place and exercise my Faith in God aright how to pay my Duties and Worship to him and consequently to my Salvation But now I am arrived at the Borders of the Controversy betwixt the Trinitarians and the Vnitarians the Athanasians and nick-nam'd Arians But to pass my Task 't is requisite to give yet a further Description of this One most High God which following Description is said to be drawn from Scripture consequences but is much more plainly set down in words at length in other Authors 1. I shall first cite the Athanasian Creed on this Subject The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says thus I believe in One God the Father Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God begotten of the Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made of one Substance with the Father by whom all things were made And in the Holy Spirit the quickening Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son and in like manner is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son and who spake by the Prophets 3. Next I shall cite the first of the 39 Articles of the Church of England There is but One living and true God c. and in Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity 4. Next I shall cite Mr. Joseph Wright in his Book intitul'd Brief Animadversions on five Articles pag. 2. So that we did then and do hold that there is One only true and living God the Father Son and Holy Spirit all three of the very same Divine Nature and Being And in the same Book pag. 3. lin 28. When we say these three are one we did and now believe that the Father Word or Son and Holy Spirit are all three of the same Divine Nature and Being from everlasting to everlasting the Creator and Governor of all things One only true and living God in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons Thus far Mr. Wright 5. Next I shall cite Dr. Owen in his Book intituled The Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated printed An. 1669 pag. 29. In the Declaration of this Doctrine unto the edification of the Church there is contained a further explanation of the things before asserted as proposed directed and in themselves the Object of our Faith namely how God is one in respect of Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being How being Father Son and Holy Ghost he subsisteth in these three distinct Persons And Pag. 112. The distinction which the Scripture reveals between Father Son and Holy Spirit is that whereby they are three Persons distinctly subsisting in the same Divine Essence or Being Now a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property subsisting in an especial manner as in the Person of the Father there is the Divine Essence or Being with its Property of begetting the Son subsisting in an especial manner in the Father and because this Person hath the whole Divine Nature all the essential Properties of that Nature are in that Person Page 122. Seeing here that the name of God supplies the place of a Species tho it be singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely singular and One and cannot be multiplied yet in respect of communication it is otherwise it is communicated unto more 6. I shall cite next Mr. John Preston in his Book intitul'd Life eternal or a Treatise of the Knowledg of the Divine Essence fourth Edition printed 1034 page 48 49. If there be two things in God then there is Multiplication now all Multiplication ariseth from some Imperfection from some want and defect for if one would serve two would be needless if one Medicine would cure two would be unnecessary so in all things else So that the reasâ—n of Multiplication is because one will not serve the turn Therefore God being all-sufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and entire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further thus Wheresoever there is any composition there must be two or three things so that there may be a Division they are separable tho not separated But where Division is there may be a Dissolution and so Destruction though it never be But of God we cannot say that this may be and consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most entire Being without all Composition and Multiplication If God be not simple there must be parts of which he is compounded but in God blessed for ever there are no parts because then there should be Imperfection for every part is imperfect I shall cite one Author more and then make some use of the whole 7. Mr. Thomas Monk in his notable Book of the Trinity intituled A Cure for the cankering Error Pag. 55. has these words Not to the end it should make a Multitude of Gods or divide the Essence but to distinguish the Persons because tho there be one Person of the Father another Person of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost yet the Father is not another thing or another God distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost neither is the Son another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost neither is the Holy Ghost another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Son because the Nature of God is but one and indivisible although the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another and therefore they are not of divers natures of another and divers Substance not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence the same Eternity the same Will the same Operation c. And page 57. ' Qu. Be there any parts or kinds in God Answ None at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit no Composition or Division and simply and in every respect of Unity one Having given you this Description of the Most High God both from the Holy Scriptures and those Authors I shall now come to make that use of it which at first I promised and intended and that is to shew that there is no essential but only a circumstantial difference in the Apprehensions of the Parties before named concerning the Most High God and the Description here given of Him Only note that that which concerns the difference about the Son and Holy Ghost will be here spoken unto but occasionally and in short
finding none Why where is it What is become of it that great difference that hath troubled the World and Church so many hundred years and set good men together by the ears Toâ—th and Nail occasion'd a great Volume of hard bitter sharp biting Words against each other and yet you see we are all agreed about the main Matter Substance or Essence of the most High nay and in all the essential Properties of him too And yet can there be any material difference about him notwithstanding that 's strange how can this thing be Why yes yet there is a difference but whether a material one or no must be left to my considering Reader to judg It is not whether this Divine undivided Essence about which and all its essential Properties we are fully agreed whether I say it subsist in one Divine Person For this is also jointly agreed on all hands as I shall presently shew But it is this Whether it subsist only in One Divine Person or both in One and also in like manner in Three The Orthodox is for the latter the Heretick affirms the former Thus near are we come and I doubt not anon to shew you that we are yet nearer than all this But first I 'll demonstrate this tho first of all we must treat of the word Person what in this Controversy is understood by it And because I am a little at a loss to explain the thing I will therefore give you Dr. Owen and Mr. Monk's Description First Dr. Owen if you look back to the first Quotations of him Now says he a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property of subsisting in an especial manner Secondly Dr. Hall as I find him quoted by Mr. Monk Page 46. of his Cure for the cankering Error hath these Words We may think here of one Substance in three Subsistences one Essence in three Relations one Jehovah begetting begotten proceeding Father Son Spirit yet so as the Son is no other thing from the Father but another Person or the Spirit from the Son Also Mr. Monk in his 63 page propounds this Question How doth the word Essence differ from the word Person in God his answer is Essence is the Nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them not without them subsisting by it self to wit the very Deity it self And therefore the essential Properties which be in them are one in number of one nature Now Person is the subsisting in the Divine Nature or the nature of God which having relation to others is distinguished by some incommunicable Properties for indeed the Persons are only distinguished not severed as indeed three men are indeed separated tho they be one in kind The Reason is because the Essence of God is infinite and impartible and therefore it is all in every Person which are not severed one from another but only distinguished amongst themselves But as for the Essence of Angels and Men it is finite and partible so that it is not all in every single Person but part in one and part in another One Passage he hath in page 39. Fourthly All the Attributes whether relative negative or positive or if any other in that they proceed from the Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person The Father is eternal the Son is eternal the Holy Spirit is eternal because the whole Essence is in every one of them I need not cite any more because so far as I am able to distinguish Dr. Owen Dr. Hall and Mr. Monk have spoken the general sense of all that have writ on this Subject And now having shewed you the Description that these men give if I can tread right in this narrow Path I will try to give you according to the best of my judgment the sense of what they mean by the word Person or Persons in the Divine Essence First then I do suppose by Person here is not intended a distinct separate Being from the Essence or from one another nor yet a distinct spiritual Substance for this were to divide the Substance into three distinct divided Persons Neither must it be supposed that Person hath a distinct Mind or Will from the Essence or the other Persons for that will necessâ—rily imply three or four Minds and Wills in the Most High which would be absurd Neither must the Person have any one part of the Divine Essence peculiar to it self for that would divide the Essence into parts and the Divine Properties also and so bring all into confusion as hath been shewn therefore Person must be supposed to be something not at all separated from any part of the Essence or of the other Persons Therefore says Mr. Monk Essence is the nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them and therefore concludes that the essential Properties which be in them are one in number that is that the essential Property of Love and the essential Property of Mercy and the essential Property of Justice and all the rest are all and whole in one Person and all and whole in another And therefore elsewhere says That all the Attributes both relative negative and positive or any other of the Divine Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person So that in short the thing is this that a Person separate from Essence is nothing but is only the whole undivided Essence subsisting in a certain manner or mode that is in one manner in the Father in another manner or mode in the Son and in another manner in the Holy Ghost that is not three distinct intelligent Beings but only one infinite intire distinct intelligent Being subsisting in three undivided inseparable Manners or Modes And this is the general sense so far as I was ever able to discern of all the Authors that ever I read on this Subject But if this be the Knot of the Controversy about the most High God perhaps some will say it is dark I say perhaps so too very like it may be so else what 's the matter think you that so many Men who have long been loving Friends and good Men yet by this Controversy have had their Eyes so blinded that they could not see one another with an Eye of Charity And what else should be the reason that in the Churches where it hath been controverted there hath oftentimes arose such a Mist and thick Darkness that many could not see their Seats at the Lord's Table And if any shall ask me the meaning of the matter I must answer with Mr. Monk page 43. That the perfect manner how one person is in
and the Wâ—man whom thou gavest me c. Next Abraham Gen. 15.2 And â—â—raham â—â—â—d Lord God what wilt thou give me Chap. 17.18 O that Ismael might live before Thee And when he would make his Servant swear by the True God Chap. 24.3 he did not distinguish him as one in three but says he I will make thee swear by the Lord the God of Heaven and the God of the Earth Also when the Servant several times in this Chapter directs his Prayer to this God he doth not distinguish him personally in three but says O Lord God of my Master Abraham I pray thee send me good speed Then for Jacob when he tells his Father Laban how his Substance came to be increased Gen. 31.42 he doth not say the God subsisting in three Persons but says he the God of my Father the God of Abraham c. and Chap. 32.10 I am not worthy of the Mercies and all the Truth which Thou hast shewed me Ver. 11. Deliver me I pray thee And thou saidst I will surely do thee good In short in several places he distinguishes him verbatim as God discovered himself to Abraham viz. God Almighty but not one word of God in three Persons Next Moses Exodus 5.23 For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Thy Name he hath done evil to this People Neither hast Thou delivered thy People at all Chap. 15.1 Then sang Moses and the Children of Israel this Song unto the Lord He hath triumphed gloriously the Horse and his Rider hath He thrown into the Sea And in this Song you have the Terms he thee thy thou thine him repeated no less than 35 times and yet neither you yours they or them once mentioned respecting the most High Thus have I briefly run over the sum of the most remarkable Instances of persons paying their Devotions to the most High in the Old Testament and I might have instanced David Solomon Daniel and many others yea down to Zechariah's days and it appears as if they were all agreed to conceive of and acknowledg an undivided single Essence and its Properties But no Footsteps do appear of their distinguishing the Essence in three persons in their Conceptions And if the Israelites ever had any such conception of God methinks it should not be lost and if not lost it is strange Josephus should not mention it since he gives an account of things as far back as Moses even from the beginning and often speaks of God and his essential Properties describing the true Object of the Jews Worship and yet always speaks of him as one in Vnity of Essence but hints not a word of divers Persons And as Josephus then so the Jews now acknowledg no such thing as Mr. Monk says page 70. he says the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the Blindness of the Jews who do affirm an Essence altogether without distinction Now I say 't is strange if this were understood amongst them especially as so material a thing as is now supposed that then both the Jews now who yet profess the true God and are zealous of the Mosaical Law and Josephus so long ago should yet be ignorant of so remarkable a matter In the next place I come to the New Testament to see whether we may judg it the Will of God that we should worship and adore his Essence as subsisting in one Person or in three And first I will consider the Apostle Stephen what he says of the most High Acts 7.2 he calls him the God of Glory and ver 32. he cites and describes the antient Description without enlarging viz. I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. And ver 48. The most High dwells not in Temples made with Hands Herein is a discovery of God's Greatness but no distinguishing his Persons And remarkable it is that Paul about to instruct the ignorant Athenians in the knowledg of the true God as the Object of their Worship Acts 17.23 24 25. first lets them know that they ignorantly worshipped the unknown God and that him he would declare unto them And accordingly says God that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwells not in Temples made with mens hands as though he needed any thing seeing he giveth to all Life and Breath and all things Herein the Apostle very notably sets forth his most glorious Attributes and invisible Being by his creating and preserving of all things But says not one word of the distinction of Persons Now if tâ—e Knowledg of this were so necessary to be known in order to Salvation as is imagined Paul had no less need to instruct these ignorant Athenians therein as much as in the Knowledg of the Essential Properties and Power Next we will consider Eph. 4.6 There is One God and Father of all who is above all Here you see a plain discovery of the Vnity of the Godhead and his Supremacy but the Description of Persons is still wanting To this I will add 1 Cor. 8.6 But to us there is but One God the Father of all things Here again the Object of Worship is described as the first Cause and Foundation of all things of whom are all things 2. The Inseparableness and Oneness of his Being is asserted but One God 3. He is so far from directing us to fix our Conceptions on him as distinguished into three Persons that he solely centers him in One even as subsisting in the Father Now what rational Man can conclude from hence but that we are to conceive of the Object of Worship as intirely subsisting in and to be called by the Appellation of the Father and so to be worshipped That is in plainness that we are to conceive that all that we believe to be God most High whether Essence Attributes or Persons whatever we may think of its various subsisting in our selves yet it is to be adored and distinguished by the Person of the Father where we all say that 't is all and whole But further I shall add the Authority of him who cannot err John 4.22 23 24. Ye worship ye know not what We know what we worship for Salvation is of the Jews But the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth From this pertinent place I note as follows First That it contains a Discourse of our Saviour directly concerning Worship 1. Blaming and describing the ignorant false Worshippers Ye the Samaritans worship ye know not what 2. Describing the true Worshippers 1. By the manner how in Spirit and in Truth 2. The Matter or Object what and that described two ways 1st His Essence a Spirit 2dly The Person who viz. the Father the true Worshippers shall worship the Father Further from this Text
I observe 1. They cannot be true Worshippers that worship they know not what 2. They that worship the Father as the proper Object of Divine Worship are not such as worship they know not what but such as know what they worship 3. They that worship the Father conceiving of him as containing the glorious inseparable Essence or Spirit being worthy above all things to be worshipped these I say are not the false but the true Worshippers of God and provided they perform their Worship spiritually shall be accepted by him because he seeks such to worship him 4. That it is the Will of God and Direction of Christ that of all the Persons believed to be in the Deity God the Father is to be conceived as the most proper Person for us to direct our highest Adoration to 5. That he that conceives that the Godhead and all its essential Properties subsist in the Father as the proper Object of Divine Worship conceives not amiss because according to Christ's Rule he is a true Worshipper 6. That we may lawfully have Communion with any such Persons if that be all their fault because they are true Worshippers and with better we cannot well join 7. I observe that when Christ describes the Object of our Worship he is so far from distinguishing or teaching us to distinguish the Persons in that Object that he contains all under the denomination of one only Person even the Father Next I shall cite the Instruction of our Lord expresly injoining us to pay Adoration to God the Father and acknowledg all to be his Mat. 6.9 After this manner therefore pray ye Our Father who art in Heaven hallowed be thy Name thy Kingdom come thy Will be done in Earth as 't is in Heaven c. for thine is the Power and the Glory for ever Amen From this I observe 1. That it is the Will of God as declared by Christ that the order we should observe in our Conceptions of God Almighty and in pouring out our Desires to him is positively and directly to pray to God the Father as the proper Appellation and Object of our Prayers 2. That he that prays to God the Father prays in that respect aright and to the true God 3. That it appears not that in our Prayers we are injoined to distinguish the Persons if we regard and eye by Faith the Being or Essence we worship 1. Because if such a thing as distinguishing the Persons in Prayer were a Duty or material our Saviour would have inserted it in his Directory since he here gives an account of all the material Points of Prayer 2. Because on the contrary he expresly injoins us to direct our Desires not to three but to one Person even the Father withal teaching us to use such Expressions as are most proper to a single Person viz. three times thy and once thine 4. I observe that our Lord directs us to render and ascribe such Excellency full Power Soveraignty Protection Sacredness Bounty Clemency Glory to the Father as are only proper to be given to the whole and only Godhead which still shews that the proper glorious Object of Divine Worship is the whole Godhead as truly subsisting all and whole in the Person of the Father and under that Appellation to be worship'd And as I have hitherto treated of positive Directions in this case I shall briefly cite some Examples of Christ and his Apostles as our Pattern to follow whereby it may further appear most agreeable to Scripture to worship one Person First Christ's Example Mat. 11.25 I thank thee O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth Here he pays the duty of Thankfulness to the Father and owns him as supreme Soveraign Mark 14.36 And he said Abba Father all things are possible to thee take away this Cup from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt Next I shall cite the Apostles Rom. 8.15 Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby ye cry Abba Father Rom. 15.6 That ye may with one Mind glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Gal. 4.6 God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts crying Abba Father The next Instance shall be the Adoration of Paul to this single Person Eph. 3.14 For this cause I bow my Knee to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Jam. 3.9 Therewith bless we God even the Father 1 Pet. 1.17 And if ye call on the Father c. And indeed it were tedious to cite all those Texts that give Testimony to this thing These Gleanings are set down that ye might believe that the proper Object of Divine Worship is the one most High God as truly subsisting all and whole in the Person of the Father And believing it that ye might direct your Adoration to him accordingly and also have Charity towards all those who have no other material fault but worshipping the Father as the proper Object Nay methinks there is no Point of Divinity in the Holy Scriptures more clear than this thing as any indifferent Eye may see 't is not a thing drawn from doubtful Consequences but plainly revealed often repeated and never contradicted but confirmed by the universal Practice of the Prophets and Primitive Saints and also by Christ and the Apostles namely That the most High is to be worshipped as a single impartible Essence in one single Person without the Worshippers being obliged at the same time to distinguish three distinct Subsistings and Denominations And on the other side there is not one Instance to be given where any Man is recorded in the word of God our only Rule and Guide to adore the most High God under the apprehension of one Essence in three Persons that is I mean did direct his Prayers or Thanks to three Persons And here I must take occasion moderately to check some of my worthy and beloved Brethren useful in the Ministry who a little heated with an inordinate Zeal for the Doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead fearing they may prejudice the Doctrine it self by yielding too much to its opposite do on the other side as much overshoot the Mark and form their Petitions quite beyond all Scripture-Injunction and Example And tho no Examples nor any thing like them can be given yet they must conclude their Prayers To thee O Lord Father Son and holy Spirit three Persons one eternal God be Honour Glory Praise c. What shall one think of this but that those Men think if they should not direct and form their Prayers to the Almighty better than Abraham Jacob Moses the Prophets of old and Christ and his Apostles did their Prayers would be very defective and not accomplished as they ought Truly to be zealous in a good thing is commendable and that 's a good thing for which we have Precept or Pattern but for this there is neither Now when we take the liberty to add to Divine Worship however agreeable to our Opinions and however well-meaning
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
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
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
Innovations and Institâ—tionâ— have been introduced people thinking still to mend things by bringing it nearer to their own Conceptions have often made it worse in not heeding the Standard These things pâ—emised I shall give my Answer to the Question and do say that to me it doth not aâ—pear that it is the pleasure of God that Worship should be paid unto him under the appellatiâ—n and with the câ—nception of a single Essence subsisting bâ—th in one and three distinct Manners Modes or Persons But rather that it is his declared Will that his Subjects should pay their Adoration to him under and with the conception and appellation of one supream Soveraign and singular Substance inseparâ—ble in Essence and Divine Properties subsistâ—ng in one Divine Persâ—n and Spirit And for this I will give my Reasons First as hath been hinted I take it for granted that let the Doctrine of three Persons in one Essence be as clear as the Sun yet with whaâ— conceptions we must worship must be câ—nf â—â—ble tâ— God's Word Bâ—t now to the Reasons My first Reason iâ— notwithstanding the various Appellatioâ— which God chose in fâ—rmer Dispensations to make himself knoâ—n to his Sâ—bjects by as the Object of thâ—â—â— Wâ—rship tho they did plainly discover the Unity of hâ—s Eâ—sâ—nce and also his essential Properties yet I remember not one Discovery of him as a single Essence in a threefold subsâ—stâ—nâ—â— or one Essence and three Pâ—rsâ—nâ— And there seems no such discovery under the 〈◊〉 Dispensâ—tion Which will appâ—â—r â—irs◠〈◊〉 take notice how he disâ—overâ— himsâ—â—â— in genâ—ral both at first to Adam seâ—â—ndly to Nâ—â—â— before and also after the Fâ—ood and hi◠〈◊〉 forth the Law to the Generations 〈…〉 Flood also to Abraham Iâ—â—â—â— Jacâ—â— Mâ—â—â— and to Iâ—rael in general and in particâ—lar in giving sorth his Law Nâ—w oâ— sâ—rv◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ral to all such as he makeâ— discovery of himself as the Object of their Worship he maâ—â—s use of such Denominations 〈◊〉 arâ— of the â—â—ngular number as I Mâ— M◠〈◊〉 Minâ— and not we or ours Liâ—ewise wâ—â—n â—â—y â—f 〈◊〉 did mention this sacred Mâ—â—â—â— in pâ—â—â—â— their Worship they made 〈…〉 such Eâ—pressions as shewed it was thâ—ir Sâ—ntâ—mâ—nt that they conceived of him as one intire Oâ—ject and not one and three â—s Thee Thâ—â— Thou â—r Thine not Ye You Yâ—â—r 〈◊〉 Yours which shews that â—hateveâ— thâ—â— â—â—lieved of different Peâ—sâ—ns in that one sin 〈◊〉 Essence or an one intire Substance in a â—â—â—â—fold Manner or Mode of subsisting 〈◊〉 yet no where appears that they or any oâ— tâ—â—â— before-named did but if so aâ— aâ— resaiâ— yet it appears they thâ—ught it thâ—ir Duty tâ— give Appellations to denominate and consequently to conceive of the Obiect oâ— tâ—â—ir Worship as a single one in one Person â—r intelligent Being without thinking it so material to take notice of Name of 〈◊〉 of a threefold manner of subsistin◠〈◊〉 â—â—nâ—le Essence both in one and three in tâ—e Aâ—t of Worship which yet sure were thâ—s sâ— material and essential a part of right â—â—rshiâ— as now supposed methinâ—s it◠〈◊〉 have appeared if not in all yet aâ— lâ—â—st in 〈◊〉 of the many Instancâ—s we have in Scriâ—ture of Persons expreâ—siâ—â— thâ—mselves in tâ—◠〈◊〉 of Worship and Adoration â—â—t â—â—w to return 〈◊〉 tâ—e â—irst tâ—â—â—t Gods disâ—â—vâ—ring hiâ—â—â—â— to man In thâ— first place to avoid an Objâ—â—tâ—â—â— oâ—â—erâ—e I am not speaâ—ing of what iâ— said â—hen â—â—d speaks concerning making Man or going down to see the Builders of Babel for this is foreign to my present business which is not now to dispute pro or con either to prove or deny the Doctrine of three Persons in one Essence but my particular Business is to shew how God hath discovered himself to Man Therefore let none cry out and say you have forgot the word Vs in the forenamed places For first whether it be there prâ—cisely demonstrated three undivided Persons in one intelligent Being the Dissenters from Athanasius's Creed will not be wanting to bring Reasons to the contrary which as aforesaid is not now my business to take notice of But secondly observe if they do yet these are Words spoken in Heaven which no mortal Man did ever hâ—ar nâ—r wâ—re they directed to man but spoken in the Heavâ—nly Mansions by him who perfectly knows and understands himself But that which I insist upon is that always when God directs his Speech to Man or Men discâ—vering himself to them as the Object of their Worship he theâ— speaks in the singular number Now this I take for granted because I think it will not â—e denied that the Manner or Mode of Godâ— describing of himsel◠〈◊〉 Man as the Object of their Worship oâ—ght to be the Directions of our Conceptions â—f him in the Act of Worship And that this is not plural but singular will appear in the particular Examination of the above-hinted Instances 1. To begin with Adam Gen. 3.11 Hast thou eaten of the Tâ—ee whereâ—f I commandâ—d that thou shouldst not eat and ver 15. I will put enmity c. Then to Noah Gen. 6.13 And God said untâ— Noah The end of all Flesh is come before M E and behold I will destroy them ver 17. Behold I even I do bring a Flood of Waters Ver. 18. But with thee will I establish my Covenant 2. The like or the same Expressions you have Chap. 7. at ver 1 4. and Chap. 9. In the Deed Contract or Covenant whereby God makes himself knâ—wn to and with the new World after the Deluge we find him thus expressing himself ver 3. The green Herb have I given you Ver. 5. Your Blood of your lives will I require at the hand of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of every Man's Brother will I require it Ver. 9. And I even I establish my Covenant with you Ver. 11. And I will establish my Covenant with you Ver. 13. I do set my Bow in the Cloud Ver. 15. And I will remember my Covenant which is between Me and you and every living Creature of all Flesh and the Waters shall no more become a Flood to destroy all Flesh Observe the Covenant made with all Flesh was under the notion of a single Being and not a threefold subsisting Now touching God's discovering and describing himself to Abraham the first time Gen. 12.1 2 3. Get thee into a Land that I shall shew thee and I will make of thee a great Nation And I will bless thee and I will bless them that bless thee The second time of appearance ver 7. And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said Vnto thy Seed will I give this Land The third time of appearance Chap. 13.15 16. Fourth time of appearance Chap. 15.1 The word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a Vision saying Fear not I am thy Shield Likewise ver 7 14 18. and Chap. 17.1 2. at the making the Covenant the Lord appeared unto Abraham and sâ—id I am the Almighty
Arguments convinced that you are right I cannot say as you say I think still the Ransom was Gold nevertheless tho I think you are mistaken I can and will bear with you pray shake hands and be Friends and bear with me pray don't leave me our parting will be very pernicious and uncomfortable and those Barbarians in the Ship will take nâ—tice of it and check us with it and every body will wonder at it and which is worst C that sent the Ransom and did us so much good will know of it and be very much offended with us therefore pray be perswaded to tarâ—y with me No not I says A I am resolved I 'll be gone and I 'll print some Papers and expose you and I 'll put a Bear 's Skin upon you and if I can I 'll make all them in the Ship believe that you are a Bear indeâ—d and all the Dogs in the Ship shaâ—l bark 〈◊〉 you that you shall have but little Comfort or Peace in your Voyage and so in the mind I am in I 'll never come at you more or bid you God speed and so adieu Away flings A in a great Heat down sits B fetching a deep Sigh and becomes exceeding melancholy that he must sail alone Now every body will be ready to think that this was a very untoward scurvy simple Trick of A for so slight an occasion to deal so with B and leave him thereby exposing both himself and B to the odd Censure and Derision of the By-standers Yet what do some wise Men do less than the same thing While both Parties in this Controversy were running from God and taken captive under Sin and Wrath and were unable to help themselves God saw and pitied their Condition and freely sends his Son to ransom and redeem them to the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God he accordingly offers his Body and redeems them from Sin and Wrath they both without doubting do agree that contrary to their Deserts God freely sent his Son and that Jesus of Nazareth was he and that he was a sufficient Ransom But at the same time the Question is dropt what was that Body made of says one Party all that died on the Cross to redeem us was originally a Creature of the Earth of the Dust of the Ground No says some of the other Parties that which died for our Sins tho it were a real and true natural Man yet originally was not of the Dust of the Ground nor a part of the polluted fallen Lump but of a more noble Extract to wit the Lord from Heaven And amongst other things it is said they think so for this reason because if the most High could honourably with respect to his Justice take any part of the fallen Lump and sanctify it and accept of it without any Mediator or Sacrifice offered for it nay so accept of it not ony in its own behalf but also as a Ransom satisfactory for all the rest of that Lump then it will follow that there was no absolute necessity for the satisfaction of Justice that there should be any Mediator at all since it appears that a part of that fallen Lump was accepted without any Mediator at all but I 'll not meddle with the Controversy In the mean time the other Party represented by A in our Similitude say except you say as we say and think as we think that that which died was of the Earth we will leave you and reject you as Hereticks No says the other Party represented by B not so we are your Brethren we love you pray don't part from us we live in the love of Christ we own the same Person to be Christ that you do we believe him to be as sufficient a Ransom as you do we believe him to be the Son of God as well as you only we think in this matter you are mistaken yet we are willing to bear with you and embrace you If you leave us God will be offended good men grieved young Converts staggered and the World will laugh at us and scoff us No says the other Party represented by A we will leave you say what you will you deserve no Charity nor Indulgence you ought to be excommunicated if you had your due We will expose you in printed Papers we will perswade every body if we can that you are Bugbears we say you are no Christians you hold such Heresies as are sufficient to corrupt all the Churches and to root the Christian Religion out of the World You are worse than the Papist and as bad as Atheists nay you do deny the true God and the Lord that bought you you will bring on your selves swift Destruction and therefore we will purge our selves of you and so adieu Lamentable it is and to be bewailed that they who should strive together for the Faith of the Gospel should strive to wound their Brethrens Reputation representing them as the worst of Men surely brotherly Compassion and brotherly Communion with a friendly and charitable Bearing would be to the Gospel much more adorning in our selves much more becoming and to our Brethren much more edifying Let us live in the Love of God and keep pure the Doctrines of Christ leaving those Mysteries till we shall know as we are known There is one thing more I had almost slipt some will say our Brethren own Christ to be the Son of God but that signifies little so long as they do not tell us how he is the Son of God To which I answer That it is unjust to condemn them for what we our selves are guilty of for there is none of us all while we tell them of Eternal Generation that dare once open our Mouths to tell them how it is And while they say Eternal Generation is against Reason we say it is above Reason and cannot be comprehended by Reason 'T is true we tell them by the Pen of Mr. Monk pag. 72. That the Person begets and is begotten but the Essence neither begetteth nor is begotten and pag. 98. we say his Person was begotten not his Essence But some will say we have no Scripture says so and do what we can yet some young Converts ignorant Persons and those of mean apprehension tho they may be honest-hearted Men and Women yet in this case are so dull of hearing that theyâ—l hardly ever understand it But enough of this I shall now in the next place come to treat of the Holy Spirit the third Person of the Holy Trinity CHAP. III. Concerning the Holy Spirit I Shall do little more in this Chapter than transcribe what I have wrote on this Subject almost ten years ago in a private Letter which yet hath been made considerably publick in Kent London and elsewhere and having yet received no Answer to it I shall transcribe so much of it as relates to the Controversy concerning the Holy Spirit viz. Herein I shall first consider how far we are agreed in this also