Holy Ghost may be considered as Persons or Personal Characters which do not imply any distinction of Being or Nature The Greeks are supposed to have meant the same by Hypostases as we do by Person this word being sometimes the very Translation of the other And if so there 's the same ground for the use of both But if they meant any thing else they could hardly have so good Warrant for it from Revelation Now that one of these Persons or Hypostases should be both God and Man there is this Foundation in the Scriptures for He who is there called the Son of God did certainly appear in the likeness of Men being in all respects Sin only excepted truly and properly Man as his Birth Necessities Sufferings and Death sufficiently testifie 'T is certain also that the same Jesus Christ who was called the Son of God and was made in the likeness of Man is affirmed by St. Paul Phil. 3. 7 8. to have been in the form of God when he took the Nature of Man upon him But besides this and many other Texts to the same effect 't is plain from what before has been proved that God did suffer himself to be worshipped and adored in and by the Man Christ Jesus The least that can be inferred from which is that God was more immediately and peculiarly present in Christ than ever he is said to have been any where else As in the Heavens Jewish Temple between the Cherubims in Prophets and Holy Men who spake as they were moved by the Spirit of God What created Object was ever allowed to intercept the Worship paid to God or share with him in it Were the Heavens the Temple the Cherubim or Prophets to be adored Nay has not God taken a particular care to preserve Men from Idolatry by forbidding them to Worship him in or by any sensible Representation Did not the Apostles who worship'd Christ forbid others to Worship Men of like Passions with themselves commanding them to direct all their Devotion to the Living God who made Heaven and Earth How then can we suppose that Christ was only a meer Man or some other Creature and not rather believe that he had the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him bodily But here it is Objected How can God and Man be united And to this I must fairly Answer that I cannot tell I have confessed already in the Account I have given of those Notions of Vnity and Distinction that I have not any just or distinct Conceptions of the Vnion of Spiritual Beings either with Bodies or with one another But this I will venture to say that I can as well conceive God and Man together under one Idea at one view as I can conceive a Soul and Body so united All that I know of the Vnion of Soul and Body is that there is some Intelligent Power that makes use of the Organs of my Body and Acts in conjunction with the Motions there produced And I may as well consider God united to Man when he so Acts by the Ministry and Operation of Man that the Actions of God seem conveyed to us the same way as the Actions of one Man are to another Had those who upon some occasions spake by the extraordinary Assistance of a Divine Power been constantly so directed and assisted how would they have distinguished the Motions of their Souls from the Impressions of God And why then should not we think such an Extraordinary Power as this as much united to such Men as that Common ordinary Power we call the Soul is to those Bodies in which it acts and exerts it self Some have been of Opinion that what we call the Soul is nothing else but a constant regular Inspiration or a determinate Concurrence of God Almighty with such and such Motions and Capacities of Matter But whether this be so or no as most probably it is not it seems to me very plain from Scripture that such a Power which we ascribe to God did as Constantly and Regularly Act in and through Christ as the Human Soul is perceived to do in any other Man As appears from his absolute security from all manner of Sin and Error from his constant knowledge of the Thoughts and Designs of Men and the Will and Decrees of God and from his Readiness and Ability to work Miracles at any time and upon any occasion All which are manifest Tokens of an uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity Especially if we consider the Calmness and Evenness of Spirit observable in our Saviour entirely free from all the transports of over-ruling Impressions 't is a further Argument that he did not receive the Spirit of God at times or by measure but was as conscious of all the Divine Perfections in himself as a Man is conscious of his own Thoughts Such are the Grounds we find in Scripture for those particular Explications of the Trinity before-mentioned In the next place we are to Enquire what the Scriptures necessarily oblige us to believe in this Point But before this Question can be resolved there are two things to be premised 1. That whatever Articles of Faith are absolutely necessary to Salvation all Persons of every Rank and Condition are equally obliged to believe them There is not one Religion for the Peasant and another for the Scholar We have the same general Rule to walk by though particular Obligations may be greater or lesser fewer or more according to different Circumstances and Relations And whatever Principles and Duties are of general Necessity ought to be so plainly revealed as to be easily understood by ordinary Capacities upon a fair and careful Examination 2. That in order to this end it seems to have been the Design of the Scriptures to represent God in a sensible manner though at the same time they take care to assure us that God is in his own Nature a Being of different Perfections not conceivable by Human Understanding And is thus represented only in condescention to our weakness for the help and assistance of our Devotion So that all Expressions of this kind where God is the Subject are to be understood in a higher and more Spiritual sense but still with some Analogy to what they properly and usually signifie Thus to use a common Instance when 't is said that God looks down and beholds what 's done among the Children of Men that he hears the Cries of the Righteous and the Blasphemies of the Wicked 't is not to be imagined that he sees as Man sees that he makes use of any Organs of Sense but 't is thus expressed to give us more lively Notions and Impressions of the certainty of God's Vniversal Knowledge to assure us that God more plainly fully and infallibly knows whatever is done in all the Earth than we are capable of knowing those things which fall within the reach of our Senses This being premised it seems very plain to me that the Doctrine of the Trinity is
Distinction which we have but a confused perception of and cannot comprehend or explain by any particular Idea's which unknown inexplicable Distinction is the Foundation of all these Differences expresly conceived by us And since the Church has thought fit for the Sake of Unity and Peace and for the Suppressing all Private Disputes and Interpretations to appoint set Forms to express this our Faith in I think the Athanasian Creed as rational an Explication of the Trinity as can well be made The Worst that the Enemies of this Doctrine can say of it is That it is an unnecessary Multiplication of Terms and too nice an Endeavour to Explain what cannot be Explained but not that 't is False or Absurd nothing being there asserted in any sense inconsistent with the Vnity of God or the Principles of Right Reason All such Meanings and Significations of any Terms or Expressions in that Creed being very improper as they are there applied and utterly disclaimed by the Church that enjoins the Use of it Nor can it be esteemed an unreasonable Imposition That we should be obliged to profess our Faith of something which cannot be conceived but confusedly and indistinctly nor expressed but in general and obscure Terms For where 's the Hardship of being required to believe as far as we can believe God is Incomprehensible in his Nature and Perfections but are we not obliged to believe there is a God who is Incomprehensible Are we not obliged to believe there are Joys in Heaven which it has not enter'd into the Heart of Man to conceive And to repeat a former Instance may not a Blind Man be obliged to believe what a Friend of unsuspected Integrity tells him of the general nature of Colour tho' he is not able to form a particular Idea of it And if these Things cannot be denied What difference can be assigned why we should not be under as great an Obligation of believing the Trinity tho' we are not able to conceive it distinctly A Threefold Distinction in the Godhead consistent with the Unity of God is as plainly revealed in Scripture as any other Article of Faith Nor are those general Abstracted Terms we find in our Creeds to be condemn'd as meer useless and perplexing Niceties for tho' they are not sufficient to make us understand the Trinity fully and distinctly yet they are proper Limitations to exclude all the False and Unworthy Apprehensions of this Doctrine which Pretenders to a more particular Explication might introduce III. And now what dangerous Consequences can possibly attend such a Faith as this 'T is true indeed the Adversaries of the Trinity have drawn up a heavy Charge against this Doctrine and taken a great deal of Liberty in their Discourses about it But the principal Objections that have been made by any of them are but Three to which all the rest may be reduced And these I shall endeavour to shew by the Account before given are very Frivolous and Unjust 1. The first Pernicious Consequence the Doctrine of the Trinity stands charged with is the Introduction of a Plurality of Gods But 't is very plain from what we have said in the former part of this Discourse that 't is utterly impossible to believe a Trinity in any such sense as implies a Plurality of Gods For according to the Notions I have there shewed we have of the Nature and Attributes of God 't is undeniably certain to every Man's Experience that we cannot conceive more than One God All our Endeavours to comprehend more are only repetitions of the same Idea Let Those therefore take care to Answer this Accusation who under pretence of giving a more Rational Account of what we are to believe in this Point set up created subordinate Gods to be Partners with their Maker in the Glory and Worship due to him Besides we do explicitly declare that there is but One God at the same time we make Profession of our Faith in a Trinity or Three Persons 2. In the next place therefore we are accused of believing Contradictions and consequently of destroying all the certainty of Natural Knowledge Which Fence being down there 's no Error so gross or absurd but may be obtruded upon us and Transubstantiation has as good a Pretence to be an Article of our Faith as the Trinity But I need not make any particular Answer to this Objection having proved at large already that we neither do nor can believe a Trinity in any sense that contradicts the plain and evident Principles of Natural Reason We do not believe there can be more Gods than One that One can be Three in the same respect 't is One or that One God can be Three Persons in the same sense three Men are three Persons or any other Proposition that 's inconsistent with those Natural Notions which are the Foundation of all our other Knowledge But the Patrons of Transubstantiation cannot make this Plea who in this one Particular deny those very Principles which upon all other occasions they rely upon with the greatest Assurance Did they only affirm that Christ was present in that Sacrament in some way or manner they could not comprehend but in no way repugnant to the plain and necessary Dictates of well-informed Sense and right Reason there might be then some Resemblance found betwixt this Doctrine and that of the Trinity but at present the Comparison is palpably and notoriously unjust 3. But Thirdly 't is further Objected That though the Doctrine of the Trinity as we explain it could not be proved to contain down-right Contradictions yet at least it must be counted and esteemed as a Mystery and the Imposition of Mysteries for Articles of Faith is a thing of very ill Consequence In Answer to which Charge it is to be observed that as in the Doctrine of the Trinity so in most other Objects of Faith and Knowledge there 's something that we plainly and certainly understand and something that we cannot possibly comprehend Thus a Man by inward Reflection is Infallibly conscious of his own Thoughts and he judges whatever he perceives within himself to proceed from one Common Principle which he calls his Soul and which from the Nature of its Operations he is fully perswaded is something of a different kind from his Body tho' it always Acts in consent with it But what this Soul is or in what manner united to his Body he is not able to conceive and therefore the Doctrine of the Human Soul taken all together may as justly be stiled a Mystery as the Trinity We ought not then to be offended at the word Mystery since if we strictly examine our thoughts we shall find that almost every thing we pretend to know comes under that name even those things we have the greatest Assurance of our very Souls and Beings This being observed we may consider the Trinity either with respect to what may be understood of it or what cannot So far as we are capable of
Actions to proceed I have not the least conception of for all that I conceive is only several Idea's of different particular Actions which no more express the Idea of that Principle from whence they spring than the Idea's of several particular Lines express the Idea of that Point they are drawn from All that we can perceive or imagine of corporeal Vnity is nothing else but a Connexion or joint Position of several Bodies which according as it is more or less perceivable according to the simplicity or multiformity of the Figure resulting from it and the easiness or difficulty of Separation makes several degrees of Vnion which all receive the common Denomination of Vnity Now as Extension by reason of its perpetual divisibility cannot give us a true Notion of simple Vnity so neither can I have any distinct knowledge of Vnion or Composition abstracted from all Considerations of Extension I do not understand how a Mind and Body are united any otherwise than that I perceive such and such spiritual Actions produced within the Compass of such a Body which I call One Neither am I able to comprehend the Union or Separation of Two spiritual Beings without considering them as in the same or different Localites for I have not distinct Idea's of several spiritual Natures nor if I should perceive the several Operations of different Spirits could I distinguish the several individual Beings or Principles they proceeded from For who is there that if all the Thoughts and Motions of the Souls of several Men were communicated to him could tell which proceeded from which Nay we cannot tell what difference of Actions is sufficient to determine the different kinds of Principles they proceeded from neither can any Co-operation or Consent of Actions make us conceive a spiritual Vnion without conceiving the same Term of Action too For suppose two Souls were so exactly framed alike that they always thought and will'd the same Things at the same times and were conscious of each other's Thoughts and Actions if they were put into different Bodies 't is plain we could not properly say they were united or made one And again supposing they were in the same Body we could not possibly conceive them to be two any otherwise than we knew them capable of a separate Existence that is if we examine our Thoughts honestly of a separate Vhi in different Bodies or elsewhere Not that I think local Presence or Determination is any way contained within the Idea of a spiritual Being but it helps us to conceive it better and discourse more distinctly about it And if we observe it there are several cases where our Conceptions and Judgments must necessarily differ These then are all the kinds of Vnity and Distinction I can possibly imagine namely in Idea Principle and Position Whatever else is called Unity is more properly termed Agreement the very Notion of which implies a distinction in some of the fore-mentioned kinds Identity is nothing else but a repetition of Vnity as Number is of Difference with the Judgment of the Understanding upon it What Personal Vnity and Distinction are will be easily understood by explaining the word Person which signifies one of these two things either a Particular Intelligent Being or an Office Character or some such complex Notion applicable to such a Being In the first sense one Man or Angel is one Person and several Men or Angels are several Persons In the second sense of the word there may be so many Persons as there are different Combinations of the Actions Relations and Circumstances of Intelligent Beings And thus having given an Account of the meaning and signification of the Terms in which we are required to express our Faith we are next to Examine how far and in what sense we can believe this Proposition That One and the same God is Three different Persons Now 't is certain that if those before-specified are all the Notions we are able to frame of Vnity and Distinction then God must be One and Three in some way or manner there laid down or else in some other way or manner not conceivable by Human Understanding First then let us see how and in what manner God can be One and Three according to those Notions our Souls have framed of Vnity and Distinction And here 't is granted on all hands that nothing can be One and Three in the same manner and respect We cannot conceive a thing to be in One determinate Position or Vbi and in Three separate Vbi's all at once We cannot conceive that One Principle or Nature should be but One and yet Three different Principles or Natures too or that any Object should be truly and adequately represented to any Mind or Understanding under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three different Idea's 'T is impossible to believe any thing of this kind because it implies a plain Contradiction to the clearest and most certain knowledge we can have of Unity and Distinction so that if One may be Three in the same respect 't is One then One and Three must stand for other Idea's than we conceive when we pronounce these words and if so they ought to have other Names and not be called One and Three Since therefore we cannot say that God is One and Three in the same respect in the next place let us Enquire In what different respects this may be affirmed of him Now as to the Vnity of God this is easily believed and acknowledged as being very agreeable to all our other Notions of the Deity The chief difficulty lyes in assigning the Distinction In attempting which the best and clearest way of proceeding will be by going over the several kinds of Distinction before-mentioned I will begin with that of Position And here 't is plain at first sight that we cannot possibly conceive God under any difference of Position we cannot exclude Omnipotence from any imaginable point of space 'T is the limited Powers and Faculties of created Beings which are the Foundation of all Local Distinctions And therefore when we endeavour to represent God to our thoughts in this manner we consider him as Omnipresent and I can no more conceive Three Omnipresents than I can conceive Three straight Lines drawn between the same Points But though there can be but One undivided Omnipresence may there not be Three Infinite Beings Co-equal to one another and Commensurate to One Infinite Space This is far above my Conception too Infinite swallows up all my thoughts Whatever Idea we apply this Term Infinite to I think it impossible to apply it to another of the same Denomination As for Example If I apply it to Power I cannot consider it as applicable to more than One Infinite Power For Infinite Power includes all the Possibilities of Action so that to conceive more than One Infinite Power would be to conceive more Power than is possible which is a gross and palpable Absurdity And therefore we cannot conceive