place and exercise my Faith in God aright how to pay my Duties and Worship to him and consequently to my Salvation But now I am arrived at the Borders of the Controversy betwixt the Trinitarians and the Vnitarians the Athanasians and nick-nam'd Arians But to pass my Task 't is requisite to give yet a further Description of this One most High God which following Description is said to be drawn from Scripture consequences but is much more plainly set down in words at length in other Authors 1. I shall first cite the Athanasian Creed on this Subject The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says thus I believe in One God the Father Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God begotten of the Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made of one Substance with the Father by whom all things were made And in the Holy Spirit the quickening Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son and in like manner is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son and who spake by the Prophets 3. Next I shall cite the first of the 39 Articles of the Church of England There is but One living and true God c. and in Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity 4. Next I shall cite Mr. Joseph Wright in his Book intitul'd Brief Animadversions on five Articles pag. 2. So that we did then and do hold that there is One only true and living God the Father Son and Holy Spirit all three of the very same Divine Nature and Being And in the same Book pag. 3. lin 28. When we say these three are one we did and now believe that the Father Word or Son and Holy Spirit are all three of the same Divine Nature and Being from everlasting to everlasting the Creator and Governor of all things One only true and living God in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons Thus far Mr. Wright 5. Next I shall cite Dr. Owen in his Book intituled The Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated printed An. 1669 pag. 29. In the Declaration of this Doctrine unto the edification of the Church there is contained a further explanation of the things before asserted as proposed directed and in themselves the Object of our Faith namely how God is one in respect of Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being How being Father Son and Holy Ghost he subsisteth in these three distinct Persons And Pag. 112. The distinction which the Scripture reveals between Father Son and Holy Spirit is that whereby they are three Persons distinctly subsisting in the same Divine Essence or Being Now a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property subsisting in an especial manner as in the Person of the Father there is the Divine Essence or Being with its Property of begetting the Son subsisting in an especial manner in the Father and because this Person hath the whole Divine Nature all the essential Properties of that Nature are in that Person Page 122. Seeing here that the name of God supplies the place of a Species tho it be singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely singular and One and cannot be multiplied yet in respect of communication it is otherwise it is communicated unto more 6. I shall cite next Mr. John Preston in his Book intitul'd Life eternal or a Treatise of the Knowledg of the Divine Essence fourth Edition printed 1034 page 48 49. If there be two things in God then there is Multiplication now all Multiplication ariseth from some Imperfection from some want and defect for if one would serve two would be needless if one Medicine would cure two would be unnecessary so in all things else So that the reasâ—n of Multiplication is because one will not serve the turn Therefore God being all-sufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and entire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further thus Wheresoever there is any composition there must be two or three things so that there may be a Division they are separable tho not separated But where Division is there may be a Dissolution and so Destruction though it never be But of God we cannot say that this may be and consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most entire Being without all Composition and Multiplication If God be not simple there must be parts of which he is compounded but in God blessed for ever there are no parts because then there should be Imperfection for every part is imperfect I shall cite one Author more and then make some use of the whole 7. Mr. Thomas Monk in his notable Book of the Trinity intituled A Cure for the cankering Error Pag. 55. has these words Not to the end it should make a Multitude of Gods or divide the Essence but to distinguish the Persons because tho there be one Person of the Father another Person of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost yet the Father is not another thing or another God distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost neither is the Son another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost neither is the Holy Ghost another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Son because the Nature of God is but one and indivisible although the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another and therefore they are not of divers natures of another and divers Substance not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence the same Eternity the same Will the same Operation c. And page 57. ' Qu. Be there any parts or kinds in God Answ None at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit no Composition or Division and simply and in every respect of Unity one Having given you this Description of the Most High God both from the Holy Scriptures and those Authors I shall now come to make that use of it which at first I promised and intended and that is to shew that there is no essential but only a circumstantial difference in the Apprehensions of the Parties before named concerning the Most High God and the Description here given of Him Only note that that which concerns the difference about the Son and Holy Ghost will be here spoken unto but occasionally and in short
finding none Why where is it What is become of it that great difference that hath troubled the World and Church so many hundred years and set good men together by the ears Toâ—th and Nail occasion'd a great Volume of hard bitter sharp biting Words against each other and yet you see we are all agreed about the main Matter Substance or Essence of the most High nay and in all the essential Properties of him too And yet can there be any material difference about him notwithstanding that 's strange how can this thing be Why yes yet there is a difference but whether a material one or no must be left to my considering Reader to judg It is not whether this Divine undivided Essence about which and all its essential Properties we are fully agreed whether I say it subsist in one Divine Person For this is also jointly agreed on all hands as I shall presently shew But it is this Whether it subsist only in One Divine Person or both in One and also in like manner in Three The Orthodox is for the latter the Heretick affirms the former Thus near are we come and I doubt not anon to shew you that we are yet nearer than all this But first I 'll demonstrate this tho first of all we must treat of the word Person what in this Controversy is understood by it And because I am a little at a loss to explain the thing I will therefore give you Dr. Owen and Mr. Monk's Description First Dr. Owen if you look back to the first Quotations of him Now says he a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property of subsisting in an especial manner Secondly Dr. Hall as I find him quoted by Mr. Monk Page 46. of his Cure for the cankering Error hath these Words We may think here of one Substance in three Subsistences one Essence in three Relations one Jehovah begetting begotten proceeding Father Son Spirit yet so as the Son is no other thing from the Father but another Person or the Spirit from the Son Also Mr. Monk in his 63 page propounds this Question How doth the word Essence differ from the word Person in God his answer is Essence is the Nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them not without them subsisting by it self to wit the very Deity it self And therefore the essential Properties which be in them are one in number of one nature Now Person is the subsisting in the Divine Nature or the nature of God which having relation to others is distinguished by some incommunicable Properties for indeed the Persons are only distinguished not severed as indeed three men are indeed separated tho they be one in kind The Reason is because the Essence of God is infinite and impartible and therefore it is all in every Person which are not severed one from another but only distinguished amongst themselves But as for the Essence of Angels and Men it is finite and partible so that it is not all in every single Person but part in one and part in another One Passage he hath in page 39. Fourthly All the Attributes whether relative negative or positive or if any other in that they proceed from the Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person The Father is eternal the Son is eternal the Holy Spirit is eternal because the whole Essence is in every one of them I need not cite any more because so far as I am able to distinguish Dr. Owen Dr. Hall and Mr. Monk have spoken the general sense of all that have writ on this Subject And now having shewed you the Description that these men give if I can tread right in this narrow Path I will try to give you according to the best of my judgment the sense of what they mean by the word Person or Persons in the Divine Essence First then I do suppose by Person here is not intended a distinct separate Being from the Essence or from one another nor yet a distinct spiritual Substance for this were to divide the Substance into three distinct divided Persons Neither must it be supposed that Person hath a distinct Mind or Will from the Essence or the other Persons for that will necessâ—rily imply three or four Minds and Wills in the Most High which would be absurd Neither must the Person have any one part of the Divine Essence peculiar to it self for that would divide the Essence into parts and the Divine Properties also and so bring all into confusion as hath been shewn therefore Person must be supposed to be something not at all separated from any part of the Essence or of the other Persons Therefore says Mr. Monk Essence is the nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them and therefore concludes that the essential Properties which be in them are one in number that is that the essential Property of Love and the essential Property of Mercy and the essential Property of Justice and all the rest are all and whole in one Person and all and whole in another And therefore elsewhere says That all the Attributes both relative negative and positive or any other of the Divine Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person So that in short the thing is this that a Person separate from Essence is nothing but is only the whole undivided Essence subsisting in a certain manner or mode that is in one manner in the Father in another manner or mode in the Son and in another manner in the Holy Ghost that is not three distinct intelligent Beings but only one infinite intire distinct intelligent Being subsisting in three undivided inseparable Manners or Modes And this is the general sense so far as I was ever able to discern of all the Authors that ever I read on this Subject But if this be the Knot of the Controversy about the most High God perhaps some will say it is dark I say perhaps so too very like it may be so else what 's the matter think you that so many Men who have long been loving Friends and good Men yet by this Controversy have had their Eyes so blinded that they could not see one another with an Eye of Charity And what else should be the reason that in the Churches where it hath been controverted there hath oftentimes arose such a Mist and thick Darkness that many could not see their Seats at the Lord's Table And if any shall ask me the meaning of the matter I must answer with Mr. Monk page 43. That the perfect manner how one person is in
his Exaltation ver 33. and v. 36. concludes Know assuredly that God hath made the same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ Here you see Peter omits no material thing he speaks of his Merits They that call on him shall be saved his Death Resurrection Exaltation receiving Empire and Honour God hath made him Lord but not one word of his being essentially God and so on that account the Object of Divine Worship which yet had it been so material a Point as is now thought did deserve as much to be preached as any of the other Likewise in his second Sermon Acts 3. he preaches Christ from Vers 13. to the end yet not one word of his being essentially the most High The like iâ— to be observed in the fourth Chapter Manâ— places I might run over but for brevity sake I shall only take notice of two more one is where Peter iâ— sent to tell Cornelius what he ought to believe and do Acts 10. vâ—rs 36. he lets Cornelius know that Jesus waâ— Lord as before he told the Jews God had â—ade him both Lord and Christ He tâ—â—ls him that God had sent the Message of Peace by him he tells him he was the Anointed of God he tells him he was a Miracle-Worker which shewed that God was with him he tells him of his Death and Resurrection he testifies him to be the same the Prophets prophesied of to come he preaches Remission of Sins through Faith in his Name he declares him to be ordained Judg of Quick and Dead but not one word that he is to be worshipped as essentially God Most High which had it been a point of Faith would surely have been told Cornelius and the Gentiles Likewise when Paul informs the ignorant Athenians Acts 17.31 after he had described the true God he describes Christ distinct from God as the ordained Judg of the World but speaks not of his Godhead My second Reason is Because as he is Christ he is distinguished from God and an Officer under him and therefore so as he is Christ to be believed in saying of himself his Father is greater than he and than all the Scriptures that direct us in our Faith in Christ direct us to understand his Office but seem to be silent concerning his Essence Neither doth Christ any where require us to worship him as the most High but we are to pray to give thanks and perform our Homage to the most High through Jesus Christ as the new and living way consecrated for us But thirdly nothing is Christ but what is anointed for Christ in plain English signifies anointed Now the Divine Essence was not anointed nor incarnate for who should anoint it unless we will say the Divine Essence anointed the Divine Essence with the Divine Essence Some will say that that is absurd and verily except we have a mind to fall into the contradictory ridiculous Opinion of the Quakers I think we can plead at most for no more than this viz. that the second Person of the Trinity was incarnate and anointed and not the Divine Essence it self And if ye will not believe me believe Mr. Tho. Monck in his Cure for the cankering Error pag. 98. where he tells you we always distinguish betwixt the Essence of the Son and the Person saying the Essence is one with the Father but not his Person Therefore we say his Person was begotten not his Essence and we also say his Person took Flesh of the Virgin Mary not his Essence and therefore it was the Person of the Son that was born of her not the Father nor the Spirit for tho the Essence of the three be one yet the Persons be distinct and pag. 114. he reckons up the Absurdities will else follow viz. that the Father was he that took Man's Nature upon him was tempted of the Devil suffered Hunger and Thirst was buffeted and scourged of the Jews and put to death by wicked hands is greater than himself sent himself into the World he gave himself a Seat at his own Right Hand he is the express Image of himself c. and many other Absurdities he reckons up these may suffice Now I humbly conceive Divine Homage and Adoration is to be given to the Essence of the most High and not to a particular manner of its subsisting to wit to a Person which yet is all which is or was anointed according to Mr. Monck's Opinion But then I know it will be said that each Person and so the second Person contains in it all the Essence Let it be so I will allow that in the Person of Christ dwelt all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily according to Col. 2.9 But then it must also be allowed that the Essence dwelt there as something distinct from the Anointed and not as the Anointed it self It must also be allowed that the most High dwelt in Christ incognito as some great Princes appear in foreign Courts and Places incognito that is tho they are personally present yet they decline to receive those Royal and Princely Honours due to their Character receiving them only or chiefly in their Palace Royal. So tho the Almighty dwell in the Person of Christ yet we are not taught to say our Father who art in the Person of Christ but our Father who art in Heaven which Expression he desires we should use while the Person of Christ was on Earth And we have before shewn that we are to worship the Divine Essence as subsisting all and whole in the Person of the Father neither are we any where commanded or directed to say our Son who art in Heaven or our Spirit who art in Heaven hallowed be thy Name but only our Father And since the Divine Essence seems not to desire us to worship him under the Denomination or in the Person of the Son I think it safest for us to worship him as truly and wholly subsisting in the Person of the Father and under that Denomination Besides the Names of Son and Spirit howsoever with respect of Essence they are believed to be God yet I say these Names seem to distinguish them from God and do denote them as Officers under God Therefore it is said the Father is greater than I and than all the Son knows not the Day and Hour of Judgment but the Father only Likewise the Spirit when he comes he shall not speak of himself but what he hears that shall he speak From the whole I conclude that the Christ of God ought in our Faith concerning him to be distinguished from God himself and that whatever may be said of the Divine Essence dwelling in Christ yet nothing was Christ but what was anointed and that only the Person was anointed or was incarnate according to Mr. Monck's Opinion And further that whatever Divine Essence dwelt in Christ or was Christ yet the proper place to pay Adoration to it is in the Person of the Father and that he that worships the Father
because I shall treat more largely distinctly and directly of them in their proper place Whereas I am now precisely treating of the Most High God But to the end that a plain Discovery of the Difference concerning the Most High which hath made such a Noise and Confusion in the World in many Ages and in our times may appear I shall state the Sum of the case in this one short Question Whether the most Glorious Eternal Intire Vncompounded Vndivided Vndividable Essence of the one Most High God do at the same time and at all times from Eternity to Eternity subsist all and whole both in one Person and also in like mâ—nner in three Persons or all and whole only in one Person Our dividing Brethren are for the first part of this Question and our accuâ—â—d Brethren are for the latter part thereof That this is the Sum of the Difference and that this Diffâ—rence is only Ciâ—cumstantial is now my business to make appear which I shall endeavour to do partly from the former Description and Quotations partly from the natural force of our Opinions and partly from further Quotations But in the first place give me leave to treat a little in the Negative Let us first observe where the difference is not The Question controverted is not whether or no any of the Idols of Israel of old or any of the Multitude of the Aegyptian Gods or antient Heathen Deities formerly worshipped by them or the false Deities worshipped by Infidels in foreign Parts now I say the Question is not whether any of these be the true God or no. Neither is the Question whether the glorious Essence or Godhead which the Scripture says is in Heaven whether He alone and only He be the Most High God and that we ought to pay our duty to none but Him and such as He shall delegate under him for these things are owned on all hands Neither is it at all questioned on either hand whether there be above one Most High God or whether his Essence be infinite eternal independent all Wisdom Power Greatness Holiness Justice Love Mercy Knowledg Bounty Goodness Truth Perfection Nay in all the Essential Properties of the Divine Nature which Holy Scripture and Reason do teach there is still a joint Consent and Agreement on all hands Where then is the difference as to cause so loud a noise of Heresy Heresy these Men deny the Foundation of all Christian Religion and Worship nay deny the true God! Why let us consider a little since there is an agreement about and in all the essential Properties of the true God and an Agreement which Essence is the true God Is there any known material difference about the Essence it self the matter of it let us examine No we find none here neither for that it is an intire uncompounded impartible undividable one Substance or Essence those supposed Hereticks say and so say we Let us look over the Quotations already cited First says Athanasius's Creed not dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says One Substance 3. The first of the 39 Articles says one living and true God without Body Parts or Passions of One Substance 4. Mr. Wright says that all three are in the same Divine Nature and being in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons and on that account grants that the Father is the only true God 5. Dr. Owen says God is One in respect of his Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being and further says that the name of God is a singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely sâ—ngular and One and cannot be multiplied 6. Mr. Preston says that God being Allsufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and intire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further says consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most intire being without all Composition and Multiplication and further he says there are no parts in him Lastly Mr. Monk says That the Persons tho distinct amongst themselves yet are not differing things one from another because the nature of God is but One and indivisible and further says they are not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence They are not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence c. And in answer to the Question Are there any Parts or Kinds in God answers none at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit of no Composition or Division and simple and in every respect of Unity One. Thus you see having summed up the Evidence as says the Foreman so they say all they are all agreed in their Verdict both Orthodox and Hereticks so called are thus far in all respects jointly and fully agâ—eed as with one Voice to publish that their apprehension of the one true God respecting his Essence is an undivided undividable intirely one Substance not subsisting or possible to be subsisting in parts or having any Parts in him And so says the Scripture God is a Spirit not Spirits And indeed this Doctrine of the Vnity of the Divine Essence we must maintain or else we do nothing for if once we admit of several parts in that Essence we may as well admit and there seems a necessity that it should be so many several Spirits and indeed so many Most High Gods which can be called one only by consent and agreement or at most one in kind But the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods most High is repugnant to Reason refuted by Scripture and abhorred by Mahometans Besides if you divide Essence in your thoughts then you must divide the Essential Properties such as Mercy Justice Wisdom Bounty and the rest I say you must divide them into as many parts as you divide the Essence in your thoughts As for example Suppose you divide it into three parts then you must suppose in your mind three Attributes of Justice three of Mercy three of Wisdom and so of all the rest or else you must imagine some of the Attributes in one part and some in another as thus Justice and Power in one Mercy and Wisdom in another Truth and Bounty in another and so of the rest or else you must imagine that some of the parts have none of the Attributes and that will be Blasphemy and Nâ—nsense since I think all will confess that nothing can be essentially God most High but that which is or hath all the Divine Essential Properties And so go which way to work you will if you admit of Parts you confound the Substance as Athanasius says But enough of this We are unanimously agreed in the Unity and Undividedness of the Divine Essence Well thus far are we come looking for the difference but