There is none of you do question whether this be he that moved upon the Waters in the Creation or whether he be holy or whether this be he that descended on our Lord Jesus Christ or whethat that he declares and makes known the very Mind and Will of God or no or whether his Operations may be properly called the Works of God or no or whether it be he that our Lord Jesus Christ said should come or no or whether his Assistance be helpful to mortify Sin and perform Duties towards God with acceptance nay not only in this but about all his Actions in the Saints which I shall not stand in particular to name both respecting the Manner Matter and Magnitude of them I do think you both agree So then still the dâ—fference lies here whether he himself be the Essence of the most Hiâ—h from Eternity a thing no where required to be known that I know of in the whole Book of God But admit it â—e so that the Holy Spirit is in himself the most High God then must it follow that he as the most High created the Heavens and the Earth and so still preserveth the Creation Then it follows that he that worships the most High God that created the Heavens and the Earth and still preserveth the same according to that Knowledg attained of him in his Word he I say then worships this Holy Spirit as much as he that particularly names him altho in respect of his Oâ—fice he looks upon him differing from this most High God and verily if we will heed the Scriptures so we must all for what he is in respect of his Essence is not there expresly declared but as he is manifested to us under the Notion of the Holy Spirit he is declared to be different from the most High God and therefore so to be believed in John 16.13 For there it is said of him That when he comes he speaks not of himself but what he hears sure not from himself but from another that he speaks From whence it iâ— plain that in respect of his Office which is the thing signified by the denomination of Holy Spirit he is distinguished from the most High God and a Messenger sent from him and verily I think it highly necessary that every Christian should so conceive of him for it is the Spirit that maketh unutterable Groans and Intercession for us unto the most High God and not the most High that maketh Intercession to the most High He then that believes in and of the Holy Spirit according to those Articles wherein you are agreed I think his Faith in him is sufficient and according to the Scriptures AN APPENDIX CONTAINING A Short REPLY to a Book Intitul'd A Brief Inquiry whether they who assert and they who deny the Divinity of our Lord Jesus may have Communion together at the Lord's Table written by Mr. Joseph Taylor HAVING finished the precedent Sheets before I saw Mr. Taylor 's Book I could not therein take notice of it Mr. Taylor is one who for his Ingenuity I have long time highly esteemed tho we were never much personally acquainted The reading his Book puts me in mind of what I mentioned in my Epistle to the Reader concerning those little Buckets of Oil frequently starting forth from the Press upon us to increase and inflame our Contentions and I cannot forbear comparing this to one of those fiery Bombs charged with such Matter that in whatsoever Church it falls and fires that Church is in danger of being rent and torn in pieces I think every body ought to set to their hand according to their ability to prevent the fatal Consequences of so mischievous a thing At first sight I believed that a Reply thereto would be a very sutable Appendix to my Book but I shall be very brief and not follow him into all particulars partly because I would not swell this Piece too much and partly because I have heard that it is expected that a more full and distinct Reply will come from another hand First I observe that Mr. Taylor 's main Arguments are originally French and first appeared to the World in that Language however they are now adorned with an English Face and Tongue and tho they were foreign by birth yet they are now naturalized by the Act and Deed of an English Hand and Pen. Mr. Taylor confesses page 14. That he fâ—llows Monsieur Abbadie in his French Treatise of the Divinity of our Lord and I can assure you that the manner and matter of Mr. Taylor 's chief Arguments stand so fair and orderly and in some places almost verbatim in Monsieur Lamoth's Discourse of the Divinity with the Texts of Scripture as they stand in Mr. T 's Book in their order cited and imprâ—ved that at first sight I began to think I had got another Impression of Mr. Taylor 's Book in my hand However this Conclusâ—on I quickly came to that one must needs in great measure at least be the Father of the other and because Lamoth's bears date 1693 I concluded that his was senior However it be I wish Mr. Taylor e're he undertook this Task had well considered that we had already but too many English Incendiaries and therefore that there was the less need to call in those French Refugees to help pull down the Peace of our Churches about our Ears But to proceed the design of Mr. Taylor 's Book as he tells us is to shew and evince that those who assert and they who deny that Christ is God of the same Essence of his Father ought not to have Communion together at the Table of the Lord. This he endeavours to demonstrate from ten Reasons so called But first I must own my Ignorance of Mr. Taylor 's meaning by that Expression which he often uses Christ is God of the Essence of his Father by which I think he must mean one of these four things First That Christ's Divinity is an Essence flowing from or begotten of the most High the same in kind tho distinct in number Or secondly That his Divinity is a part of the same Essence that is in the Father Or thirdly That his Divinity is all and whole of the Divine Essence it self Or fourthly That he intends none of the Divine Essence or eternal Being neither in part nor whole but only the second Person If he means the first that the Divinity of Christ is of the same kind with the Essence of the Father but another distinct intelligent Being and that this is also God most High then this destroys the great Article of one Substance wherein so joint an Agreement is And God will then be no longer one but unavoidably two intire distinct intelligent Beings and so we shall have two Gods two most Highs two Almighties two Alknowing ones all which is nonsense beyond the fourth degree as well as untruth But sure he doth not intend so Therefore secondly suppose he intends the same Essence of
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
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
our Intentions may be yet if our Device want Authority from sacred Record we mar instead of mending for as there is a time for every Purpose so is there a Rule for every Practice God is the God of Order and the supreme Giver of a Rule in all Institutions and Worship and when beyond the express Rule we shall foist in any Formality in Duty we cast Dishonour on them of old to wit the Prophets and Apostles yea Christ and God himself as if he had been short in giving sufficient Rules or Christ and his Followers short in understanding him And thus indeavouring to mend Formality beyond Rule or express Precept or Example has as I hinted before occasioned all or most of the Innovations in Institutions and Forms of Divine Worship As for example because Christ saith Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you therefore as if persons were bound to take more care for their Children than God himself directed for many Ages they gave them the Lord's Supper tho they had no express Scripture for it Likewise because the Apostle says Make melody to the Lord and rejoice and again I say rejoice and the like therefore without rule some have invented Organs as proper to heighten Rejoycings Likewise because the Scripture saith Confess your Faults one to another therefore the Roman Church hath invented Auricular Confession And truly tho I would be sparing in comparisons yet I would have all my Brethren see that it is dangerous to add Devices of our own and that it is hardly sufficient because the Scripture says There are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one that therefore we must say in our Prayers Father Son and Holy Spirit three Persons and one eternal God when we have no precedent that ever any did so who yet knew how to pray as well as we having the first Fruits of the Spirit And as I said before were the distinction of Persons in that one Essence as plainly discovered by Scripture and Reason as the Oneness of that Godhead is which yet I must confess it hardly is yet the manner of our Conceptions and our Expressions to and Appellations of the Object of Worship in the Act of Worship must depend upon God's Will and Christ's Direction and not our own Device And now according to my promise concerning the Knowledg of the most High and paying Worship to him I hope I have convincingly shewn the joint Agreement on all hands among the Parties above-mentioned and that at most there is but a circumstantial difference between them and no material one seems to be in their thoughts either concerning God or Worship unto him both believing in the very same God that created the Heavens and Earth the very same Essence all and whole the very same that was and is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the same God and no other that is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the very same God that Christ directs us to call Father owning all his essential Properties Power and Prerogatives each believing him to subsist all and whole in the person of the Father and under that Appellation most proper to be worshipped only there is a little difference about this threefold manner of subsisting a thing as has bin shewn that God and Christ have at least been sparing in declaring at any time when he made discovery of himself in all Ages And therefore I hope the Belief of it not to be look'd upon so binding or the ignorance of it so damning as to be the Test of Communion And now according to my promise I shall come to speak of the second Person of the Trinity viz. the Christ of God CHAP. II. Concerning the Christ of God THIS Chapter containeth four Sections First shewing that we are all agreed about the Person of Christ who he is The second treateth of his Offices therein also shewing that we are agreed The third answers this Question Whether or no it be required that in order to our right believing in and worshipping of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth we must worship him as the most High God The fourth treateth particularly of his human Nature Sect. I. Shewing that we are all agreed about the Person of Christ who he is GReat have been the Mistakes of many about the Person of the Messias There seem to be in all Nations such Sparks of Light as inform them they have need of some one to be their Friend to appease Divine Wrath and speak to the most High for them to which purpose the Jews adhered to one Benchochab in the Reign of Adrian who pretended to be the Messias but came to nothing Likewise in 1666 they followed one Sebastius Sevi And after that one More pretending to be Christ who both came to nothing And they now look for a Messias to come tho not Jesus of Nazareth The Persians rely on Haly the Turks on Mahomet and the Quakers say it is something within viz. a Spirit or spiritual Substance And there shall yet come especially in the last times many Pretenders calling themselves Christs which shall be found Liars But our Brethren and we all agree that he and no other that was born of Mary called Jesus of Nazareth nailed to the Cross by the order of Pontius Pilat in the days of Tiberius Cesar that he I say was and is the Christ of God the Saviour of the World And why we should cry out upon one another that such a one denies the true Christ and believes in another Christ I see no Reason since we all agree that that one Person born of Mary was and is the true Christ 'T is true their Sentiments and ours may not be alike about his Substance in his preexisting before his Incarnation but as that is a Mystery hard for the Ignorant to understand and Men of the greatest Parts commonly lose themselves in it so I do not find the Apostles press it as material to be believed in and understood their main design seemed to be to prove that he was the same Person the Prophets spake of and to open the Power and Efficacy of his Death and Sufferings but were very sparing in talking of his preexisting which yet if it had been necessary to Salvation it seems to me they would have opened it as well as other Points But supposing our Brethren mistaken in their Conceptions concerning Christ what he was before his Incarnation yet have they the same Respect and Love for his Person as we have believe him to be the very Christ of God as much as we believe his Death to be available and look upon him to be as sufficient a Saviour as we do and since they pitch on the very same Person that we do I cannot think that they believe in a false or another Christ Sect. II. Concerning the Offices of Christ shewing also
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
the Father for number that is a part of it and so there is a part in the Father and another part in the Sâ—n or Christ which is Christ but then this is to oveâ—throw all our antient Creeds and Councils so much relied upon in this Case Athanasius's Creed will be thwarted which says not dividing the Substance Dr. Owen Mr. Wright Mr. Preston Mr. Monk the 39 Articles which say without parts will all come in against him and as I shewed before if we divide the Essence we must in our thoughts divide the essential Properties But I do not think Mr. Taylor will oppose himself to Reason and so many famous Men and Creeds antient and modern which will appear against him and deny the absolute Simplicity and Unity of God into the bargain But then thirdly if he means the Divinity of Christ is all and whole of the eternal supream Being it self then it follows that the whole Essence of God most High was incarnate was anointed was sent from Heaven to do another's Will became our Mediator yea that the whole Essence of God had a Father for Christ had a Father not only as he was the Son of Man but as he was the Son of God This contradicts Mr. Monk and I think most other Writers who say the Person not the Essence was incarnate and anointed and indeed the other seems a little strange for who should anoint it with what should it be anointed who should send it who should it mediate unto Besides if all the Divine Essence be anointed there is absolutely as much necessity of a Mediator betwixt us and Christ as betwixt us and the Father except it be said that the Person of the Father only is offended Now we know the Person of the Father is not the Essence it self for then Father must be anointed and incarnate and sent c. But he the Father is said to be only a certain manner of the Divine Essence its subsisting And then we must suppose that the Divine Essence it self was not so much or at all offended but only one of the Modes or Manners of its subsisting But this will be thought deep mysteries to Coâ—ntry people My short sight cannot see how to avâ—id this except we will say that as the whole Divine Essence subsists in the Father there it is supream the giver of all things Highest and can do all things the anointed the offended But as the same whole Divine Essence subsists in the Son or Christ it is distinct from the Father it is sent was anointed incarnate a Subject a Mediator a Reconciler could do nothing of it self I know not whether Mr. Taylor will take this Course or no but if he do I am sure he 'll destroy the Notion that Christ is to be worshipped as most High Gâ—d for if the dâ—vâ—ne Essence appear only supream in the Person of the Father then in him to wit the Father and under that name it is moâ—t proper tâ— be worshipped which iâ— mâ—st aâ—reeable to Sâ—ripture And as it is Christ it is a distinct thing from God the Father therefore as it is Christ and so an Oâ—â—icer we are to act Faith in what it doth and not in what it is since its essential Perfections appear supream only in the Person of the Father But fourthly suppose Mr. Taylâ—r intends none of all these and tho he over and over talks of Christ's being of the same Eâ—sence of the Father yet he intends nothing less and that one Jot or Tittle neither in whole nor part of the Divine Essence was incarnate anointed or was Chriâ—t but only the second Person of the Trinity distinct frâ—m Essence to wit the Sâ—n. And this indeed is Mr. Monk's Opinion in his Cure for the â—ankering Errâ—r pag. 98. We always distinguish between the Essence of the Son and the Persâ—n saying the Essence is one with the Fathâ—r but nâ—â— his Person therefâ—re we say his Pers n was begotten not his Essâ—â—â—e and we also say his Person took Fleâ—h of the Virgin Mary not hiâ— Essence This also seems to be the Opinion of many other Authors although I have not now opportunity to search and quote them But if this indeed should be his Opinion how â—inely is he catch'd then for they that have received his Book for Orthodox and good proof are taught to belâ—eve that such Persons as deâ—y or do not believe that Christ is essentially God are to be mark'd out for Excommunication and Damnation Now if Mr. Taylor believes that the Divine Essence neither whole nor part jâ—t or tittle was incarnate anointed or was Christ but only the Person then he must needs be one of them appointed f r Desâ—ruction and Excommunication and so his fiery Bolt is returned into his own Bosom But suppose this indeed should be his meaning that only the second Person as I think most believe was inâ—arnate and anâ—intâ—d then by Persâ—n he intends either an intâ—lligent Beinâ— Mind or Spirit distinct from the one Essence and the other two Persons or else he intends only a certain Manner or Mâ—de of subâ—â—sting of the one intelligent Being If he intends the former he must bâ—lieve three or four distinct intelligent Beiâ—â—â— Minâ—â— or Spiritâ— in God and I think tâ—â—t will be three or four Gods Bâ—t I could â—â—ford â—lmost to pass my word for Mr. Tâ—ylor that he doth not intend so Therefore I rather take him in the latter sense to wit a Mode or Manner of subsisting distinct from Essence If so then it will still follow that Christ is not to be worshipped as essentially God most High for then he is nâ—t the Essence but only a Manner or Mâ—de of it And I have before prâ—ved divine Wâ—rship as to the most High is to be given to the Divine Essence it self and n t directly and formally to any particular Manner or Mode of it I miâ—ht speak more to this but I fear I have said so much already that some ignorant People will be ready to think we Trinitarians at least sâ—me of us hold strange and nice Notions of Christ Nay perhaps they will say that we hold that Christ as to his human Nature or Manhood is no Person but a Nature only and as to his Person is not Essence or Substance but only a certain Manner or Mode of Essence But enough of this When all 's done I cannot tell which is Mr. Taylor 's meaning and therefore I hereby pray him if he appears in print again to eâ—plâ—in himself more distinctly and directly in this case I now come to consider his Reasons His first Reason why such as believe and such as disbelieve Christ to be of the Essence of his Father ought not to have Communion together at the Table of the Lord is That either they that believe it or those that disbelieve it must needs be Idolaters and they must esteem each other either guilty of Blasphemy or Id latry To which I return these following Replâ—es First