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
REFLECTIONS ON A LETTER Writ by a NAMELESS AUTHOR TO THE Reverend Clergy of both Universities ' And on his BOLD REFLECTIONS ON THE TRINITY c. By Richard Frankland LONDON Printed for A. J. Churchill and sold by F. Bently Bookseller in Halifax 1697. A PREFACE TO THE READER EVER since the Divine Oracle sounded the Alarum of War between the Seed of the Woman and Serpent's Brood Gen. 3. 18. the Devil and his Agents have spit their Poyson against our blessed Lord Jesus the Captain of our Salvation For some Thousands of Years the World was invelop'd in the Mist of Ignorance Heathenism Barbarism Scythism and Hellenism overspread the Face of the Earth And when the Gospel-Sun appeared in our Horizon the Heathen raged Kings and Rulers raised all the Militia of Earth and Hell And by the joint Conspiracy of Jews and Gentiles this Son of God was abused rejected crucified And since his Resurrection by the Power of his God-head and glorious Ascension to the right Hand of the Majesty on high What a Number of Hereticks have attempted to pull him down from the Throne of his Glory and degrade him of his Deity the most orient Pearl in his Crown Strange were the Figments of Gnosticks and Valentinians of old the Followers of Simon Magus who overturned Gospel Revelations by their Aeones Combinations Conjugations Genealogies and unintelligible Imaginations Cerinthus and Ebion in the first Century affirmed that Christ was only a Man begotten between Joseph and Mary Cerdon and Marcion in the second Century denied the Verity of Christ's Humane Nature and Sufferings In the third Century Theodosian also denyed Christ's Divinity Artemon said Christ was not existent before he took Flesh of the Virgin The Sabellians denyed the Three Persons in the God head Yes they affirmed that the Father cloathed himself with our Nature dyed called therefore Patripassians Samosetanus also denyed Christ's Divinity The Maniches held the same heretical Opinions which did at last center in Arius and spread through the World A. D. 324. condemned by the Council of Nice Nestorius contradicted the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ Eutichus confounded these two Natures saying The Humane was swallowed up by the Immensity of the Divine The Agnoitae denyed the Perfection of Knowledge in the Divine Nature of Christ Others called Christ only the adoptive Son of God all these had their Followers Yet God raised up learned Men to oppose and suppress these Hereticks in all Ages Some of them came to astonishing Ends by the just Judgment of God and some by the Sentence of Men as Servetus at Geneva A. D. 1652. Gorgius Blandrata Petrus Statorius vented pernicious Errours in Poland but the later dissembled and was found in his Bed with his Neck broken But the Errours settled in Faustus Socinus A. D. 1565. born at Sens A witty Scholar got his Uncle Laelius Socinus's Books comes into Poland writes a Book De Jesu Christo Servatore at Cracovia whereof he boasted and was answered by several in a Disputation The Orthodox confounded the Anti-trinitarians from plain Scripture-Texts and ancient Writers so that Religion mightily prevailed But some falling off to Tritheism Anabaptism c. they regarded not what Principles they owned so they were but Enemies to the Doctrin of the Trinity One thing is observable several in that confused Company denying Religious Worship to Christ Socinus contended with them but was silenced and bafled by his own Principles who held that Christ was meer Man therefore by consequence it would be Idolatry to worship him There were also several Errours broach'd by Socinus that the Condition of the first Man was Mortal that there 's no original Sin that Christ was not an High-Priest on Earth that he made no Satisfaction for Sin that we are not justified by his Righteousness but our own that the wicked shall be utterly annihilated at the last Day These he contended for in their Synods and prevailed so by the Help of Smalcius and other Artifices that in 24 Years he got his Opinions enthron'd in Poland which are not rooted out to this Day Whosoever desires to read more of this History of Socinianism may find much more in Dr. Owen's Answer to Mr. Biddle and his Preface to it Surely 't is a thousand Pitties that in England a Goshen a Land of Light where the Gospel-Sun hath shined in its Meridian Splendor such black Fogs should rise out of the bottomless Pit as to darken our Horizon Trinitas saith one est verae Theologiae Fundamentum quae consesequentes omnes fere Doctrinas quasi animat Who so denies the Trinity denies his Baptism for we are baptized in or into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost It 's true the Racovian Catechism asserts Three and pronounces them to be no Christians who do not believe it but deny that there are three Persons or Subsistences in the God-head But our Divines prove it by the Essential Name Jehovah essential Properties Operations But see more of this in the ensuing Treatise The other dangerous and damnable Doctrine is that of denying the Lord that bought us 2 Pet. 2. 1. revived out of the Rubbish of ancient Heresies Who could imagine that Jews and Turks should be bred in England Denying Christ's Divinity doth cut the very Sinews of our Hopes of Redemption and Consolation Neither Angels nor Men could have pacifyed God's Wrath or satisfied Justice or brought in everlasting Righteousness Such Doctrines undermine and pluck up the Pillars of our Christian Religion and yet in these licentious Days such Heresies are publickly broach'd by more learned Scholars and some confident Ignoramus's I have read that Quakers say we deny the Person of him whom you call Christ and affirm that they that expect to be saved by that Christ without them will be damned in that Faith O horrid Sacrilege unheard of Impiety Methinks the Question of our blessed Lord that non-plust the Pharisees Mat. 22 45. should puzzle these Antichristian Spirits that deny Christ's Divinity If David then call him Lord how is he his Son Is the Son greater than the Father Surely the God-head of the Messiah advanceth him above King David It s true the Plumb-line of Reason is too short to fathom this Mystery but where Reason cannot wade Faith must swim having so good a Card and Guide as the Holy Ghost The Trinity of Persons and Hypostatical Union of God-head and Man-hood in Christ being so fully revealed in Scripture let us hold them fast and contend for them as our Free-hold This is the Attempt and Design of the ensuing Treatise which was put into my Hands by a very reverend and dear Brother whose Praise is in the Gospel who is better known to the World by the successful Fruits of his indefatigable Labours sounding viva voce than by legible Characters in Scripture having spent much Time and Strength in his peculiar Province with much Advantage to the Church of God His Learning and Capacity
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