one exist in the other it 's neither this Author nor any other Man living how big soever these may swell with Pride that can shew any solid Reason to the contrary and when once divine Revelation hath assured us it is so who is this Man that dare fight against God Will he tell us that he hath been in Heaven or beheld from all Eternity what God by eternal Acts terminated on himself can do or not do To hear a vile Worm so talk as he doth what horrid Boldness is it Were I minded to do it I could easily instance in several things about the divine Attributes as difficult to be explicated and fully resolved as any he can propose to Trinitarians about the Existence of three Persons in the God-head and what then must we because of this call those divine Attributes into Question And rather not cry out with the great Apostle Oh the Depth 2. How uncouth then must the Notions of these Trinitarians be when applyed to the Incarnation and Satisfaction or to the Spirit or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Persons Ichallenge him or any of his Party how highly soever pretending to Reason to shew the Inconsistency of these Notions when so applyed with true and right Reason or that any such thing as Polytheism as he vainly pretends can be inserred from them Indeed if one should grant him that one so often begged absurd Principle of his viz. That if God the Son be the same God with the Father then he must be the same Person with the Father or if he be God and yet a distinct Person that he must be a distinct God Then it were no wonder if uno absurdo concesso mille sequerentur But when he 's told by Trinitarians a thousand times over that the Son altho' he be the same God with the Father or the same with the Father as to God-head Nature Essence Substance yet he 's not the same with the Father as to personal Property that altho there be three different Personal Properties in one and the same God-head yet that same God-head as limited by one Personal Property cannot be the same as limited by a different Personal Property that is cannot be the same Person however it be in it self the same God head still And now I pray why may not one and the same God-head or divine Essence as it is with one personal Property be not incarnate as it is with another be incarnate as it is with one be unbegotten as with another begotten as it is with one receive Satisfaction as with another make Satisfaction as it is with one send as with another be sent He must be quicker sighted than I that can see any thing like a Contradiction here as if contrary Predicates were here affirmed de eodem secundum idem ad idem c. when it 's clear they are not So that his loud Clamour Chap. 6. P. 17. § 50. That this Supposition That On Ch. 6. Of real Trinitarians Note here I shall not concern my self with these and consequently not with this or the Author 's following Chapters further ther than I find him inveighing against the Orthodox Trinitarians each Person is the same God carries with it an innumerable Company of most obvious Contradictions such as he tells us he will instance in § 50 51. will be found to be but a meer empty Sound without any thing of Sense or Reason and all his pretended most obvious Contradictions vanish into Smoak as any Smatterer in Logick might easily shew him That which hath been said might I hope satisfie a judicious Reader and serve for Answer to such further Cavils and blasphemous Invectives as this Author hath P. 24 25 26 27. and P. 31. § 93 94. of his Letter not so much against the Trinitarians as against the sacred Scriptures and the blessed God Father Son and Spirit as revealed in Scripture but I fear his glorying if I should so much as seem to pass them over Therefore Obj. 1. As to what he saith chap. 8. p. 24 § 74. That none of the Trinitarians besides the Author of the 38 Propositions can say that any of their Persons is a most perfect God or a most high God or the only true God or supream God because there are two others as perfect as high as true c. will be found to be very idle and trifling if it be but considered that each Person in the most blessed Trinity is the most perfect high wise supream God because the same most high God with the other two Persons and neither a distinct God from them nor they distinct Gods from him as this Author doth falsly suppose and if each one be the same God with the other then each must be the most perfect high true supream God Object 2. As to what he saith § 76. of the same Page That Trinitarians do imagine that when Man was made there was a Consult of the whole Trinity about that weighty Affair and that one said to the others Let us make Man Answ The Author might do well to speak out plainly and tell us that his Design is to quarrel not so much with Trinitarians as with the Holy Scriptures themselves for the Words he quotes to quarrel with Let us make Man c. whose Words are they Are they the Words of any other Trinitarian save of Moses Gen. 1. 26. the infallibly inspired Penman of that Book or rather of the blessed Spirit himself as speaking by Mojes Our Divines I confess make use of this Scripture for proving a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the God-head and it 's a full and clear Scripture for that purpose but I cannot wonder at this Author if after his bold Attempt of stripping the blessed Spirit of his Divinity he proceed to that Height of Blasphemy as to make him speak falsly or ridiculously in Scripture Obj. 3. As to what he adds in the same § that according to the Trinitarians the Son as God really wanted Glory and prayed to the Father John 17. 5. to give it him telling us in a scoffing way it is strange that a most high God should want and beg of another to supply him Answ 1. It 's false that the Trinitarians suppose that the Son as God really wanted Glory they do indeed suppose that the Son as God being made Flesh or taking our Nature on him by his dwelling in a poor humane Nature during the State of his Humiliation had the Glory of his Divinity much obscured and eclipsed so that it did not shine forth with that Lustre as before otherwise the essential Glory was still the same and there was no want as to this but only as to its Manifestation which may very well agree to the most high God as this Author himself must be forced to grant if he will grant such a Variety of divine Providences towards the Sons of Men as make his Glory to shine forth brightly at some times but suffer
And does not that Scripture John 1. 1 2 3 14. expresly affirm that the Word stiled the only begotten of the Father was in the Beginning was with God was God the great Creator and Maker of all things that without him was not any thing made that was made It 's a Wonder this Author when he reads such a Scripture as this can forbear for to cast forth Reproaches on the divinely inspired Evangelist himself for could any Trinitarian have with greater Evidence set forth That 1. this Word was from the Beginning and before the Beginning of all created Beings and therefore from Eternity 2. That in this Beginning he was with God and therefore a distinct Person from God the Father 3. That he was God viz. the same blessed God with the Father as to Essence 4. That all things were made by him and that without him was not any thing made that was made that therefore the Father did make nothing but in Conjunction with the Word or Son not in Separation from him as this Author would have it And as nothing that was made was made without this Word so this Word himself was not made except he make himself but is the eternal increated Being Let this Author shew now if he can what he hath to charge Trinitarians with which he may not as well charge on this blessed Apostle Obj. But this Author is so far from granting the Concurrence of the Son or Spirit to the doing of the same Actions with the Father notwithstanding Scripture does most clearly testifie it as in the Texts before cited that he does boldly aver That this is apparently false the Scripture being fâ—ll of Actions especially those they do to one another as one being sent by another their going from and returning to one another which is impossible to suppose they all equally concurr'd in a little after he adds That they viz. Trinitarians cannot deny but Father Son and Spirit act separately ad extra even with respect to the Creatures and to prove this he asks Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the other took him into theirs or were limited to him He further adds They are so far from being one in a natural Sense that there is not so much as a moral Vnion between them they have different Wills and Inclinations for instance the first Person will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person nay they say his Justice could not be satisfied without it the Son is so far from being of the same Mind that he freely offer'd himself to suffer to appease the Wrath of the first Person and still intercedes to the Father The third Person neither gives nor receives Satisfaction Answ 1. I know no divine Actions ad extra which are expressed in Scripture whether in a proper and literal or in a tropical and improper Sense but they may well enough agree to Father Son and Spirit and they may equally concur in them It 's true our Lord saith Joh. 16. 25. I came forth from the Father and am come into the World Again I leave the World and go to the Father But these Words do import no more than that the Word being made Flesh and dwelling in that Humane Tabernacle did for such time as that Humane Nature was upon the Earth manifest the divine Glory in it and so his leaving the World and going to the Father imports no more than his ceasing from such a Way for Manifestation of the divine Glory and from thenceforth reserving such Manifestation for Heaven stiled God's Throne so this makes nothing at all to the Author's purpose only imports God's making in the Person of the Son Manifestations of his Glory after different ways sometimes in the Humane Nature on Earth which is his Footstool sometimes in Heaven which is his Throne so Joh. 14. 26. our Lord saith but the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things What Action is there the Words being rightly understood wherein one Person may not concur as well as another If the Author say the Father's sending the Spirit to teach the Church is such an Action I answer The Father's sending here imports no more than the Father 's willing that the Church be taught and illuminated by the blessed Spirit this being a Benefit which Christ hath purchased for it and this teaching such as in respect of Order in operating is more especially appropriated to the Third Person but dare this Author therefore say that the Father does therefore exclude himself either from willing that the Church be taught or from teaching it himself when the teaching the Church all things is such a peculiar Work of God that as it does infallibly evidence the true Divinity of the Holy Spirit so the joynt Concurrence of Father Son and Spirit in it So we see the grand Arguments of this Author against the Trinity which he thinks to be invincible are no other than such as do arise from his own Misunderstanding or perverting the Sense of Holy Scriptures 2 As to that Query of his wherewith he thinks doubtless to silence all Trinitarians viz. Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the others took him into their's or were united to him Answ The Author in this labours under a double gross Mistake of the Doctrine both of sacred Scripture and of Trinitarians 1. In his confounding God-head with Personality For doubtless the Humane Nature of Christ is truly united to that God-head which is common to the Three Persons as divina charismatum communicatis and as that Name Immanuel God with us or God in our Nature do clearly import And as that Scripture Act. 20. 28. To feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood does evince tho at the same time it be but united to the Personality of one of these viz. the Son and through the Contrivement of eternal Wisdom be made to subsist wholly Substantiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the God-head as limited by personal Property that so this glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might become a meet Representative or Sponsor for us 2. Tho it be granted for the Reason aforesaid that only the Person of the Son did take the Human Nature into his Subsistence yet this imports no more than passive Reception of that Humane Nature into his Subsistence which was added or united to it by the real joynt Action of the Three blessed Persons and wherein they did equally concur like as they do in other Actions relating to the Humane Nature See Psal 16. 10. compared with Acts 2. 24. Yea do act joyntly as well in preparing a Body or Humane Nature for the Person of the Son compare Heb. 10. 5. with Luke 1. 35. as they do in uniting that Person with the Humane Nature John 1. 14. The Word was
be Three that bear Witness in Heaven and that these Three are One that himself as Father did before the World was and from Eternity beget the Son in the Form of God and equal to himself that the Holy Ghost in like manner is God proceeding and sent from the Father and Son we can now safely follow God and improve sanctified Reason to the getting of true and right Notions about this sublime Mystery and for Defence and Vindication of it and dispelling the Mists of those vile Aspersions and seigned Contradictions black-mouth'd Hereticks would fasten on it and we can as truly tell the Author that however this Mystery be a very high Mystery yet it is not as he would perswade wholly unintelligible but that we may have true Ideas of the Father begetting and of the Son 's being begotten and of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from Eternity and that this was not after some gross manner as the Author seems to suppose but in such a way as might agree to the most pure and simple Spirit yea we may tell him that from one and the same numerical eternal Essence acting upon its self by its internal Acts and likewise terminating those Acts and so laying the Foundations of relative Properties Three relative personal Properties with the Three blessed eternal Persons do necessarily emane without the least Appearance of a Contradiction the divine Essence so acting or reflecting on its self by eternal Intellection with the relative Property of Generation as flowing from it being God the Father The divine Essence as reflected on by and terminating the said Intellection with its relative Property of being begotten being God the Son the Splendor of the Father's Glory the eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the express Image of the Father's Person making a full and entire Representation thereof And how agreeable is this to many Scripture Phrases relating to the the Person of the Son And the same divine Essence as reflected on or terminated by that other Act of the same Essence and which may be stil'd the Love or Dilection of the Father and Son with its relative Property of being sent or proceding being the third Person or Holy Ghost the amiable Spring-head and Fountain of all that good which God communicates to his Creatures the all-searching quickning Spirit Deus spiratus missus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And give me leave to ask the Author our high pretended Rationalist who dares with his dark and glimmering Light so boldly contradict divine Revelation telling us that for the Father to beget the Son to be begotten the Holy Ghost to proceed and that these Three should be One and the Son to be equal to God the Father that such Language is nothing but mere Contradictions tho the express Language of the written Word Let me ask him I say according to the preceding Interpretation of the Words what Shew or least Appearance of a Contradiction can he find in them For the Divine Essence by an eternal reflex Act to know its self and so by a like act to love it self and for the same Essence to terminate each act is that which he neither can nor dare deny because that these are essential divine Perfections falling under our distinct inadequate Notions of the same glorious Being and which can no more cease to be than God can cease to be God where then comes in his Contradiction Object Will he say that according to these our Notions of a Trinity it follows that there are but three Persons and yet nine Persons That they cannot be multiplyed beyond three and yet may be multiplyed in infinitum Answ The quite contrary follows For according to these our Notions of the divine Essence so acting upon it self as aforesaid and so terminating the said two internal essential acts viz. of Intellect and Will it 's impossible the Persons in the divine Essence as flowing from them should either fall short or exceed the Number Three because according to these these we have to come up to his own Terms distinct Ideas of so many and neither fewer nor more viz. of a Person acting or begetting of a Person conceived or begotten and of a Person beloved or proceeding But will he say as he doth expresly § 26. That Obj. If it be not essential to the Nature of the Son and Spirit so to produce more Persons equal to themselves their Nature is not the same with the Father's and they want Perfections which he hath Answ It 's essential to the Nature of Son and Spirit as well as of the Father absolutely considered to be productive of more equal Persons tho it be not essential to the Nature of the Son and Spirit as limited by personal Property because by these it 's rendred incommunicable and cannot be so productive Therefore it 's very idle what he would infer that the Nature of the Son and Spirit is not the same with the Father's because they want Perfections which he has because the Nature still whether of Father Son or Spirit absolutely considered as such hath the very same essential Perfections tho as this is limited by personal Properties importing three Persons actually to exist in it from Eternity it cannot be said to produce them de novo and to be still productive of them so that we may justly say here that whosoever shall affirm that Essence as common to Father Son and Spirit is not productive of Three Persons let him be Anathema and whoever shall affirm that Essence as limited to Father Son and Spirit by personal Properties is still productive of Three Persons de novo let him be Anathema for Essence so limited the Three Persons exist as actually produced and therefore cannot remain to be produced Again will the Author say that the Father now producing no Persons equal to himself has lost a Perfection that 's essential to his Nature and consequently ceaseth to be all perfect as § 26 How vain and idle is all this When the act of begetting or producing in God is essential to the divine Nature and so can no more cease to be than the Nature it self it being an eternal act identified with the Nature and an eternal Foundation of such Relation as that of Son to Father which must there therefore be continued for ever the Foundation being continued otherwise than in the Creatures Having premised thus much for Explication of a Mystery which the Author most blasphemously pretends to be a Mystery of Anti-Christ wholly inexplicabable and unintelligible and having shewed that however it be a most sublime Mystery much transcending Reason and the Light of Nature yet being once fully reveal'd in the Word that it 's so far from standing in flat Contradiction to Reason and natural Light that it 's found to have a sweet Consistency with Reason and Light of Nature Having I say permised thus much I proceed now to his 〈…〉 3. third Chapter of the Nominal Trinitarians as the Author thinks meet tho without
are proper to intelligent Beings that belongs to the one and not to the other it shews that they are more than distinct Modes they are distinct intelligent substantial Beings and are not the Father and Son in Scripture frequently opposed to one another as intelligent Beings The Father 's knowing and loving the Son is not the Son 's knowing and loving the Father but each has a numerical distinct Knowledge and consequently distinct Essence Answ The whole of this his reasoning is idle and perverse like the former and is grounded on either a grosly ignorant or a wilful Mistake of the Trinitarians Doctrine The divine Acts or Operations according to these are either ad intra or ad extra the Author's Discourse in the Beginning of the following Chapter relates to those ad extra where we shall consider them but his Discourse here to those ad intra as the Father's knowing and loving the Son the Son 's knowing and loving the Father Now these are acts of the divine Nature or Essence as reflecting on it self and lay the Foundations of relative Properties never to be altered because from these acts and their terms the personal Properties result as hath been shewn before therefore according to his Doctrine these internal acts are in Nature before the personal Properties or Personality And yet according to Scripture Phrase they are attributed to each Person with respect to another in as much as each Person hath the divine Essence with its Acts and Operations under a relative Mode appropriated to him and so the Father is said to love the Son and the Son to love the Father How I pray What as this Author would have it with two acts of Love really and numerically distinct and these as flowing either from two meer Modes or if not so from two really and numerically distinct Essences How absurd is all this when it 's evident to any Smatterer in Theology that the internal acts thenselves are of the divine Essence and only their Distinction from relative Modes so that there 's no need either of more numerically distinct Essences for Performance of these acts or to have them attributed to meer Modes or to have the divine Person ungodded and their true Subject destroyed as this Author does vainly and idly pretend What he adds § 42. is to no more purpose unless he could prove that we make the divine Acts Titles Attributes of one Person really distinct from the Acts Titles Attributes of another which he can never do The Author in his following § viz. 43. would make the World believe that the Orthodox were forced to this way of explicating themselves about the Trinity because they had no other way to keep up the Face of a Trinity and avoid professing the apparent Tritheism of the Nicene Fathers who held the Three Almighty substantial Persons were no otherwise one God than because they had the same common Nature even as Three Men having the same Humane Nature are but one Man Answ Not to mention here the old false Trick of seeking from the multiplying of Persons in God to multiply Substances and Almighties As to that open Tritheism of the Nicene Fathers as holding the Three Persons no otherwise one God than as Three Men partaking of one common Humane Nature are one Man it is such an impudent shameless Calumny that it can deserve no other Answer than to have the Brand of a notorious Lye set upon it such a false and blasphemous Notion as that God should be a Genus to more divine Persons so as Man is a Genus to singular Men I know not whether it ever entred into the Heart of any but that it should be the Notion of the Nicene Fathers and entertain'd by them is so expresly contrary to their Canons and the Orthodox Doctrine of the Fathers at that time that it needs no further Confutation Obj. As to what is added by the Author § 44. besides his Reproaches which will light on himself there 's nothing but what we have had before over and over and hath been so fully answered in our having shewn that the glorious Almithty Being doth not propagate Personality by Termination of Extension so as a finite rational Being doth and that it 's highly consistent both with Scripture and Reason and that he doth this by the aforesaid reflex Acts terminated on himself that no more needs be added here But § 45. he tells us that granting there are never so many Modes yet if each Person has the divine Substance he must necessarily have all the Modes because they are Modes of the divine Substance each Person has the divine Substance as limited by a peculiar Mode or relative Property and therefore cannot possibly have all the Modes quite contrary to what is absurdly inferred by this Author Ans I come now to Chapter 5. to weigh the Author's Reflections On Ch. 5. on the Hypothesis of Dr. W. S. of the Author of the Trinity placed in its due Light and the rest of the Nominal Trinitarians In this Chapter the Author tells us that besides the Abettors of this Opinion there are a great many Trinitarians who no otherwise differ from the Vnitarians but in Name whose Trinities they not only allow but contend for some of them say and Dr. Wallis hath writ in Defence of it That the three Persons are only three external Denominations of God according to the three different Operations of his Goodness towards his Creatures in creating redeeming and sanctifying them a little after he saith Others say that the three Persons are the same in God as Faculties in Man viz. Vnderstanding Will and Memory Others that the three Persons are the three Attributes of God Power Wisdom and Goodness Here you have his Charge But Answ 1. I shall believe it to be a false Charge so prone I find him to charge things on the Trinitarians till such time as he doth quote the Author at least his Book and Page where the Mattter charged is expresly contained 2. Tho I readily grant that those three Denominations of Creator Redeemer Sanctifier are three external Denominations of God according to the different Operations of his Goodness towards his Creatures in creating redeeming and sanctifying them yea and that these three different Operations Imo omnes operationes ad extra according to Scripture Joh. 13. chap. chap. 5. 17. and the granted Maxim sunt trium personarum communes yet withal I affirm that in respect of the Order that is amongst the three Persons the Holy Scriptures do in a more special manner appropriate the first kind of these Actions as the Acts of Creation to God the Father as first Person and those which in Nature are next to these as of Preservation and Redemption to God the Son and those which come last in Order as the ultimate compleating Acts to God the Holy Ghost and accordingly do appropriate the external Denominations of Creator Redeemer Sanctifyer as resulting from the said Acts.
it to be eclipsed and not manifested to these at other times But 2. Seeing the Author would seem so quick-sighted as to find an Argument in this Scripture John 17. 5. against the Divinity of Jesus Christ but so stark blind as to find none in the same Scripture for it I would therefore improve it a little for getting the Scales of his Blindness removed and whereas our Lord Christ prays Glorify me with thine own self with that Glory which I had with thee before the World was Hence I argue if the Glory that Christ the Son had with the Father before the World was was not the increated Glory of the Son as most high God which this Author does ridicule then it was but the Glory of a created Being But that could not be For 1. If it was but the Glory of a created Being then there was a created Being before Creation yea before the first Moment of Creation But that 's impossible and the Author himself who is so good in finding out Contradiction where there 's none will sure see a Contradiction in this The Consequence is undeniable for the very first Moment of Creation God gave Being or Existence to the Heaven and Earth as the Phrase in Gen. 11. clearly imports and yet the Son had his Glory with the Father before this i. e. through the boundless Tracts of Eternity Let the Author answer this Argument if he can But 2. If the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was no other than of a created Being then it highly concerns this Author to declare what created Being he means for 1. it could not be that of his Humane created Being for Christ had no such Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary If then the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was was the Glory of such Being it must then be the Glory of such Being when there was no such Being if this be not downright Contradiction I know not what is 2. It could not be the Glory of Angelick created Nature for Scripture is express that Christ took not on him the Nature of Angels Heb. 2. 16. Besides Scripture sets him above all Angels making him the Object of their Worship Heb. 1. 6. yea in the very same Place where it mentions them as ministring created Spirits it mentions the Son as God having an eternal Throne and as the great unchangeable Creator of this great World Heb. 1. 7 8 10 11 12. Now if the Son did exist before the World and yet neither as God Angel or Man I wonder what Species of Beings this Author will reduce him to He who in Scorn so often asks the Trinitarians what a something they mean by a second or third Person in the Trinity may well be asked what a something he means by the Son of God as having Glory with his Father before the World was and what a Compound he will make the Person of our Redeemer as consisting of an Humane Nature and of some other yet never before heard of pre-existing Nature I doubt before he have done he 'll turn that great Mystery of God manifested in the Flesh into a meer Chimaera but I tremble to mention such Blasphemies 4. As to what this Author adds P. 25 26 27. of his Letter § 77 78 79 80 81 82 83. tho I find little besides idle Repetitions of former Matter which hath already been fully answered yet some few Remarks I shall make and 1. Whereas he tells us P. 25. That it is impossible that the same numerical Act of Creation could be done by three Persons because the self same Act could not be done three times and if one Person does an Act no other can do the sels same Answ Such Stuff as this and that which follows argues the Author's gross Ignorance about the divine Persons whom he supposeth to be separate divided Beings like Humane Persons acting divisim separatim were this so his arguing would be to purpose But he knows well enough and so his Ignorance will be found to be wilful Ignorance that the Three Divine Persons according to the Doctrine of all Orthodox Trinitarians are not divided Beings Minds Natures Essences but one and the â—ame most pure and simple divine Beings Minds Natures Essences with three distinct relative Properties which do not so much as make any real Composition in that one glorious Being and yet are true Relations arising from their proper Foundations in that one most simple immense Being as he may easily understand from what hath been said if he have a Mind to be informed and so he might have satisfied himself that it contradicts no Idea of ours at all that one divine Person does the very same numerical Action another does 2. Whereas in the same Page he does insinuate That infinite Divine Wisdom teacheth Men he means according to the same Doctrine of the Trinitarians that there are two needless and useless Persons in God himself whose Actions are to no manner of purpose only to do what the first Person is not only all sufficient to do but actually and wholly does that if the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act they are no other than necessary Agents and all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing the same Acts he wholly does Answ This whole Discourse is false and impious and not without greatest Calumny fixed on Orthodox Trinitarians For may he not find if he will but take notice of it generally averring 1. That the Second and Third Persons are so far from being needless and useless that they do as necessarily subsist in the divine Essence as the first Person 2. That altho the Father has a free Will and Power to do or not do viz. ad extra whatever he pleaseth yet this must be so understood that he hath this in Union and Conjunction with the Son and Spirit and not as divided or separated from them Therefore what he would infer that the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act the Father doth consequently that they are no other than necessary Agents that all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing what he wholly does is idle and blasphemous as if the Power of doing aâ—d Will for doing were the sole Power and Will of the Father and not the joint Power and Will of Father Son and Spirit or as if the Son and Spirit did not in entire Conjunction with the Father perform the same Act ad extra and with the same Freedom when the Act is the Joynt Act of all Three And I pray is that we say here the Language only of some late Tritarians and not the Language of sacred Scriptures yea and of Christ himself What else do those Words of our Lord import John 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work did not the Father work Miracles Did not Christ work the same in Conjunction with him