect to us that we know not what the utmost extent of them are We know not how far infinite Wisdom and Power and Goodness reaches but then we certainly know that they have their bounds and that the Divine Nature is the utmost bounds of them for nothing can be a Rule and Measure of absolute Perfections but the Divine Nature itself Now this gives us a positive Notion and Idea of God though we cannot comprehend his absolute Perfections we as certainly know what God is as we know what Wisdom Knowledge Power Goodness Justice signifie but how wise how good how powerful God is we know not because we do not know the utmost extent of these Perfections I must now add that there can be no absolute Perfections but those of a Mind such as I have so often mentioned Wisdom Power Goodness As for Matter it is so imperfect a Being itself that it cannot be the subject of absolute Perfections Nothing which belongs to Matter is a Perfection considered in itself Extension is no Perfection no more than the dimensions of a Body are to be long or broad or deep to be little or great which may be Perfections or Imperfections as it happens with relation to the just measures and proportions of different Bodies for either greatness or littleness may make different things monstrous and therefore neither of them are either Beauties or Perfections themselves for what is in itself a Perfection is always so Extension is of no use but where there is a multitude or diversity of Parts and such a compound Being can never be absolutely perfect because it is made of Parts which are not absolutely perfect as no Part can be and ten thousand imperfect Parts can never make up an absolute perfect Being And if what is infinitely perfect can have no Parts it needs no Extension and can have none for what is extended has assignable Parts whether they can be divided or not Omnipresence is a great and unquestionable Perfection but to be Omnipresent by infinite Extension if such a thing could be would be no Perfection at all for this would be to be present only by Parts as a Body might be which is infinitely extended and a Body is a capable of infinite Extension as any Man can conceive a Spirit to be and yet if a Spirit be Omnipresent only by infinite Extension the whole Substance of that Spirit is not present every where but part of it in one place and part in another as many Miles distant from each other as the places are where such parts of the Omnipresent Spirit are This all Men will confess to be absurd and yet if the whole Mind and Spirit be present every where it is certain it is not present every where by way of Extension for the whole Extension of an infinitely extended Spirit is not present every where And if Omnipresence itself cannot be owing to infinite Extension no Man can tell me why an infinite Mind should be extended at all For Extension itself is no Perfection Much less do any other Vertues and Qualities of Bodies deserve the Name of Absolute Perfections and therefore we must seek for Absolute Perfection only in a Mind perfect Wisdom Knowledge Power Goodness Justice make an absolute perfect Mind there are no other absolute Perfections but these and therefore there can be no other absolutely perfect Being but an infinite Mind But besides this we may observe that all these absolute Perfections by a mutual consciousness may be entire and equal in three distinct infinite Minds There is no contradiction that three infinite Minds should be absolutely perfect in Wisdom Goodness Justice and Power for these are Perfections which may be in more than One as Three Men may all know the same things and be equally just and good but Three such Minds cannot be absolutely perfect without being mutually conscious to each other as they are to themselves for if they do not perfectly know each other as they know themselves their Wisdom and Knowledge is not absolutely perfect for they do not know all things if they do not perfectly know one another and there can be no such perfect knowledge of each other without a mutual consciousness This shews not only the possibility of this Notion that Three distinct infinite Minds should be mutually conscious to each other but the necessity of it if there be Three such infinitely perfect Minds for they cannot be infinitely perfect without being conscious to one another Thus to proceed This Notion plainly reconciles the perfect equality of all Three Persons with the Prerogative of the Father and the Subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit That all Three persons are perfectly equal in Knowledge Wisdom Goodness Justice Power is evident from their mutual consciousness whereby they all know love and do the same things which is a perfect equality But this does not destroy the natural Subordination of the Son to the Father of a derivative to an original Light as Christ is called in the Nicene Creed God of God Light of Light For though God has communicated his own Nature to him and received him into his Bosom to an intimate consciousness with himself which makes him the perfect Image of his Father yet he receives all this from his Father by eternal Generation he is a Son still though equal to his Father in all Divine Perfections and therefore subordinate to him as a Son and the
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
Knowledge which took the Patterns of things for the new World and gave Being to them and therefore God made the World by his Son and begotten Wisdom who doth all things by seeing what the Father doth as the Father doth all things by seeing himself in his reflex and begotten Wisdom for the Father and the Son are one single Energie and Operation This is that eternal Word and Reason that true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world which communicates the light of Reason and the eternal Idea's of Truth to Mankind This is that Son who reveals the Father to us and acquaints us with his secret Counsels for the Salvation of Sinners This is that Word which became Flesh and dwelt among us who hath undertaken the Work of our Redemption and is become the Wisdom of God and the Power of God to Salvation to them that believe for all the natural Communications of Wisdom and Reason all the new Discoveries of the Divine Wisdom whatever the Divine Wisdom immediately does must be done by this begotten Wisdom that is by a reflex Wisdom which is the Principle of Action and Execution and therefore as God made the World by his Word so also he redeems the World by his Incarnate Word this being as immediate an effect of the Divine Wisdom and Counsel as his Creation of the World As for the Holy Ghost whose Nature is represented to be Love I do not indeed find in Scripture that it is any where said that the Holy Ghost is that mutual love wherewith Father and Son love each other but this we know that there is a mutual love between Father and Son The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hands And the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doth And our Saviour himself tells us I love the Father And I shewed before that love is a distinct Act and therefore in God must be a Person for there are no Accidents nor Faculties in God And that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person is sufficiently evident in Scripture for he is the Spirit of God who knows what is in God as the Spirit of Man knows what is in Man and he is the Spirit of Christ who receiveth of the things of Christ and his peculiar Character in Scripture is love which shews us what he is in his own Nature as well as what he is in his Effects and Operations for Nature and Energy is the same in God It is by the Holy Spirit that the Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 5 Rom. 5. The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us For this Spirit is the essential love of God and therefore both inspires us with the love of God and gives us a feeling sense of God's love to us He is the Spirit of the Son the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father and which cries in our hearts Abba Father The Spirit of the Son that is of the eternal and only begotten Son that very spirit whereby the eternal Son calls God Father whereby the Father owns the Son and the Son the Father that is that essential Love which is between Father and Son and therefore wherever this Spirit of the Son is it will call God Father will cry Abba Father that is is a Spirit of Adoption in us for the eternal Spirit of the Son dwells only in Sons by our Union to Christ who is the eternal Son of God we become his adopted Sons and as such the Spirit of the Son dwells in us And therefore the fruits and operations of the Spirit answer this Character For the fruit of the Spirit is love joy peace long-suffering gentleness goodness meekness which are the communications of the Spirit of Love This shews the difference between generation and procession between being a Son and the Spirit of God Generation as I observed before is a reflex Act whereby God begets his own Image and Likeness it is God's knowledge of himself which to be sure is his own perfect Image and the living essential Image of God is his Son for to be a Son is to be begotten of his Father's Substance in his own Likeness and Image But the Divine Spirit or this Eternal Love proceeds from God is not a reflex but a direct Act as all Thoughts and Passions are said to proceed out of the Heart a reflex Act turns upon it self and begets its own likeness but Love is a direct Act and comes out of the Heart and thus does this eternal Love proceed from God besides this eternal Love is not the Image of God but his eternal complacency in himself and his own Image and therefore is not a Son begotten of him but the eternal Spirit which proceeds from him It is true this eternal subsisting Love which is the third Person of the Trinity has all the Perfections of Father and Son in himself for Love must have the perfect Idea of what it loves and therefore this subsisting Love must have all those Perfections in himself which are the Eternal Object and Cause of this Eternal Love but his essential Character is Love and though Love has the whole Divine Perfections in it self yet it has them not as a Son not as the Image of God This gives a plain Account also how he is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son and according to the Profession of the Latin Church proceeds both from Father and Son for this Divine Love eternally proceeds from God's reflex Knowledge of himself or seeing himself in his own Image he loves himself in his Image and therefore the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son that is from the Original and the Image by one undivided Act as every man loves himself in that Idea and Image he has formed of himself in his own Mind And no man will wonder that the Creation of the World is ascribed to the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father and Son for it is Eternal Love which gives Being to all things which is the Author and Giver of Life without which Infinite Wisdom and Power produces no One Effect Original Wisdom contains the Ideas of all Things and begotten Wisdom can frame the Natures of Things according to the Original Ideas of the Divine Mind but it is Love which gives Being to them 6. From hence it is clear That these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God as these Three Powers of Understanding Self-reflexion and Self-love are one Mind for what are meer Faculties and Powers in created Spirits are Persons in the Godhead really distinct from each other but as inseparably United into One as Three different Powers are essentially united in One Mind There is a vast difference indeed between them as there is between God and Creatures the Mind is but One the
Faculties and Powers more but these being only Faculties and Powers neither of them is a whole entire Mind the Understanding alone is not the whole entire Mind nor Reflexion nor Love but the Mind is whole and entire by the union of them all in One but these being Persons in the Godhead each Person has the whole Divine Nature The Son has all that the Father has being his perfect and natural Image and the Holy Spirit is all that Father and Son is comprehending all their infinite Perfections in Eternal Love and they are all the same and all united into One God as the several Faculties and Powers are in One Mind 7. For this proves that these Divine Persons are intimately conscious to each other which as I before showed makes them One numerical God for as the same Mind is conscious to all its own Faculties and Powers and by that unites them into One so where there are Divine and Infinite Persons instead of Faculties and Powers they must be mutually conscious to each other to make them all One God 8. This proves also that though there are Three distinct Persons there can be but One Energie and Operation Father Son and Holy Ghost is the Maker and Governour of the World by one inseparable and undivided Energie neither of them do nor can act apart as the several Powers of the Mind all concur to the same individual Action Knowledge Self-reflection and Will do the same thing which is the Effect of Knowledge brought into act by Reflection and Will and yet the Effect may be ascribed to Knowledge and ascribed to Will as the making of the World is to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost not separately to either but as they act in Conjunction and produce the same Effect by One individual Energie and Power 9. This proves also that Father Son and Holy Ghost must be co-eternal as the several Powers and Faculties must be co-temporary and co-exist in the same Mind Understanding cannot be without a Power of Reflection nor that without Will and Love And I suppose no man will say that there could be any imaginable instant wherein God did not know and love himself This Account is very agreeable to what St. Austin has given us who represents the Father to be Original Mind the Son his Knowledge of himself and the Holy-Spirit Divine Love as I have done and gives the very same Account of their Union Cùm itaque se mens novit amat jungitur ei amore verbum ejus quoniam amat notitiam novit amorem verbum in amore est amor in verbo utrumque in amante dicente When the Mind knows and loves it self its Word is united to it by Love and because it loves its Knowledge and knows its Love its Word is in Love and Love in its Word and both in the loving and speaking or knowing Mind This is the Eternal Generation of the Son Itaque mens cùm seipsam cognoscit sola parens est notitioe suoe cognitum enim cognitor ipsa est when the Mind knows it self it is the sole Parent of its own Knowledge for its self is both the Knower and the Thing known that is the Son is begotten of the Father by a reflex Knowledge of himself and he gives us the same Account of the Difference between Generation and Procession that One is a new Production if I may so express it inventum partum repertum that is the Production of its own Image of its own Wisdom and Knowledge by Self-reflexion the other comes out of the Mind as Love does and therefore the Mind is the Principle of it but not its Parent Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam in eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium undè procedit ab ipsa quidem mente procedit quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet atque ita principium est amoris sui quo se amat sed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea sicut notitia sui quâ se novit quia notitia jam inventum est quod partum vel repertum dicitur quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura This I hope is sufficient both to explain and justifie this Doctrine which is the great Fundamental of the Christian Religion of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that Account I have given of it It must be confessed that the ancient Fathers did not express their Sense in the same terms that I have done but I will leave any indifferent and impartial Reader to judge whether they do not seem to have intended the very same Explication which I have now given of this venerable Mystery As for the Schoolmen they generally pretend to follow the Fathers and have no Authority where they leave them Sometimes they seem to mistake their Sense or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own The truth is that which has confounded this Mystery has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis Person and the like which some of the Fathers used in a very different Sense from each other which sometimes occasioned great Disputes among them not because they differed in the Faith but because they used words so differently as not to understand each others meaning as Petavius has shewn at large The more pure and simple Age of the Church contented themselves to profess the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that there was but One God and Three who were this One God which is all the Scripture teaches of it But when Sabellius had turned this Mystery only into a Trinity of Names they thought themselves concerned to say what these Three are who are One God and then they nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were Three Persons but One Nature Essence and Substance but then when men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other they were very unapplicable to this Mystery for what is the Substance and Nature of God How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence The Deity is above Nature and above terms of Art there is nothing like this mysterious Distinction and Unity and therefore no wonder if we want proper words to express it by at least that such Names as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures should not reach it I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and distinctions but that is a work of greater difficulty than use especially to ordinary Christians and I have drawn this Section to too great a length already to enter upon that now SECT VI.
Reason tell us That Three Divine Persons cannot be One God if my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it and therefore when the Scripture assures us that there is but One God as Natural Reason teaches and that this One God is Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost this contradicts nothing which Reason teaches but adds something which Natural Reason could not discover which is the proper use of Revelation Scripture teaches that there is but one God and that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God Reason teaches that there is but One God but does not teach that there are Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead nor does it teach that there are not and therefore though the Scripture teaches more then Natural Reason does which I suppose may be allowed by these Adorers of Reason yet it teaches nothing contrary to what Natural Reason teaches nay these men can not graft any Contradiction upon it without perverting the Faith of the ever blessed Trinity as it is taught in Scripture and has always been taught in the Catholick Church that is to find a Contradiction their business is to prove that these Three Divine Persons each of which is God must be Three distinct Gods and then Three distinct Gods cannot be One God this I grant and their Argument is unanswerable to those who own these Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods but what is that to us who teach that they are not Three distinct Gods but One God as the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church always taught and as of necessity we must teach if we believe a Trinity in Unity so that there is no Contradiction is not our Faith for that which they make a Contradiction is not our Faith but a Contradiction to our Faith as well as to common Sense and Reason Well! but if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore it may be either without contradicting the Natural Notions we have of One God and then here is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches that there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which in Scripture have not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God for what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then their Objection against this Faith that these Three Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous for it is demonstrable that if there be Three Persons and One God each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three distinct Gods but One. For if each Person be not God all Three cannot be God unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God and if all Three are but One God they cannot be Three distinct Gods so that whoever believes the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods does not believe a Trinity in Unity and whoever believes a Trinity in Unity cannot believe Three distinct Gods and if there be a Trinity in Unity each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three Gods but One God and now let him go look for his Contradiction in the belief of Three Persons and one God and when he has found it let me hear from him again So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question How can these things be and if I could give him no other Answer I should think it a very good one to say God knows Must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend though it be expresly taught by God himself Must we deny what we read in the Bible to be there because Reason does not teach it and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its Allusion to ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. for there is no other good Reason to be given for any Exposition but that the Words signifie so and the Circumstances of the Place and the apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictates of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it well say they then you must expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must expound Scripture according to the use and signification of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture no no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I perswaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I would not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them to put our own sense on Scripture without respect to the use of Words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to make it is not to learn from Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such Matters as are confessedly above Reason as the infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must expound it as I do other Writings for
Nature is a meer Creature a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal or Prerogative Acts of Government and Power must not every Being be represented by one of his own Kind a Man by a Man an Angel by an Angel in such Acts as are proper to their Natures and must not God then be represented by One who is God Is any Creature capable of the Government of the world does not this require infinite Wisdom and infinite Power and can God communicate infinite Wisdom and infinite Power to a Creature or a finite Nature that is can a Creature be made a true and essential God if our Adorers of Reason can digest such Contradictions as these I hope they will never complain of Absurdities and Contradictions more A God without infinite Perfections is only a Titular and Nominal God and to say that Creatures may have all the Perfections of God is to say that God can make an infinite Creature which has a thousand times greater Contradictions than the most absurd Explication of the Trinity can be charged with for then a true and real God may be a Creature then the Divine Nature is not eternal but may be created then the Divine Nature is not numerically One but if the first God so pleased he could make a world of Gods as well as of Angels or Men. If then this Kingdom to which Christ is advanced cannot be administred without infinite Wisdom and Power then he is by Nature a God for otherwise all Power in Heaven and Earth could not have been committed to him because he was not capable of it could not administer it and would God choose a King who could not administer the Government of the World nor do any thing towards it And yet the Difficulty remains if he be by Nature the Son of God and the Natural Lord of the World how is he said to be exalted by God and to receive a Kingdom from him as the Reward of his Sufferings when he was already possessed of it ever since the Foundations of the World being the Natural Lord of all Creatures and therefore had no need to receive that which was his own or purchase what was his Natural Right by such mean and vile Condescensions as suffering Death upon the Cross. And therefore rightly to understand this we must consider the Nature of Christ's Kingdom that it is not meerly the Natural Government of the World but a Mediatory Kingdom God is the Supreme and Natural Lord of the World King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the only Ruler of Princes and while God governed the World only as its Natural Lord the Son had no distinct Kingdom of his own but in Conjunction with his Father For though there always were Three Divine Persons in the Godhead yet the Father being the Fountain of the Deity the Government of the World was administred in his Name But Mankind quickly Apostatized from God forfeited immortal Life corrupted their Manners and defaced the Image of God upon their Souls and the Government of God considered only as our Maker and Soveraign Lord could give no hope nor security to guilty sinners and this made a Mediatory Kingdom necessary to reconcile God and Men and to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature and this Power and Dignity God bestowed upon his own Son who had the most right to it and was best qualified for it being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father but he must first become man and publish the Will of God to the World and make Expiation for Sin and then he should rise again from the dead and set down at the right hand of God And therefore we may observe that all this Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church God hath put all things under his feet and given him to be Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him which filleth all in all That is he has made him the Governour of the whole World as Head of the Church For the Salvation of Mankind required the Government of the World to be put into his Hands that he might restrain the Power and Malice of wicked Spirits and destroy the Kingdom of Darkness and imploy good Angels in the Service and Ministeries of his Church as the Apostle tells us They are ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of Salvation That the Government of this lower World might be administred by him with a peculiar regard and subserviency to the great ends of his Spiritual Kingdom For the Church of Rome is so far in the right that the Supreme Head of the Church must be Supreme in Temporals too in ordine ad spiritualia but their fault is they give this Power to a vicarious Head which is due only and can be administred only by Christ who is the true Supreme Head of all things to his Church The Government of Israel was a Type of this The Kingdom of Israel was originally a pure Theocracy God was their King and governed them almost as visibly by his Priest his Oracles his Judges whom he extraordinarily raised up as a Temporal King governs his Subjects But in time they grew weary of the Government of God and desired a King like other Nations upon which God tells Samuel They have not rejected thee but rejected me that I should not reign over them But yet he complies with their Desires in giving them a King and their King was peculiarly God's Anointed and God's King who ruled God's People and Inheritance by God's peculiar and delegated Authority for the Government of Israel did not cease to be a Theocracy when they had a King for they were God's People and Inheritance still but now the King was between God and the People whereas God governed them more immediately before And therefore as David was a Type of Christ so his Kingdom was typical of the Kingdom of Christ Yet have I set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion which seems to have some aspect on David though it received its just Acomplishment in Christ and hence the Kingdom of the Messias is called the Throne of his Father David not that Temporal Kingdom which David governed for his Kingdom was not of this World but that of which David's Kingdom was a Type and Figure the Government of the Church who are God's People of whom the carnal Israel was a Type which he rules by a vicarious but a Soveraign Authority for God and in his name and stead This gives a plain account how God may give this Kingdom to his Son and that as the Reward of his Sufferings It may be a Gift because it is not a Natural Right for it is not a Natural Kingdom but erected by the Wisdom and Counsel of God for the Salvation of Sinners and it must be the Reward of his Sufferings because it is a Sacerdotal Kingdom which is founded in the
have put down all Rule and all Authority and Power and when all things shall be subdued unto him then shall the Son also be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all That is the Son shall no longer have a distinct Kingdom of his own but shall return to his Natural Subordination to his Father and reign with Father and the Holy Spirit One God blessed for evermore there shall no longer be any distinction between God and a Mediator but God shall be all in all This is the best Account I can give of that Kingdom which the Son receives from the Father and which he delivers up to the Father again and these Socinians must think themselves very great Wits or the rest of Mankind very great Fools who hope to prove that Christ is not God because he received a Kingdom when it is such a Kingdom as none but a God can receive or administer But to proceed 3. His next Argument is That Christ it not God because He is a Mediator between God and Men a Priest that appeareth in the Presence of God and intercedeth with him for men This he needed not have proved because all Christians own it only the Socinians make him a metaphorical Priest which indeed is no Priest But this I have answered already He is a Priest after the Order of Melchizedec King of Salem and Priest of God that is he is a Sacerdotal King and this Sacerdotal or Mediatory Kingdom proves him to be God not a meer Creature Advocate or Intercessor 4. His next Argument is That he receives Authority from God is sent by God came to do the will of God And this I have also already answered 5. His next Argument consists in applying such things to the Divinity of our Saviour as belong to his Humanity That he increased in Wisdom he should have added Stature too but that had been ridiculous because it had discovered the fallacy for to be sure Stature does not belong to a God and in favour with God and Men and why did he not add that he was born and was an Infant and Child and by degrees grew up to be a Man that he knows not the Day of Iudgment which he evidently speaks of himself as Man as all the ancient Fathers confess In St. Mark it is said But of that day and that hour knoweth no man no not the Angels that are in Heaven neither the Son but the Father St. Matthew does not mention the Son Of that day and hour knoweth no man not the Angels of Heaven but my Father only Which shews that the Son in St. Matthew is included in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none or no man and therefore concerns him only as a man for the Father includes the whole Trinity and therefore includes the Son who seeth whatever his Father doth But of this more hereafter That he knew not where Lazarus was laid because he asks Where have ye laid him And yet this very Jesus knew without asking at a distance and some days before that Lazarus was dead which would tempt one to guess that he might know where they laid him too though it was decent to ask What his next Text refers to I know not For how the Father being always present with him to confirm that testimony he gave of himself by miraculous Powers proves that he is not God I cannot tell that he was tempted by the Devil proves that he was a Man but does not prove that he was not God and that he would not be called good by those who thought him no more than a man or that he took this occasion to instruct them what an infinite distance there is between the essential Goodness of the Divine Nature and the Goodness of Creatures I think does not prove that he is not God 6. His sixth Argument is to the same purpose That God giveth what and to whom he pleaseth he needs not the aid of any other he entreateth not for himself and his people he cannot die and deriveth his Power from none but himself But 't is certain that the Lord Christ could not himself without the praevious ordination of the Father confer the prime Dignities of Heaven or of the Church or any thing else if he pleases for he does nothing but what he sees his Father do he placed his safety in his Fathers presence and help he prayed often and fervently to the Father both for himself and for his Disciples He died and was raised from the dead by the Father After his Resurrection he had received of another that great Power which he now enjoyeth Now all this we grant and have answered already which partly refers to the oeconomy of the Incarnation and partly to his Natural Subordination to his Father But to give a more full and plain Answer and to prevent all such Objections for the future it will be necessary briefly to state this Matter also Now this Author is certainly so far in the right that the One Supreme God has all Authority and Power can need no help from any other can receive no Commands no Power from another has no need to pray to any other to intercede for himself or others can dispose of all things as he pleases and to whom he pleases accordingly this One Supreme God Father Son and Holy Ghost receives no Power or Authority from any other Being intercedes with no other Being stands not in need of the help of any other neither prays for himself or others to any other Being Well! but the Son prays to the Father interceeds with the Father receives Authority from the Father disposes of all things by his Father's Will What then then the Son is not the One Supreme God Why so He interceeds with no Creature receives Authority from no Creature c. nor from any God neither separated from himself for he is One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost that he interceeds with the Father proves indeed that he is a distinct Person from the Father not that he is not One God with him If each Divine Person be God none of them can interceed with or receive Authority from any separate Being for then there must be some separate God above them and then they are not the Supreme God but if there be Three distinct Divine Persons in the Godhead and an order and subordination between these Divine Persons I see nothing to hinder why One Person may not interceed with another and receive from another To show the fallacy of this I will frame another Argument exactly like it which may do our Socinians a kindness in helping them to a new Argument and who knows but that such great Wits as they are may make it a good one and it is this The One Supreme God is not and cannot be begotten of any other nor proceed from any other and therefore the Son who is begotten
whence all Influences of Grace are derived into the Body and though this be not a personal Union it is next degree to it for we are Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone and a Personal Union makes no difference in the manner of Operation though it does in the Measures and Degrees the Divine Word acts by and in conjunction with the Holy Spirit and therefore sanctifies his own Human Nature as he does his mystical Body the Church by the Operations and Influenences of the Holy Ghost 10. And this Answers his next Argument That the Miracles of Christ are attributed to the Holy Ghost or to the Father dwelling in him for Father Son and Holy Ghost act together as Christ tells us My Father worketh hitherto and I work 11. His next Argument is Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophesies of the Old Testament in which he is promised would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses the Servant and Missionary of God on whom God's Spirit should rest That our Saviour ought to have been thus described though he had been more than a Man is plain enough because he was to be all this the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses but a much greater Prophet for Moses was faithful in all his House as a Servant but Christ as a Son over his own House But what he insinuates that he is barely thus described shews That this Author will never loose a Cause by over-much Modesty for we with all the Christian Church and we have the Authority of Christ and his Apostles for it too say That he is described in the Old Testament also not only as the Seed of Abraham but as the Son of God Of which more presently His next Attempt is against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost but here is little that requires a distinct Answer it being only the Repetion of his old Fallacies 1. That the Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are spoken of as one and the same thing And what then His intended Conclusion I suppose is that the Holy Ghost is not a Person which is the Intention of his second Argument but this is so novel and ridiculous a Conceit too sensless for any of the ancient Hereticks that it ought not to be seriously confuted but despised for it is as easie to prove the Father and the Son to be no Persons as the Holy Spirit He is the Spirit of God which searcheth the deep things of God and he who knows all that is in God is a knowing Mind but to dream of Power and Inspiration in God distinct as he confesses from God and no Person is to attribute such Powers and Faculties to an infinite Mind as there are in created Minds to compound God of Mind and Intellectual Powers and Faculties which all Men of sense have scorned the thoughts of what are Faculties in us are Persons in God or else God is not a pure and simple Act as I showed above Which shows the vanity of his Pretence That the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Person by the same figure of Speech that Charity is described as a Person 1 Cor. 13.4 5. and Wisdom 9 Prov. 11. For these natural or acquired Powers and Habits are said to do that which the Person who has them and acts by them does as Charity suffereth long and is kind because a charitable man does so c. And if we will allow such Habits and Powers in God the Case may be somewhat parallel for when we have compounded God of Substance or Essence or Faculties or Powers we may then find figurative Persons in God as there are in Men. This is certain all Personal Acts belong to a Person and therefore whatever has any Personal Acts ascribed to it we must conclude is a Person unless we know by some other means that it is no Person and then that proves the Expression to be figurative Thus we know Charity is no Person but a Grace or Vertue and therefore when Personal Acts are attributed to Charity as to suffer long and be kind c. we know this is a figure but it is ridiculous hence to conclude That the Holy Ghost who has Personal Acts ascribed to him to work Miracles to raise the Dead to comfort to convince to sanctifie the Church to dwell in the Church as in his Temple c. is yet no Person because Charity which we know to be no Person has Personal Acts ascribed to it which is as much as to say That because Personal Acts are sometimes used figuratively therefore they must never be properly expounded whereas on the other hand we must never expound any thing figuratively but where the subject will not admit of a proper sense If it were as known and certain that the Holy Ghost is no Person as that Charity is none then there would be reason to allow a figure but to prove that the Holy Ghost is no Person only because Personal Acts are sometimes figuratively attributed to that which is no Person is a maxim only in the Socinian Logick which is nothing else but a System of absurd and ridiculous Fallacies 2. His second Argument against the Spirit 's being God is this A manifest distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself This has been answered already as to the distinction between God and Christ and the same Answer will serve for the Holy Spirit But this Confession of the Socinian confutes his whole Hypothesis and proves the Holy Spirit to be a Person and a God He says the Holy Spirit is distinct from God so distinct that 't is impossible he should be God himself then say I this Holy Spirit is either a Divine subsisting Person or nothing but a Name If this Spirit were a Divine Vertue and Power as he would have it then it is not distinct from God but is God himself as the Powers and Faculties of the Mind though they may be distinguished from each other yet they can't be any thing distinct from the Mind but are the Mind it self and therefore if the Spirit as he says be represented in Scripture as so distinct from God that 't is impossible he should be God himself then he must be a distinct Divine Person and not the meer Power of God which is not distinct from God himself If the Spirit be distinct from God and not God himself and yet have Personal Acts ascribed to him then he must be a distinct Person for Faculties Vertues and Powers have Personal Acts and Offices ascribed to them only upon account of their unity and sameness with the Mind in which they are which is a Person and acts by these Powers but a Power which is distinct from
next place let us consider the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel which gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ and a plain demonstration of the incurable perverseness of Hereticks In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God Our Historian tells us The Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictory 'T is this In the beginning i. e. from all Eternity Answ. From all Eternity is before the beginning or without beginning not in the beginning Reply This is false No man expounds in the beginning of Eternity but when St. Iohn tells us In the Beginning was the Word we say this proves the Eternity of the Word for that which was when all things began which had a beginning was it self before the beginning and without beginning especially when it was so in the beginning that it gave beginning to every thing else that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made Was the Word i. e. was God the Son Answ. But where in Scripture is the Word called God the Son Reply This Word indeed is God the Son but we do not Paraphrase it so in this place In the beginning was God the Son but in the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word The Word was with God i. e. The Son was with the Father Answ. It seems then that God in this Clause is the Father But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost and is not he too according to the Trinitarians God or a God If he is why doth St. John only say The Son was with the Father and how comes the Father to engross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Holy Ghost Rep. This is true also the God with whom the Word was is the Father but that is not his Character here neither no more than the Character of the Word is the Son But by God the Apostle here means that Original mind and Wisdom that Supreme and Soveraign Being whom all men called God without making a distinction of Persons in the God-head And therefore whereas he thinks that he has got the Trinitarians at an Advantage when the Apostle adds and the Word was God his triumph is vain What says he shall we do here was the Word the Father for so they interpreted God in the foregoing Clause No! no! neither so nor so The Word was God signifies the Word was a Divine Person in the Godhead and the Verse is very plain In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God intimately and inseparably united to him and that not as a Faculty or Power as Reason is in Human Minds but as a Divine subsisting Person for the Word was God God is the Name of a Being absolutely Perfect and the Light of Nature teaches us that there is but One such Supreme Being or but One God but Nature does not teach us that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God though when Revelation has discovered this Mystery natural Reason is able in some measure to understand it and see the necessity of it as I have already shewn and if there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Reason will tell us that each Person is God though all Three Persons are but One God This is the Trinitarian Hypothesis and if the words of the Evangelist do easily and naturally agree with this Hypothesis and cannot reasonably signifie any thing else that is a sufficient Argument to me that this is the true Interpretation of the Text In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That is In the beginning of all things was the Divine Person whose Name and Character is The Word this Word was inseparably united to that Supreme Being whom we call God and was himself God a Divine Person subsisting in the Vnity of the Godhead not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man Can any thing be more easie and obvious and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity Or if you change the Subject and the Praedicate as others will have it and read God was the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it makes no difference at all for this Supreme Being whom we call God was and is the Word though not Only the Word for God is the Father and God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost though God is not only the Father nor only the Son nor only the Holy Ghost but the Supreme God is Father Son and Holy Ghost Now when the Evangelist had said That the Word was God or God was the Word there was great reason to repeat the same was in the beginning with God which our Historian thinks a meer Tautology for the intention of it is plain to inculcate more expresly on us that though the Word be God yet the Word is not all that God is as Grotius well observes for the Word was with God and therefore a distinct Person from some other Person who is callâ—d God that is that Eternal and Original Mind and Wisdom who is the Father of the Word And why the Name of God should peculiarly be appropriated to the Father as the Fountain of the Deity I have often observed But yet the Evangelist does in this Verse say something more than he said before and therefore this is no Tautology He had said That the Word was in the beginning that it was with God that it was God now he adds The same Word was in the beginning with God that is was always with him never separated from him and this is added for the sake of what follows That the Word was so with God in the beginning that God made the World by his Word For all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made which was made which is another very mysterious Repetition which nothing can give so plain an Account of as our Hypothesis All things were made by him this is full enough without the following addition nay indeed signifies more than what follows in strictness and propriety of Speech seems to do for that nothing was made without him of it self does not signifie that he made all things but that he had something to do in it as he may have who is not the principal Actor But our Doctrine gives a plain account of this Addition when the Evangelist had said That this Word who was with God in the beginning made all things there was an obvious Objection viz. then it seems that God with whom the Word was did not make the World if all things were made by the Word to have attributed the Creation of the World to the Word so as to have excluded God from making the World had been very absurd and contrary to the sense of Mankind God made the World by his Word the Word made all
this Word of whom all these things are said be a Divine Person or only the communicable attribute of Wisdom and Power in God and this after what I have said I leave to any man of common understanding to determine But what becomes of his beloved Socinus all this while when the very Master-piece of his Wit and Invention is rejected by his own Disciples for if this Socinian be in the right his Master was greatly in the wrong By the Word he understands a Person but One who is the Word not by Nature but Office by the beginning he understands the beginning of Iohn the Baptist's Preaching in this beginning the Word was that is Christ was in being was in the world when Iohn the Baptist began to preach a great discovery But he was with God known to God only at that time which is very hardly true and was God by Dignity and Office not by Nature All things were made by him not created the world was not made by him but all things are new made by him that is all who believe in him are made new Creatures and after a great many great things said of this Word at last the Evangelist discovers this great Mystery the Word was made Flesh that is the Word was a Man If this be not ridiculing Scripture nothing is I am sure it represents the Evangelist very ridiculously to tell the World that Christ who was half a year younger than Iohn was in the world when Iohn began to preach but how great a Person he was and what his Office was was then known only to God Which if it were true is no great Mystery and to say this in such a mysterious pomp of words as there is nothing like it in all the Scripture is such a vain affectation as no School master but an arrant Fop would endure in a School-boy I shall not go about industriously to confute that which they themselves begin to be ashamed of but shall only lay down one rule of expounding Scripture and all other Writings which is a very reasonable one and will easily answer all the Art and Fallacy which is used in this Cause and that is this to expound all words and phrases to a proper and literal sense and to the utmost extent of their signification where the Circumstances of the place do not require a figurative and limited sense if we do not allow this there is no certain rule of expounding but men may interpret according to their own Fancies and Imaginations to any sense that the word was ever used in and then we may make any thing of any thing even a good Catholick of Socinus himself Now according to this Rule in the beginning must signifie the first beginning of all things for that is beginning in its utmost Latitude and that is the proper signification of beginning when there is nothing to limit it and there is nothing here Was the Word must signifie the Word did subsist and therefore is a Person God must signifie God by Nature which is the first and proper signification of the Word not a Metaphorical God by Dignity and Office for there is nothing to incline it to that sense All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made must signifie the first Creation of all things when God made the world by his word for that is the proper Notion of making all things to give being to them and as there is nothing in the Text to require any other sense so its relation to in the beginning when God made all things by his word determines it to this sense This is all true and certain if it be a good Rule to expound words in a proper sense when there is nothing that requires an improper and metaphorical sense And then it is nothing to the purpose to show that in the beginning sometimes signifies the beginning of the Gospel that God sometimes signifies a metaphorical God that making all things sometimes signifies new making all things for all this I allow when the Circumstances of the place require it when there is any thing added to determine these words to this sense but will never allow it where there is not and therefore cannot allow it here and if we must expound these words properly in this place there is an end of this Controversie But I must hasten to a Conclusion and therefore this shall serve at present as a Specimen how these men pervert Scripture and impose forced and ridiculous senses on it and by the help of what I have now discoursed it will be easie to detect all their other Fallacies and rescue the Scriptures from their perverse Comments as I shall be ready at any time to shew when I find a just occasion for it Secondly Socinianism as reasonable and accountable a Doctrine as our Historian says it is makes the Jewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable The Jewish Worship was External and Ritual but very pompous and mysterious and had there not been something very Divine and Mysterious praefigured by it it had been no better than a Childish piece of Pageantry unworthy of the Wisdom of God unworthy of the Nature of Man But the New Testament assures us that all these mysterious Ceremonies were Types of Christ and were accomplished in him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge or in whom are all the hidden Treasures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of wisdom and knowledge that is all those Treasures of wisdom and knowledge which were formerly hid and concealed under the Types of the Jewish Law for they were but a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. And yet if Christ were no more than a meer Man the Antitype falls very short of the Types I shall instance at present only in the Temple and its Worship and Ministers The Tabernacle and Temple was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence and was so contrived as to be a Figure both of Heaven and Earth for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us that the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven into which the High Priest only entred and that but once a year to make Expiation and therefore the other Courts of the Temple which were for their daily worship did represent the Earth on which men worship God for God being the Maker and Soveraign Lord of the world who has Heaven for his Throne and Earth for his Footstool it was fitting the House where he dwelt should be an Emblem and Figure of the whole world But we must all confess that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence to dwell in a House made with hands to appoint this the peculiar place of his worship ordinarily to accept no Sacrifices but what were offered there c. Had it not praefigured something more Divine and Mysterious
Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication might well say But will God indeed dwell on the Earth Behold the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Thee how much less this House that I have built The Temple then was a Figure and we must enquire what it was a Figure of Now a typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signifie nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of something that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence Now our Saviour calls his Body the Temple Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which St. Iohn tells us He spake of the Temple of his Body The Temple then which was God's House where he dwelt was but a Figure of Christ's Body Christ's Body then was that in truth and reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's visible Presence on Earth But God was not visibly present on Earth unless he were personally united to Human Nature that the Body of Christ was the Body of God or of the Divine Word by as true and real an Union as any man's Body is his Thus God may be personally and visibly present among men as a man though his Soul be as invisible as the Deity is yet visibly present by his Union to a visible Body But if Christ be not God incarnate if the Divine Word be not personally united to Human Nature the Body of Christ is but as figurative a Temple as the Temple at Ierusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor is in Speech God was as really present in the Temple as he was in Christ without a personal Union for God fills all places and is really present every where but yet was peculiarly present in the Temple to peculiar ends and purposes to hear Prayers to accept their Sacrifices and Oblations to give forth his Oracles and Responses and if Christ be but a meer Man he dwells no otherwise in him but by Inspiration and though Christ was more perfectly inspired than the Jewish Oracle this does not alter the Nature of God's Presence does not make one a typical and figurative the other a real Presence for God is really present in both but not personally united to either The typical Presence of God in the Tabernacle and Temple is not opposed to a real Presence by real and sensible Effects but to a visible Presence God is present every where but he is invisibly present but as he had chosen Israel for his peculiar People and Inheritance so he would dwell visibly among them but this could be done no other way but either by taking a visible Body or by some instituted signs of his visible Presence the first he would not do yet but intended to do in the fulness of time which his own infinite wisdom had appointed for it and in the mean time did praefigure this visible appearance of God on Earth in Human Nature by some visible Symbols of his Presence by a visible House wherein he dwelt by a visible Throne or Mercy-Seat and by placing a visible Oracle among them So that the Temple as a Type was a Type and Figure of God's visible Appearance and dwelling upon Earth and therefore if it was a Type of Christ's Body as Christ himself tells us it was God did visibly dwell in Christ by a Personal Union for nothing else can make God visible but a Personal Union to a visible Nature To this St. Iohn plainly alludes when he tells us The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacled among us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Ierusalem by his dwelling personally in Human Nature and we beheld his Glory that is says our Historian the glory of the man on whom the Word did abide and inhabit in him But St. Iohn says it is the glory of the Word made Flesh the glory of the Word as of the only begotten of the Father did shine in Human Nature there were visible signs of the Glory of the Incarnate Word This glory he says was beheld in his Miracles and in his Transfiguration and on many other occasions very many indeed in his Life and Doctrine especially for how would they have the glory of the Incarnate Word seen but by the visible Operations of it in Human Nature How does a Human Soul discover its glory but by visible Actions Thus our Saviour tells us that he is greater than the Temple I say unto you in this place is one greater than the Temple Now the Temple was God's House and figurative Presence and if he were greater than the Temple God dwelt in a more perfect manner in him that is he was not a symbolical visible Presence of God which was all he could be had he been no more than a man but a visible God even the Lord of the Temple as the Prophet Malachi assures us Behold I will send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come into his Temple even the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye delight in behold he shall come saith the Lord of Hosts This Messenger all men own was Iohn the Baptist The voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths straight Now our Historian confesses he prepared the way for Christ and God says he shall prepare the way before Me which proves that Christ is this Lord of Hosts for whom Iohn was to prepare the way but that I at present intend is that he for whom Iohn was to prepare the way is the Lord of the Temple for it is called his Temple Now we know the Lord Jehovah was the Lord of the Temple for the Temple was God's House dedicated to his Name and Worship he dwelt in his Temple before by Types and Figures but now he was to come visibly and personally into his Temple and therefore he might well say he was greater than the Temple since he was the Lord of it that Incarnate God of whom God's dwelling in the Temple was a Figure and which had been a very empty and insignificant Figure unworthy of the Wisdom and Majesty of God had it not praefigured the mysterious Incarnation of the Son of God Thus as God had a Typical House so he had a typical High Priest and typical Sacrifices That the High Priest who once a year entred into the typical Holy of Holies was a Type of Christ who entred into Heaven The Apostle teaches us 9 Hebr. that the Jewish Sacrifices were typical of
And adds The very truth is they cannot otherwise defend the Incarnation or Personal Vnion of an infinite God to a finite Man This is Gibberish which I do not understand but this I do understand which I suppose is the meaning of it if it have any meaning That an Eternal Being who has no beginning and no succession of Being may Coexist with time and that an infinite Mind who has no parts or extension is present every where without extension This I have sufficiently discoursed already and refer my Reader to it But he has a thundring Argument against this But withal it must be owned that then the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation do infer imply and suppose all the Contradictions that Mr. Johnson has objected to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation I hope not all for that is a very good Discourse and I only wish for the Author's sake si sic omnia but pray what is the matter His whole Book and all his Demonstrations are founded upon these two Suppositions That a longer time doth not all of it coexist in a shorter nor is a greater extension constipated or contained in a less Suppose this for I have forgot what his Demonstrations are and have not the Book now by me what is this to the Trinity and Incarnation though a longer time cannot all of it coexist in a shorter which I hope is not so loosly expressed by Mr. Iohnson because it is not sense for time is in a perpetual flux and nothing of it exists but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what is this to an Eternal Being's coexisting with time without time or succession Though a greater Extension cannot be contained in a less what is this to an infinite Mind's being present every where without Extension for here is no Comparison between a longer and shorter time but between Time and Eternity which is not Time nor Succession nor between a greater and less Extension but between a finite and infinite Mind neither of which have any Extension But suppose the worst how does this concern the Doctrine of the Incarnation If he could tell how to apply all the Demonstrations of Mr. Iohnson which he tells us in Print he forbears to do because the Press is not open to them these Absurdities and Contradictions would not fall upon the Doctrine of the Incarnation but upon the Notion of an Omnipresent God who has no Parts nor Extension which was not invented to salve the Difficulties of the Incarnation but is the true Notion of God and his Omnipresence who is not Omnipresent by Parts but is every where a perfect and infinite Mind and if he can ridicule God out of the World we will quarrel no more about the Incarnation I do not at all wonder that he boasts so much what Follies and Contradictions he could discover in the Athanasian Creed for a man who cannot understand common Sense can never fail of finding Follies and Contradictions 2. He proves That the Vnion between God and Man cannot make one Person as the Vnion of Body and Soul does because the Vnion of Soul and Body is not the Vnion of Two Persons but only of One Person the Soul to a thing otherways without Life Reason Memory or Free-will But in the pretended Vnion of God with Man there are Two distinct and very different Lives Memories Reasons and Free-wills which utterly destroys a Personal Vnion for that supposes but One Life One Reason One Memory One Free-will Now this is false as to matter of Fact for though we will allow the Soul to be the Person yet by its Union to the Body it has two sorts of different Lives Wills Affections Appetites Reasons the Animal and Sensual and the Rational Life Will Appetites a Carnal and a Spiritual Reason that is two different Principles of Flesh and Spirit as much as if every Man had two Souls So that there may be two Lives two Wills c. in the same Person and it makes no difference in this Case whether these two Wills be seated in two different Subjects or the same Soul by its vital Union to Matter have two distinct Wills and Reasons and therefore we must find out some other Notion of a Personal Union than this that one Person can have but one Will one Reason c. for it is plain one Person may have two Wills and Reasons and if he may have two he may have three according to the number and diversity of Natures which are united into One Person Now when I inquire what it is that unites different Natures into One Person I do not mean what it is that naturally unites them neither what the natural Union is between Soul and Body in the Person of Man nor of God and Man in the Person of Christ for this we know nothing of and therefore no pretended Contradictions and Impossibilities in this shall hinder my belief of it as I discoursed in the first Section But how two different Natures may be so united as to make but One Agent for One Agent is One Person Now there are but two things necessary to this 1. That these different Natures be so united that the superior Nature have the Government of the whole Person unless there be One governing Principle there cannot be One Agent and therefore not One Person and the superior Nature must be the Governour and the Person as this Author tells us the Soul is the Person in man as being the superior governing Principle and in the Soul Reason has the natural government of Sense as being the superior Faculty proper to a Spirit whereas Sense results from its Union to Matter And thus in Christ the Divine Word is the Person and in this Personal Union of God and Man has such a government of Humane Nature as Reason has over Sense in Man and therefore St. Iohn tells us That the Word was made Flesh or was Incarnate for the Person of the Word took Humane Nature into a Personal Union with himself And this is the Reason why all the Actions and Passions of Humane Nature are attributed to Christ as the Son of God because the Word is the Person to whom Humane Nature is united and who has the sole government of it as all the Sufferings and Actions of the Body are attributed to the Man though the Soul is the Person because it is the superior and governing Power and constitutes the Person 2. To compleat a Personal Union it is necessary there be One Consciousness in the whole As a Man has a conscious Sensation of every thing which is done or suffered either by Body or Soul feels its own Reasonings and Passions and all the Pains and Pleasures of the Body and in this Sense there must be but one Life in one Person and this own Consciousness to the whole is the One Life But then we must observe That where different Natures are united into One Person this universal Consciousness to the whole Person is seated
shew you things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Of which words more hereafter at present I only observe how intimately the Holy Spirit is acquainted with all the Secrets both of Father and Son whatever things the Father knows that the Son knows and what the Son knows that the Holy Spirit knows that is whatever the Father knows which is first said to be the Father's then the Son 's and then the Holy Spirit 's according to the Order of Persons in the adorable Trinity Thus the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Love which inspires us with the love of God and gives us the reciprocal Testimonies of God's love to us For the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us 5 Rom. 5. And as some of the Ancients represent it he is that love wherewith the Father and the Son love each other and therefore there is no question but that he who unites Father and Son and unites God to us and us to God by love is united to Father and Son by love himself He is that Holy Spirit who renews and sanctifies us and subdues our wills into a conformity and subjection to the will of God and therefore no doubt but he has the same will with Father and Son Thus Father Son and Holy Ghost are most intimately united in knowledge will and affection but after all this is no more than what we call a Moral Union such as may be between created Spirits which remain separate Beings still and though they are morally are not essentially One and therefore such an Union as this cannot make Father Son and Holy Ghost One God but Three agreeing and consenting Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn though they should in the most perfect manner be united in the same Faith and mutual love and affection c. yet would be Three Men still And therefore I must now shew that what is merely a Moral Union between Creatures is an essential Union between the Persons of the Ever Blessed Trinity And this I have already shewn in part The Three Divine Persons of the Ever Blessed Trinity are united in knowledge in will in love but are not united as Creatures are by an external likeness conformity agreement consent in knowledge will and affection but are so united to each other as every Man is to himself not as one Man is to another As for instance Every Man by an inward sensation feeels his own knowledge will and affections but he does not know any other Man's thoughts or will or passions by feeling them in himself as he does his own but by an external communication of thoughts and therefore though they may be morally One by an exact agreement and harmony of thoughts and passions as far as by external communication they can know what each others thoughts and passions are yet they are essentially distinct and separate But Father Son and Holy Ghost are One not by an external agreement or consent but by an internal consciousness as every Man is One with himself If I may so speak because we want proper words to express it they feel each other in themselves know the same thing by feeling each others knowledge and will and love a-like by feeling what each other wills and loves just as every Man feels his own thoughts knowledge will and passions that is are as intimate to each other and as essentially One by a mutual Self-consciousness as every Man is One with himself And the phrases and expressions of Scripture whereby the Unity or Oneness of Father Son and Holy Ghost are expressed require this sense Thus I observed before that the Son is the eternal word and wisdom of the Father and therefore as intimate to him as every Man's Reason is to himself and knows the Father not by external Revelation but as every Man knows himself But the most frequent expression whereby Christ represents this close and intimate and essential Union between his Father and him is I am in the Father and the Father in me which he repeats several times in St. Iohn's Gospel Now if we will allow this to be a proper not a metaphorical expression it can signifie no other Union than what I have now described That it is a proper and not a metaphorical expression appears from this that there is no such Union in Nature between any two other Beings as this to be in One another and a Metaphor is translated from something that is real and natural upon account of some likeness and similitude and therefore that which is like to nothing else which has no pattern and example can be no Metaphor because it alludes to nothing Now if we speak of a substantial Union or a Union of Substances what two Substances can there be in the World which can mutually be in each other or can mutually comprehend each other which is indeed a palpable contradiction as signifying at the same time to be greater and to be less than each other for in substantial Unions that which comprehends is greater than that which is comprehended that which is within any thing else is less than that which contains it and therefore for two Beings mutually to comprehend and to be comprehended by each other is to be greater and less than each other greater as they comprehend each other and less as they are comprehended So that this Oneness between the Father and the Son is such an Union as there is nothing in Nature like it and we cannot long doubt what kind of Union this is if we consider that there is but one possible way to be thus united and that is by this mutual Consciousness which I have now described If the Son be conscious in himself of all that the Father is as conscious to the knowledge to the will to the love of the Father as he is to his own by an internal sensation then the whole Father is in the Son if the Father be thus conscious to all that the Son is then the whole Son is in the Father if the Holy Ghost be thus conscious to all that is in the Father and in the Son then the Father and the Son are in the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost in the Father and the Son by this mutual Consciousness to each other This is very plain and intelligible and makes them as much One as every Man is One with himself by Self-consciousness And this is a plain demonstration that all Three Divine Persons are coessential and coequal with each other We know nothing of God but that he is an infinite Mind that is infinite Knowledge Wisdom Power Goodness And if these Three Divine Persons are all internally conscious of all these Perfections which are in each other they must all have the
same Perfections the same Knowledge Wisdom Power Goodness that is the same Nature unless that Knowledge Wisdom Goodness which we are internally conscious of and feel within ourselves be not the Perfections of our Nature whereas we may externally know those Perfections which are not ours but what we feel in ourselves is our own and therefore this mutual Consciousness makes all that is the Father 's the Son 's and all that is the Son 's the Holy Spirit 's as our Saviour speaks All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I that he the Spirit shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you 16 Iohn 15. And if these Three Persons be thus mutually in each other as you have already heard they must be all equal for if the Father be in the Son how can the Son be less than the Father if he comprehends the Father and all his infinite perfections If Son and Holy Ghost are in the Father and Father and Holy Ghost in the Son and Father and Son in the Holy Ghost imagine what inequality you can between them if Son and Holy Ghost are conscious to all the infinite Perfections which are in the Father and have all the Perfections they are conscious to how can Son and Holy Ghost be less perfect than the Father or then each other I am sure our Saviour attributes all his Wisdom and Knowledge and Power to his intimate conscious Knowledge of his Father which he calls seeing him which is such a knowledge as Creatures cannot have of God 5 Iohn 19.20 Verily verily I say unto you the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do for whatsoever things he doth those also doth the Son likewise For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doeth and he will shew him greater works than these that ye may marvel By this perfect conscious Knowledge which the Son has of the Father he has all those Perfections in himself which are in the Father he can do whatever he sees the Father do and he sees whatever the Father does but can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do He has all the Perfections which are in the Father and therefore can do whatever he sees the Father do but there is no knowledge no perfection no power in the Son which is not in the Father and which he does not receive from the Father and therefore he can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do which signifies the most perfect equality between the Father and the Son founded on the Son's seeing the Father and whatever he doth or his intimate Consciousness of all that the Father is And this is the true Notion of the Son 's being the Image of his Father The brightness of his Father's glory and the express Image of his person 1 Heb. 2. For as a dead Image and Picture represents the external Lineaments and Features of the Person whose Picture or Image it is that we can see the Person in his Picture so a living essential Image is the living essential perfections of the Father and with a conscious knowledge sees the Father in himself For this reason the Son is said to hear of his Father to see what his Father doth and to do the same to receive commandement from his Fatber to do the will of his Father and the works of his Father to finish the works which his Father gave him to do to glorifie his Father c. Which must not be expounded after the manner of Men as the Socinians expound such expressions and thence conclude the great inferiority inequality subjection of the Son to the Father such as there is between a Prince and the Ministers he employs and that therefore the Son cannot be the Supream God for the Supream God cann't be commanded taught sent on Messages to fulfil the will and pleasure of another and do nothing but what he sees done and receives Commission to do I say we must not put such a mean and servile sense on these expressions but we must expound them only to signifie that the Son receives all from the Father Life Knowledge Will Power by Eternal Generation and whatever he does he does with a Consciousness of his Father's Will and Wisdom as it were feeling the Will and Wisdom and Power of his Father in himself and this he calls hearing and seeing the works of the Father receiving Commands and doing the Works of the Father because his Nature is that to him which external Teachings ' and verbal Commands are to Men he hears he sees he does the Works and Will and Commands of his Father by being the perfect living self-conscious image of his Father's Will and Knowledge and infinite Perfections But there is one place more I must take notice of by which the Socinians think to overthrow all that I have now said that the Union between the Father and Son is not such an essential Unity as we speak of but a meer moral Union or a perfect agreement and consent in knowledge will and affection such as is or ought to be among Christians and that our Saviour himself has thus expounded it 17 Iohn 20 21. Neither pray I for these alone but for them also which shall believe on me through their word That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be One in us Which is the very expression I have so much insisted on to prove this essential Union and Self-consciousness between the Father and the Son As thou Father art in me and I in thee which it seems signifies no other kind of Union than what our Saviour prays for among Christians That they also may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee Now the Union of Christians is only an Union in Faith and Love and One Communion and therefore thus the Father and the Son are One also by a consent and agreement in Knowledge Will and Love Now this I readily grant as I observed before that Father and Son are One by a most perfect agreement in Knowledge Will and Love which we call a Moral Union between Men and it is this Unity or Oneness for which our-Saviour prays that his Disciples may be One as the Father and he are One that they may perfectly agree in the same Faith and Love that they may speak the same things and mind the same things But then this perfect harmony and consent between the Father and the Son results from an essential Unity from their being in one another which is such an Union as it is impossible there should be between Christians but this Moral Union in the same Faith and mutual love is called being One as the Father and Son are One because it is the nearest resemblance of this essential Unity that can be between Creatures and that is the only meaning of As That they may be One