learned School-men and reformed Divines to be a Pack of such silly Fools as to contradict themselves to say a thing and unsay it again which is saying nothing at all and to teach the People like Parrots Propositions without apprehending them and such as are wholly unintelligible and the last of which is a Negation of the first See N. 11. How comes I say this Man to have this Confidence or rather bold Impudence Is it from the Strength of his Reason or rather of his Folly I would willingly reduce his Reasonings if they will bear it to some Heads and then severally consider the Strength of each of them for they are but a few the far greatest Part of his Book being made up of meer Tautologies His first Reasoning P. 6. § 10. is grounded on his own grand Mistake viz. That God absolutely considered and Person are convertible Terms so that there must be as many Gods as Persons How false this is hath been before declared and evidenced so that I shall not trouble my Reader with it again Object His second Reasoning immediately follows in the same Page and it seems to be to this purpose If there are Three each of whom is God or each of whom is Infinite Almighty Incomprehensible then there are three Gods three Almighties three Infinites c. His Consequence is most absurd and false because all the three Persons have but one and the same singular or numerical God-head Infinity Omnipotency c. for neither is the divine Essence or any Essential Attribute of God multiply'd as Personality is But the Author asks How do you prove that there are three Almighties three Incomprehensible Persons Answ We affirm no such thing let such prove it as do asfirm it for tho three may be affirmed of Persons because multiplicable yet not of infinite or eternal which cannot be multiplied so that his Argument is a meer Sophism viz. such as ariseth e Conjunctione eorum quae dividenda sunt and may be answered thus God is three Persons but not three Infinites or Eternals neither will he ever be able if he had more Skill than he hath from a Trinity of Persons in God if rightly understood to infer Polytheism or a Plurality of Gods Object His third way of Reasoning if we may call it such is P. 7. § 13. The former Part of the Section is a meer Repetition of what went before and hath been fully answered But in the latter Part of it he tells us That God and Man he means according to the Trinitarian Doctrine are Vniversals and so predicated of more Persons than one and each Divine Person is as much of himself God he means a distinct God as each Human Person is Man i. e. distinct Man Answ Never any Trinitarian yet did assume God to be an Universal or to be predicated of Father Son and Spirit per Modum Generis seu Vniversalis We say as in the Creed The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God that is the Father is Eternal God as with the Personal Property of Father the Son is the same Eternal God but with a distinct Personal Property viz. that of Son the like we say of the Holy Spirit Therefore his Inference That Divine Persons must be as much distinct as Humane Persons is idle and vain and it stands firm for all he hath said that there are not three Gods but one God As to what he adds § 15. That Father and Son being Relatives cannot subsist in the same Subject I must tell him that had he learned his Logick better he would have found they may provided they be not predicated de eodem respectu ejusdem which these are not Object His fourth way of arguing is § 16. If the Son is the same God as he is that begat a Son he must beget a Son too except the same God did and did not beget a Son Answ Although the Son be the same as he is that begot yet he does not beget because God as begetting is God as cloathed with the Relative Property of Father now the Son not being cloathed with that Property doth not beget His fifth way of Reasoning § 18. is as foolish and absurd viz. That if God be three Persons and each Person God there must be nine Persons because each single Person must be three Persons Had the Author but known and weighed the Description given of a Divine Person viz. that he is essentia Dei prout est cum Proprietate Hypostatica he would not have troubled us with such a trifling Argument For altho God absolutely considered and not limited by a Personal Property may by Addition of those Properties be Three Persons yet a Divine Person being God limited by Personal Property cannot be Three Persons His sixth way of arguing is § 20. Those things according to the common Sense of Mankind are the same with themselves that are the same with a third and all Knowledge but Intuitive depends upon the Truth of it We grant him all this But what is it he would infer It 's this that if three Persons and one Person first second and third are the same with God they are the same with one another Is this his Demonstration I must tell him that through Abuse of a good Rule there 's nothing but Confusion and Deceit in it For 1. He confounds three Persons and one as if they were the very same 2. He would make us believe that they do both alike agree in a third which is absurd and false because that Notion we have of the three Persons jointly considered is adequate to the Notion we have of God because the Divine Essence is not communicable to more than three Persons But the Notion we have of a single Person is not adequate to the Notion we have of God who is communicable to more than a single Person Do these then agree entirely in a third when this third hath it self after a different manner with respect to them It cannot be So that the Argument may be retorted upon himself and the quite contrary Conclusion inferred from the foresaid Rule Thus if one Person and three Persons do not agree in a third then they do not agree between themselves but they do not agree in a third as hath been shewn therefore not between themselves His seventh way of arguing § 21. is to as little purpose If the Persons saith he are really distinct and each is God must not each be God distinct from the other For nothing can be distinctly predicated of three distinct Persons if it do not distinctly belong to each As to the phrase of real Distinction we refer the Reader to what hath been said upon § 8. But as to what follows we say That altho God be predicated of three distinct Persons yet not distinctly or after a distinct manner but one and the same God is after one and the same manner equally predicated of three therefore it follows quite
be Three that bear Witness in Heaven and that these Three are One that himself as Father did before the World was and from Eternity beget the Son in the Form of God and equal to himself that the Holy Ghost in like manner is God proceeding and sent from the Father and Son we can now safely follow God and improve sanctified Reason to the getting of true and right Notions about this sublime Mystery and for Defence and Vindication of it and dispelling the Mists of those vile Aspersions and seigned Contradictions black-mouth'd Hereticks would fasten on it and we can as truly tell the Author that however this Mystery be a very high Mystery yet it is not as he would perswade wholly unintelligible but that we may have true Ideas of the Father begetting and of the Son 's being begotten and of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from Eternity and that this was not after some gross manner as the Author seems to suppose but in such a way as might agree to the most pure and simple Spirit yea we may tell him that from one and the same numerical eternal Essence acting upon its self by its internal Acts and likewise terminating those Acts and so laying the Foundations of relative Properties Three relative personal Properties with the Three blessed eternal Persons do necessarily emane without the least Appearance of a Contradiction the divine Essence so acting or reflecting on its self by eternal Intellection with the relative Property of Generation as flowing from it being God the Father The divine Essence as reflected on by and terminating the said Intellection with its relative Property of being begotten being God the Son the Splendor of the Father's Glory the eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the express Image of the Father's Person making a full and entire Representation thereof And how agreeable is this to many Scripture Phrases relating to the the Person of the Son And the same divine Essence as reflected on or terminated by that other Act of the same Essence and which may be stil'd the Love or Dilection of the Father and Son with its relative Property of being sent or proceding being the third Person or Holy Ghost the amiable Spring-head and Fountain of all that good which God communicates to his Creatures the all-searching quickning Spirit Deus spiratus missus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And give me leave to ask the Author our high pretended Rationalist who dares with his dark and glimmering Light so boldly contradict divine Revelation telling us that for the Father to beget the Son to be begotten the Holy Ghost to proceed and that these Three should be One and the Son to be equal to God the Father that such Language is nothing but mere Contradictions tho the express Language of the written Word Let me ask him I say according to the preceding Interpretation of the Words what Shew or least Appearance of a Contradiction can he find in them For the Divine Essence by an eternal reflex Act to know its self and so by a like act to love it self and for the same Essence to terminate each act is that which he neither can nor dare deny because that these are essential divine Perfections falling under our distinct inadequate Notions of the same glorious Being and which can no more cease to be than God can cease to be God where then comes in his Contradiction Object Will he say that according to these our Notions of a Trinity it follows that there are but three Persons and yet nine Persons That they cannot be multiplyed beyond three and yet may be multiplyed in infinitum Answ The quite contrary follows For according to these our Notions of the divine Essence so acting upon it self as aforesaid and so terminating the said two internal essential acts viz. of Intellect and Will it 's impossible the Persons in the divine Essence as flowing from them should either fall short or exceed the Number Three because according to these these we have to come up to his own Terms distinct Ideas of so many and neither fewer nor more viz. of a Person acting or begetting of a Person conceived or begotten and of a Person beloved or proceeding But will he say as he doth expresly § 26. That Obj. If it be not essential to the Nature of the Son and Spirit so to produce more Persons equal to themselves their Nature is not the same with the Father's and they want Perfections which he hath Answ It 's essential to the Nature of Son and Spirit as well as of the Father absolutely considered to be productive of more equal Persons tho it be not essential to the Nature of the Son and Spirit as limited by personal Property because by these it 's rendred incommunicable and cannot be so productive Therefore it 's very idle what he would infer that the Nature of the Son and Spirit is not the same with the Father's because they want Perfections which he has because the Nature still whether of Father Son or Spirit absolutely considered as such hath the very same essential Perfections tho as this is limited by personal Properties importing three Persons actually to exist in it from Eternity it cannot be said to produce them de novo and to be still productive of them so that we may justly say here that whosoever shall affirm that Essence as common to Father Son and Spirit is not productive of Three Persons let him be Anathema and whoever shall affirm that Essence as limited to Father Son and Spirit by personal Properties is still productive of Three Persons de novo let him be Anathema for Essence so limited the Three Persons exist as actually produced and therefore cannot remain to be produced Again will the Author say that the Father now producing no Persons equal to himself has lost a Perfection that 's essential to his Nature and consequently ceaseth to be all perfect as § 26 How vain and idle is all this When the act of begetting or producing in God is essential to the divine Nature and so can no more cease to be than the Nature it self it being an eternal act identified with the Nature and an eternal Foundation of such Relation as that of Son to Father which must there therefore be continued for ever the Foundation being continued otherwise than in the Creatures Having premised thus much for Explication of a Mystery which the Author most blasphemously pretends to be a Mystery of Anti-Christ wholly inexplicabable and unintelligible and having shewed that however it be a most sublime Mystery much transcending Reason and the Light of Nature yet being once fully reveal'd in the Word that it 's so far from standing in flat Contradiction to Reason and natural Light that it 's found to have a sweet Consistency with Reason and Light of Nature Having I say permised thus much I proceed now to his 〈…〉 3. third Chapter of the Nominal Trinitarians as the Author thinks meet tho without
And does not that Scripture John 1. 1 2 3 14. expresly affirm that the Word stiled the only begotten of the Father was in the Beginning was with God was God the great Creator and Maker of all things that without him was not any thing made that was made It 's a Wonder this Author when he reads such a Scripture as this can forbear for to cast forth Reproaches on the divinely inspired Evangelist himself for could any Trinitarian have with greater Evidence set forth That 1. this Word was from the Beginning and before the Beginning of all created Beings and therefore from Eternity 2. That in this Beginning he was with God and therefore a distinct Person from God the Father 3. That he was God viz. the same blessed God with the Father as to Essence 4. That all things were made by him and that without him was not any thing made that was made that therefore the Father did make nothing but in Conjunction with the Word or Son not in Separation from him as this Author would have it And as nothing that was made was made without this Word so this Word himself was not made except he make himself but is the eternal increated Being Let this Author shew now if he can what he hath to charge Trinitarians with which he may not as well charge on this blessed Apostle Obj. But this Author is so far from granting the Concurrence of the Son or Spirit to the doing of the same Actions with the Father notwithstanding Scripture does most clearly testifie it as in the Texts before cited that he does boldly aver That this is apparently false the Scripture being fâ—ll of Actions especially those they do to one another as one being sent by another their going from and returning to one another which is impossible to suppose they all equally concurr'd in a little after he adds That they viz. Trinitarians cannot deny but Father Son and Spirit act separately ad extra even with respect to the Creatures and to prove this he asks Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the other took him into theirs or were limited to him He further adds They are so far from being one in a natural Sense that there is not so much as a moral Vnion between them they have different Wills and Inclinations for instance the first Person will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person nay they say his Justice could not be satisfied without it the Son is so far from being of the same Mind that he freely offer'd himself to suffer to appease the Wrath of the first Person and still intercedes to the Father The third Person neither gives nor receives Satisfaction Answ 1. I know no divine Actions ad extra which are expressed in Scripture whether in a proper and literal or in a tropical and improper Sense but they may well enough agree to Father Son and Spirit and they may equally concur in them It 's true our Lord saith Joh. 16. 25. I came forth from the Father and am come into the World Again I leave the World and go to the Father But these Words do import no more than that the Word being made Flesh and dwelling in that Humane Tabernacle did for such time as that Humane Nature was upon the Earth manifest the divine Glory in it and so his leaving the World and going to the Father imports no more than his ceasing from such a Way for Manifestation of the divine Glory and from thenceforth reserving such Manifestation for Heaven stiled God's Throne so this makes nothing at all to the Author's purpose only imports God's making in the Person of the Son Manifestations of his Glory after different ways sometimes in the Humane Nature on Earth which is his Footstool sometimes in Heaven which is his Throne so Joh. 14. 26. our Lord saith but the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things What Action is there the Words being rightly understood wherein one Person may not concur as well as another If the Author say the Father's sending the Spirit to teach the Church is such an Action I answer The Father's sending here imports no more than the Father 's willing that the Church be taught and illuminated by the blessed Spirit this being a Benefit which Christ hath purchased for it and this teaching such as in respect of Order in operating is more especially appropriated to the Third Person but dare this Author therefore say that the Father does therefore exclude himself either from willing that the Church be taught or from teaching it himself when the teaching the Church all things is such a peculiar Work of God that as it does infallibly evidence the true Divinity of the Holy Spirit so the joynt Concurrence of Father Son and Spirit in it So we see the grand Arguments of this Author against the Trinity which he thinks to be invincible are no other than such as do arise from his own Misunderstanding or perverting the Sense of Holy Scriptures 2 As to that Query of his wherewith he thinks doubtless to silence all Trinitarians viz. Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the others took him into their's or were united to him Answ The Author in this labours under a double gross Mistake of the Doctrine both of sacred Scripture and of Trinitarians 1. In his confounding God-head with Personality For doubtless the Humane Nature of Christ is truly united to that God-head which is common to the Three Persons as divina charismatum communicatis and as that Name Immanuel God with us or God in our Nature do clearly import And as that Scripture Act. 20. 28. To feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood does evince tho at the same time it be but united to the Personality of one of these viz. the Son and through the Contrivement of eternal Wisdom be made to subsist wholly Substantiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the God-head as limited by personal Property that so this glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might become a meet Representative or Sponsor for us 2. Tho it be granted for the Reason aforesaid that only the Person of the Son did take the Human Nature into his Subsistence yet this imports no more than passive Reception of that Humane Nature into his Subsistence which was added or united to it by the real joynt Action of the Three blessed Persons and wherein they did equally concur like as they do in other Actions relating to the Humane Nature See Psal 16. 10. compared with Acts 2. 24. Yea do act joyntly as well in preparing a Body or Humane Nature for the Person of the Son compare Heb. 10. 5. with Luke 1. 35. as they do in uniting that Person with the Humane Nature John 1. 14. The Word was
made Flesh So that you see from the undoubted Testimony of the Word into what a second gross Mistake this Author is fallen when he affirms that the Three Persons do act separately ad extra as I have now made appear in that very Instance by himself given of the Son's Incarnation 3. As to what is further objected by him viz. That these Persons are so far from being one in a Natural Sense that there is not so much as a Moral Vnion between them that they have different Wills c. Answ This whole Discourse upon due Search will be found to be false and idle for whereas he tells us that the first Person viz. according to Trinitarians will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person and that his Justice could not be satisfied without it when yet the Justice of the Second Person can be satisfied without it How false is this Where will he find any such Trinitarians as say That the Justice of the Second Person can any more be satisfied than the Justice of the First without Satisfaction nay do they not tell him that the Justice of the First and Second Person is one and the same Justice Should they talk as he makes them they would be as ridiculous as he could wish them I must tell him therefore that the Act of being offended with the Sins of Mankind as well as the Works of Creation and Providence may as truly be attributed to one as to another Person and alike to all notwithstanding that in respect of Order in operating some of these are more frequently attributed to one and some to another Nor do we matter for his bold and impudent Scoff of the Persons being a Committee of Gods where sometimes one is President and sometimes another is in the Chair and that accordingly things run in each of their Names being well assured that the one great and blessed God subsisting according to his infinite Perfection in Three Persons viz. as Father Son and Spirit may and doth as Scripture teacheth for the Manifestation of divine Order in the Operations of the Three Persons and for the Consolation of his People appropriate in more special manner some of his great Works ad extra to himself as Father some to himself as Son some to himself as Spirit tho all the Three do joyntly and equally concur in all and this without giving the least Colour for Polytheism or Multiplication of Gods But he adds That the Son viz. according to us is so far from being of the same Mind with the Father in requiring Satisfaction that he freely offered himself to suffer even to Death to appease the Wrath of the First Person and still intercedes Answ We have shewn that the Son is of the same Mind with the Father in requiring Satisfaction and we shall now shew that he is of the same Mind as to the giving of it for when he comes to give Satisfaction does he not expresly tell us Psal 40. 7 8 Heb. 10. 7 9 10. I delight or I come to do thy Will O God yea thy Law is within my Heart Can any thing be more evident than that it was the Father's Will as well as Christ's that he should make Satisfaction And did Christ freely offer himself to suffer even unto Death before the Hands and Counsel of God the Creator of Heaven and Earth had determined this way of Satisfaction by the Death of Christ See what Scripture saith Acts 4. 24 25 26 27 28. And do not all sound Trinitarians say the same But this Author should consider what Trinitarians tell him that our Lord Christ hath an Humane as well as a Divine Nature that to suffer Death and to intercede are Idioms of the Humane Nature and must not be attributed to the divine Nature of the Son and therefore he should be cautious how he fathers his own false Notions on these And what if Trinitarians set forth God as offended with fallen Man by the Person of the Father God as willing to recover and redeem saln Man by the Person of the Son for Reasons before mentioned Must therefore God the Father and Son have different Sentiments about Man's Fall different Minds and Wills about Satisfaction and Redemption Nothing more false I hope it 's cleared fully that the Three Persons in these as in all other real Acts ad extra do joyntly and equally concur Obj. But it 's yet hoped by this Author that he can baffle Trinitarians by their own Concessions For do not these grant saith he That opera Trinitatis ad intra sunt divisa And he does instance in the Father's Act of Generation whereby he gave Being to Son and Spirit wherein they did not nor could not act And what greater Argument saith he can there be that they are separate Gods than that they act separately Answ Suppose that Maxim Opera Trinitatis ad intrasunt divisa such that taken in a right Sense it may be granted yet that wicked Conclusion he would draw from it That the Three Persons act separately and so are separate Gods does no way follow from it which himself if he would but weigh the Matter well would be forced to acknowledge for what if these Acts be divided this in a sound Sense imports no more than that the Divine Essence by its two great Faculties of Intellect and Will doth exert those two great Acts ad intra one of eternal Intellection of its self another of eternal Dilection which Acts yet are so divided that neither the one can formally be said to be the other nor the Essence as with the one the Essence as with the other nor the Essence as with the Act the Essence as terminating the Act this is so clear that no rational Man can deny it and I question not but the Author himself will acknowledge it And yet these Acts tho thus divided do not so much as imply as he must needs confess any real Composition in God much less separate Agents or separate Gods Now if we bring what hath been said to the Persons in the Trinity we shall find that however these Acts ad intra absolutely considered be those essential Properties or Perfections which are as communicable as the divine Essence it self yet if we consider them as Foundations of relative personal Properties flowing and resulting from these Acts as for example of that personal relative Property of Generation to instance in that which this Author doth instance in and which Generation doth include both the foresaid internal Act of the divine Essence and also the relative Property of God the Father resulting from it and giving Denomination to it then this Act ad intra so limited by relative Property is the peculiar Act of God as Father and not of God as Son or Holy Spirit even as the divine Essence it self absolutely considered is common to Three Person but as limited by personal Property is peculiar to one and now I pray where
's our Author 's separate Agents or separate Gods necessary for Performance of these Acts ad intra when it 's clear that these Acts with the Terms of these Acts are only distinguished and divided as before amongst the Three Persons by relative Properties and where 's that Polytheism or Multiplication of Gods which he would so gladly charge on Trinitarians Doth his arguing here flow genuinely from the Doctrine of Trinitarians or only from the false Notions and Dreams of his own Brain Is there any thing in all this Discourse affirmed of God but what may be affirmed and what himself cannot but affirm of every Angel and of every Humane Soul save with this Difference that these Acts ad intra in the blessed God being infinite and essential are therefore generative and productive of Persons in the God-head when in Angels and Humane Souls where they are but finite and accidental they are not productive in like manner After all this when it is so evident from divine Revelation without which we should for ever have been silent that the Acts ad intra as they are in the infinite eternal God do differ in their Products so as Trinitarians affirm from those Acts ad intra which are but the Acts of finite Creatures and when this stands in no real Contradiction to Reason or the Light of Nature but tho transcendent to it yet when once revealed is found to stand in sweet Consistency with it I wonder what it is this Author would be at unless it be instead of subjecting himself to the written Word and divine Revelation to take on him to be a Controuler or rather scornful Gain-sayer of it As to his 79. § we have shewn before that Creation is the Work tho of one glorious Being yet as subsisting in three Persons and here tho we readily grant that there is but one supream Preserver and Governour of all things yet we must tell or rather let the Scripture tell him That this supream Upholder and Governour of the World is the great God Father Son and Spirit Son and blessed Spirit joyntly and equally concurring with the Father in this great Work and not the Father as separated from them for this see Heb. 1. 3. Is not the Son expresly said here to uphold all things by the Word of his Power Andis not the Saints new Birth Illumination Instruction or Direction attributed to the Holy Spirit Can any thing be more evident than that these glorious Persons do act joyntly with the Father in the Preservation of the Creatures as well as in their Creation How falsly then does he conclude § 80. That Creation Preservation and supream Government of the Vniverse demonstrate that there is but one Divine Person And that the same Conclusion in his said § 80. drawn from Adoration Love and Gratitude due to God is as false as the former I have fully before evidenced P. 24. As to his 81. § I must tell him 1. That all sound Trinitarians do acknowledge as fully as himself or any other that there is but one divine Being or God with a Power to know and do all things 2. That the Heathens were without Excuse for worshipping several 3. That for him to say that these Trinitarians do pay divine Worship to more than one necessary spiritual Being is a Charge so notoriously false that Satan himself could not have acted the Part of a more false Accuser But he tells us § 80. That it can no way allay our Crime to call them Persons instead of Gods since paying divine Worship to them does as much rob the only one of his due as if we called them so many Gods Answ Do we in worshiping Three Persons rob the only one of his Due when in express Scripture Language 1 John 5. 7. we profess that these Three are the only One and the only One is these Three viz. Father Son and Spirit If in that Adoration we pay to the Son and blessed Spirit we should pay it to them as separated from the Father excluding the Father from sharing in it he might have had some Colour for what he says but when the Father is not excluded but does equally share in it nay when we do profess that in all that Adoration we do direct to One of the Three yet we as truly include all the Three viz. Father Son and Spirit as making up the only one compleat and adequate Object of Worship the blessed God even as he who does sincerely direct his Worship to God as Redeemer does yet truly include God our Creator and Sanctifier will not his whole Charge be found to be false and blasphemous Calumny In his 82. § he tells us that not only Vnitarians but all Mankind that worship but one divine Being are greatly scandalized at those Christians that pay divine Worship to several and he beseecheth these to let him understand how the Heathens in their Devotions did or could do more to distinguish their divine Beings than these do by praying to each by himself and terminating their Devotion on each Answ If this Author have a Mind to be satisfied I hope I have said enough to satisfie him in this and to let him see that these Christians are so far from imitating the Heathen in their idolatrous Worship of more Gods that none but a Person grosly blinded with Heathenish Malice taking almost everywhere his own silly and false Hypotheses for granted Maxims and inferring his Conclusions from such Principles durst have ventured to have charged them with it Obj. But it is objected Do we not in our Creed expresly say The Son is very God of very God and how can we after that pretend they are the same God Answ Well enough for the Creed imports no more than that the Son is the very same God with the Father tho as cloathed with a different relative Property through eternal Generation he be God of God in such manner as is largely before declared Obj. But he tells us here there are a hundred Actions which Scripture relates of one God and denies of the other two Gods as God the Spirit descending in a Bodily Shape the Father and Son not descending Answ 1 Tho that Scripture Mat. 3. 16 17. does signally evidence the Truth of Three Persons who in Christ's Baptism did differently represent themselves viz. Voce Pater Natus corpore flamen Ave which made one of the Fathers say to one doubting of the Trinity Abi ad Jordanem videbis yet no such thing as a Plurality of Gods can be inferred from any Actions here performed To mention that which himself does instance in viz. God the Spirit 's descending in a Bodily Shape I suppose he must needs grant here that Action of descending cannot be attributed to God in a proper Sense and therefore supposing the Spirit to be God as Trinitarians say can only be attributed to him in a tropical Sense suited to any manner of conceiving which is ordinary in Scripture and
second Person are not different Things or Beings but if by real difference he mean no more than a true modal distinction in opposition to feign'd and imaginary then we do assert such a difference or distinction and the Scriptures by him quoted are so far from opposing this that they do clearly evince it as we shall see afterwards What is contain'd in § 9. is as idle and impertinent for granting that if a Man be an Animal all that is contain'd in the Idea of Animal must be contain'd in that of Man what is this to the purpose But as if he would correct his own Impertinency he pretends afterwards to speak properly truly naturally viz. Man is a Rational Animal and a Rational Animal is a Man They are only different words to express the same Being so saith he a Divine Person and God are convertible Terms how absurd this Discourse is will easily appear if the Dissimilitude of the things compared be considered Man is defin'd by Rational Animal Man is the thing defined Rational Animal the Definition therefore these must needs be convertible Terms But it is not so here for neither is God the Thing defined and Divine Person the Definition nor is Divine Person the Thing defined and God the Definition So that its clear they are not in like manner convertible as Man and Rational Animal Surely the Author for all his pretending to Reason might have been more Logical But he tells us that Obj. Nothing is contain'd in the Idea of God but what is contain'd in the Idea of a Divine Person and so on the contrary And therefore the Terms are convertible Answ The Author is bold and forward in Asserting but as slow in Proving what he do's assert Where will he find one who asserts the Trinity but he will tell him That the Essence of God as absolutely considered is communicable to three Persons but the Divine Essence as limited by a personal Property is Incommunicable and is there then no difference in the Ideas of these He may as well tell us that Communicability and Incommunicability are the same which sure is a downright contradiction He might do well to give over such bold Assertions till he can make better proof of them or free them from most gross absurdity Obj. But the Author would perswade That Person being a Term which we give to all Intelligent Beings either Man Angel or God as we have no different Ideas of Man and a humane Person or of Angel and Angelical Person so we have the same Idea of God and a Divine Person Answ This will not at all follow except he could make it out that Personality does flow from the Divine Essence after the same manner as it doth from the Angelical or Humane Essence which he can never do for it flows from Angelical or Humane Essence as Finite and Terminated in it self but so it cannot flow from the Divine Essence it being Infinite and Unterminated Therefore tho Essence or Fundamental Subsistence in an Angel or Man being Finite and Terminated in it self can propagate only one modal Subsistence or Personality yet it will not follow by any Rational Consequence That the Divine Essence or Fundamental Subsistence which is Infinite and Unterminated must do the like Thus you see this high pretended Rationalist how weak and vain his Reasoning is But you will see more of the Poyson of this Doctrine in that which follows viz. God saith he is in holy Writ described as a Person and as the Father who is a Person is God so God as appears by a great number of Texis is a Person viz. the Father So that it is evident there is nothing more in the Idea of one than of the other and are convertible Terms and only different words which signifie the self same All. perfect Being Compare this passage with what we find p 32. in his close of the 9th Chapter viz. That it is evident that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguished from the Son as two Men or Angels can be So you see its clear the Author 's mischievous design in denying the Blessed Trinity is to overthrow and destroy so far as in him lies The Divinity of Christ and of the Blessed Spirit for in making the Person of the Father and God convertible Terms he excludes the Son and blessed Spirit from being God yea he makes God and the Son to differ as really as two Men or Angels So that you see his Work is to revive again the long since confuâ—ed and condemned Heresies and Blasphemies wherewith Arius did so much infest the ancient Church raising a dreadful Storm in it One would think that those many Scripture Texts which with greatest Plainness do hold forth the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost such as Isa 9. 6. Joh 1. 1 2 3 10. Joh. 17. 5. Heb. 1. 8 9 10 11 12. Psal 139. 7. Act. 5. 3 4. I Cor. 2. 10 11. with abundance more should have kept him from so daring an Attempt as to vent himself in downright Opposition to so many sacred Testimonies As to what follows p. 6. § 10. he tells us 1. That he hath according to his weak Ability uindicated the Honour of a Divine Person and clear'd the Athanasian Creed from speaking so contemptibly of him Answ The Author 's running into gross Mistakes about God and Divine Person argues indeed but weak Ability but it were well if Weakness were the worst surely his excluding the Son as well as Spirit from being God or Divine Person is so far from vindicating the Honour of Divine Person that it casts the vilest Aspersions not only on the ever-blessed God but also on holy Scripture which testifies that Father Word and Holy Ghost are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. But when he tells us he hath cleared the Athanasian Creed from speaking so contemptibly of him viz. Divine Person It 's strange if he can believe himself when a little after he tells us that this good charitable Creed only damns all those that cannot believe a Divine Person is and is not the same with God And that it makes it Damnation not to believe a Difference Is it not evident here that his Design in Reference to this Creed is only to ridicule it and so set it off as made up of Contradictions when yet the Contradictions are not found in the Creed but only floating in his own Brain yea and to make the Compiler of it the worthy Athanasius fall under the Fate of Damnation if he believe his own Creed as Sect. 1 And what is this but to damn all the Christian World from the Time that the Arian Heresy was exploded in it till such time as it was reviv'd again by Socinus yea and to rob God of a Church during those many hundred Years But how comes this great Master of Reason to be so highly conceited of himself as to account all the ancient Fathers in and since the Time of Athanasius all the
one exist in the other it 's neither this Author nor any other Man living how big soever these may swell with Pride that can shew any solid Reason to the contrary and when once divine Revelation hath assured us it is so who is this Man that dare fight against God Will he tell us that he hath been in Heaven or beheld from all Eternity what God by eternal Acts terminated on himself can do or not do To hear a vile Worm so talk as he doth what horrid Boldness is it Were I minded to do it I could easily instance in several things about the divine Attributes as difficult to be explicated and fully resolved as any he can propose to Trinitarians about the Existence of three Persons in the God-head and what then must we because of this call those divine Attributes into Question And rather not cry out with the great Apostle Oh the Depth 2. How uncouth then must the Notions of these Trinitarians be when applyed to the Incarnation and Satisfaction or to the Spirit or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Persons Ichallenge him or any of his Party how highly soever pretending to Reason to shew the Inconsistency of these Notions when so applyed with true and right Reason or that any such thing as Polytheism as he vainly pretends can be inserred from them Indeed if one should grant him that one so often begged absurd Principle of his viz. That if God the Son be the same God with the Father then he must be the same Person with the Father or if he be God and yet a distinct Person that he must be a distinct God Then it were no wonder if uno absurdo concesso mille sequerentur But when he 's told by Trinitarians a thousand times over that the Son altho' he be the same God with the Father or the same with the Father as to God-head Nature Essence Substance yet he 's not the same with the Father as to personal Property that altho there be three different Personal Properties in one and the same God-head yet that same God-head as limited by one Personal Property cannot be the same as limited by a different Personal Property that is cannot be the same Person however it be in it self the same God head still And now I pray why may not one and the same God-head or divine Essence as it is with one personal Property be not incarnate as it is with another be incarnate as it is with one be unbegotten as with another begotten as it is with one receive Satisfaction as with another make Satisfaction as it is with one send as with another be sent He must be quicker sighted than I that can see any thing like a Contradiction here as if contrary Predicates were here affirmed de eodem secundum idem ad idem c. when it 's clear they are not So that his loud Clamour Chap. 6. P. 17. § 50. That this Supposition That On Ch. 6. Of real Trinitarians Note here I shall not concern my self with these and consequently not with this or the Author 's following Chapters further ther than I find him inveighing against the Orthodox Trinitarians each Person is the same God carries with it an innumerable Company of most obvious Contradictions such as he tells us he will instance in § 50 51. will be found to be but a meer empty Sound without any thing of Sense or Reason and all his pretended most obvious Contradictions vanish into Smoak as any Smatterer in Logick might easily shew him That which hath been said might I hope satisfie a judicious Reader and serve for Answer to such further Cavils and blasphemous Invectives as this Author hath P. 24 25 26 27. and P. 31. § 93 94. of his Letter not so much against the Trinitarians as against the sacred Scriptures and the blessed God Father Son and Spirit as revealed in Scripture but I fear his glorying if I should so much as seem to pass them over Therefore Obj. 1. As to what he saith chap. 8. p. 24 § 74. That none of the Trinitarians besides the Author of the 38 Propositions can say that any of their Persons is a most perfect God or a most high God or the only true God or supream God because there are two others as perfect as high as true c. will be found to be very idle and trifling if it be but considered that each Person in the most blessed Trinity is the most perfect high wise supream God because the same most high God with the other two Persons and neither a distinct God from them nor they distinct Gods from him as this Author doth falsly suppose and if each one be the same God with the other then each must be the most perfect high true supream God Object 2. As to what he saith § 76. of the same Page That Trinitarians do imagine that when Man was made there was a Consult of the whole Trinity about that weighty Affair and that one said to the others Let us make Man Answ The Author might do well to speak out plainly and tell us that his Design is to quarrel not so much with Trinitarians as with the Holy Scriptures themselves for the Words he quotes to quarrel with Let us make Man c. whose Words are they Are they the Words of any other Trinitarian save of Moses Gen. 1. 26. the infallibly inspired Penman of that Book or rather of the blessed Spirit himself as speaking by Mojes Our Divines I confess make use of this Scripture for proving a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the God-head and it 's a full and clear Scripture for that purpose but I cannot wonder at this Author if after his bold Attempt of stripping the blessed Spirit of his Divinity he proceed to that Height of Blasphemy as to make him speak falsly or ridiculously in Scripture Obj. 3. As to what he adds in the same § that according to the Trinitarians the Son as God really wanted Glory and prayed to the Father John 17. 5. to give it him telling us in a scoffing way it is strange that a most high God should want and beg of another to supply him Answ 1. It 's false that the Trinitarians suppose that the Son as God really wanted Glory they do indeed suppose that the Son as God being made Flesh or taking our Nature on him by his dwelling in a poor humane Nature during the State of his Humiliation had the Glory of his Divinity much obscured and eclipsed so that it did not shine forth with that Lustre as before otherwise the essential Glory was still the same and there was no want as to this but only as to its Manifestation which may very well agree to the most high God as this Author himself must be forced to grant if he will grant such a Variety of divine Providences towards the Sons of Men as make his Glory to shine forth brightly at some times but suffer
REFLECTIONS ON A LETTER Writ by a NAMELESS AUTHOR TO THE Reverend Clergy of both Universities ' And on his BOLD REFLECTIONS ON THE TRINITY c. By Richard Frankland LONDON Printed for A. J. Churchill and sold by F. Bently Bookseller in Halifax 1697. A PREFACE TO THE READER EVER since the Divine Oracle sounded the Alarum of War between the Seed of the Woman and Serpent's Brood Gen. 3. 18. the Devil and his Agents have spit their Poyson against our blessed Lord Jesus the Captain of our Salvation For some Thousands of Years the World was invelop'd in the Mist of Ignorance Heathenism Barbarism Scythism and Hellenism overspread the Face of the Earth And when the Gospel-Sun appeared in our Horizon the Heathen raged Kings and Rulers raised all the Militia of Earth and Hell And by the joint Conspiracy of Jews and Gentiles this Son of God was abused rejected crucified And since his Resurrection by the Power of his God-head and glorious Ascension to the right Hand of the Majesty on high What a Number of Hereticks have attempted to pull him down from the Throne of his Glory and degrade him of his Deity the most orient Pearl in his Crown Strange were the Figments of Gnosticks and Valentinians of old the Followers of Simon Magus who overturned Gospel Revelations by their Aeones Combinations Conjugations Genealogies and unintelligible Imaginations Cerinthus and Ebion in the first Century affirmed that Christ was only a Man begotten between Joseph and Mary Cerdon and Marcion in the second Century denied the Verity of Christ's Humane Nature and Sufferings In the third Century Theodosian also denyed Christ's Divinity Artemon said Christ was not existent before he took Flesh of the Virgin The Sabellians denyed the Three Persons in the God head Yes they affirmed that the Father cloathed himself with our Nature dyed called therefore Patripassians Samosetanus also denyed Christ's Divinity The Maniches held the same heretical Opinions which did at last center in Arius and spread through the World A. D. 324. condemned by the Council of Nice Nestorius contradicted the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ Eutichus confounded these two Natures saying The Humane was swallowed up by the Immensity of the Divine The Agnoitae denyed the Perfection of Knowledge in the Divine Nature of Christ Others called Christ only the adoptive Son of God all these had their Followers Yet God raised up learned Men to oppose and suppress these Hereticks in all Ages Some of them came to astonishing Ends by the just Judgment of God and some by the Sentence of Men as Servetus at Geneva A. D. 1652. Gorgius Blandrata Petrus Statorius vented pernicious Errours in Poland but the later dissembled and was found in his Bed with his Neck broken But the Errours settled in Faustus Socinus A. D. 1565. born at Sens A witty Scholar got his Uncle Laelius Socinus's Books comes into Poland writes a Book De Jesu Christo Servatore at Cracovia whereof he boasted and was answered by several in a Disputation The Orthodox confounded the Anti-trinitarians from plain Scripture-Texts and ancient Writers so that Religion mightily prevailed But some falling off to Tritheism Anabaptism c. they regarded not what Principles they owned so they were but Enemies to the Doctrin of the Trinity One thing is observable several in that confused Company denying Religious Worship to Christ Socinus contended with them but was silenced and bafled by his own Principles who held that Christ was meer Man therefore by consequence it would be Idolatry to worship him There were also several Errours broach'd by Socinus that the Condition of the first Man was Mortal that there 's no original Sin that Christ was not an High-Priest on Earth that he made no Satisfaction for Sin that we are not justified by his Righteousness but our own that the wicked shall be utterly annihilated at the last Day These he contended for in their Synods and prevailed so by the Help of Smalcius and other Artifices that in 24 Years he got his Opinions enthron'd in Poland which are not rooted out to this Day Whosoever desires to read more of this History of Socinianism may find much more in Dr. Owen's Answer to Mr. Biddle and his Preface to it Surely 't is a thousand Pitties that in England a Goshen a Land of Light where the Gospel-Sun hath shined in its Meridian Splendor such black Fogs should rise out of the bottomless Pit as to darken our Horizon Trinitas saith one est verae Theologiae Fundamentum quae consesequentes omnes fere Doctrinas quasi animat Who so denies the Trinity denies his Baptism for we are baptized in or into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost It 's true the Racovian Catechism asserts Three and pronounces them to be no Christians who do not believe it but deny that there are three Persons or Subsistences in the God-head But our Divines prove it by the Essential Name Jehovah essential Properties Operations But see more of this in the ensuing Treatise The other dangerous and damnable Doctrine is that of denying the Lord that bought us 2 Pet. 2. 1. revived out of the Rubbish of ancient Heresies Who could imagine that Jews and Turks should be bred in England Denying Christ's Divinity doth cut the very Sinews of our Hopes of Redemption and Consolation Neither Angels nor Men could have pacifyed God's Wrath or satisfied Justice or brought in everlasting Righteousness Such Doctrines undermine and pluck up the Pillars of our Christian Religion and yet in these licentious Days such Heresies are publickly broach'd by more learned Scholars and some confident Ignoramus's I have read that Quakers say we deny the Person of him whom you call Christ and affirm that they that expect to be saved by that Christ without them will be damned in that Faith O horrid Sacrilege unheard of Impiety Methinks the Question of our blessed Lord that non-plust the Pharisees Mat. 22 45. should puzzle these Antichristian Spirits that deny Christ's Divinity If David then call him Lord how is he his Son Is the Son greater than the Father Surely the God-head of the Messiah advanceth him above King David It s true the Plumb-line of Reason is too short to fathom this Mystery but where Reason cannot wade Faith must swim having so good a Card and Guide as the Holy Ghost The Trinity of Persons and Hypostatical Union of God-head and Man-hood in Christ being so fully revealed in Scripture let us hold them fast and contend for them as our Free-hold This is the Attempt and Design of the ensuing Treatise which was put into my Hands by a very reverend and dear Brother whose Praise is in the Gospel who is better known to the World by the successful Fruits of his indefatigable Labours sounding viva voce than by legible Characters in Scripture having spent much Time and Strength in his peculiar Province with much Advantage to the Church of God His Learning and Capacity
But that any Man of common Sense holding the Doctrine of the Trinity should affirm that the Three Persons are only three external Denominations of God according to his said different Operations I am far from believing 3. Tho I grant that some who assert a Trinity of Persons in God may tell us that these Three glorious Persons in God are represented by those three Faculties in Man viz. Understanding Will and Memory or these three Attributes of God Power Wisdom and Goodness but that these should say that the Three Persons are the same as Faculties in Man viz. Understanding Will and Memory or that they are those three Attributes of God Power Wisdom and Goodness I cannot believe but shall rather account that he saith till he make it good a meer Calumny And now being so perswaded as I am I might justly desist from giving my self any further Trouble in this Place save for some few Passages in this Chapter which I may not wholly pass over One is in § 46. A Question grounded on his own false Hypothesis viz. of there being no other Trinity but of infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power in one divine Being Hence he puts the Question Is it not Idolatry to pay divine Worship to three Beings each of which since each is God has infinite Wisdom Power and Goodness It 's granted that to pay divine Worship to Three Beings whatever Attributes we cloath them with is Idolatry but to pay divine Worship to Three glorious Persons Father Son and Spirit who are one and the same divine Being and so equally share in all the glorious Attributes and infinite Perfections of that Being is that true Worship which the Holy Scriptures and the infallibly inspired Pen-men of it have prescribed to us and to call this Idolatry is the highest Blasphemy tending to overthrow the very Foundations of the Christian Religion and of the Christian Faith Obj. But this Author propounds another Question viz. If there be but one Being with infinite Vunderstanding is it not unlawful to adore three such Beings each of which has an unlimited Vnderstanding Answ If this Author had propounded this Question to Dr. Sherlock or some whom he stiles real Trinitarians he might perhaps have had some Grounds for it but to propound it to those with whom he hath to do in this Place when he knows they grant as fully as himself or any Unitarian can do that it 's unlawful to adore Three Beings each of which has an unlimited Understanding is not only a frivolous idle Question but on his part very malicious as importing that those whom he stiles nominal Trinitarians do this when he knows the contrary that he knows the contrary is evident from his own following Words wherein he tells us that the Trinitarians are really as zealous as they pretend to be to defend the sacred Truth of only one divine Being Well then if these Trinitarians be zealous Asserters of only one divine Being as well as his Unitarians how comes he to ask them if it be not unlawful to adore three such Beings As if they did this when he knows they abhor it But this Author will tell us here Object 1. That it 's not in Sincerity but only in Pretence that these Trinitarians seem zealous in Defence of one Being Ans If he could make the World believe that these mean the same by Being as they do by Person which in this very Place he does cunningly but most falsly insinuate in his Jumbling those two Terms together Being or Person as if they were the same in the Language of Trinitarians as well as Unitarians Then he might well perswade that their Zeal for Defence of one Being whilst they assert Three Persons in God was but a pretended Zeal But when he knows that all these do assert Three Persons in God yet but one Being then what less can his charging these with want of Sincerity in their Defence of one Being be but meer Calumny His other railing Language in this § hath for its Foundation not the true Doctrine of the Trinitarians but his own ignorant or wilful Mistakes about that Doctrine But 2. I proceed to consider what this Author lays down i◠the two last Sections of this Chapter § 47 48. One while he represents these Trinitarians as such to whom the Unitarians owe their utmost Acknowledgment for vindicating their way of Worship and for joyning with them against the Politheists and disguised Pagans as Dr. Sherlock Another while as the same with Polytheists or disguised Pagans or as he means with the real Trinitarians Again he tells us he knows not under what Head to rank these who will be thought to be neither real nor nominal Trinitarians he thinks they believe no Trinity at all that they are forced in adoring the Trinity to confess they adore an unconceivable Mystery which is only worshiping of Words and Sounds or a Trinity of Cyphers that if they declare what the Three are they must inevitably run into Polytheism or Unitarianism that in saying the first of the Three is God the Father the second God the Son the third is God the Spirit they make them Three Gods whom they equally adore And p. 16. he aske what these Three are Father Son and Spirit Are they three Gods three Parts of God three Properties three Names And concludes in a scoffing way that it seems the whole Mystery of the Trinity lyeth in this tho' every one can tell what each of the three is yet none can tell what three they are or how they are three You see how this Author runs on in his old Cant refusing to take in any Satisfaction as to his Doubts and Queries abou the Trinity which he might have done a thousand times from the Writings of eminent Divines on this Subject had he been desirous to be informed or to have had his Doubts satisfied as he pretends to be For 1. Do they not tell him that the Three who bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons in one God-head And does he not know that they say so Why then does he propose those idle Questions Are they three Gods three Parts of God three Properties or Powers of God three Names and why does he bely them when in Answer to that Question What Sort of three are they He makes them say that 's impossible to be known 2. Do they not tell him likewise that these Three Persons are one and the same great and blessed God and yet distinguished from each other by personal Properties that the first Person or Father is God as limited with the personal Property of begetting or conceiving that the second is God as limited with the personal Property of being begotten that the third is God as limited with the personal Property of proceeding from Father and Son and of being sent as Comforter so that one Person cannot be another Person and yet all the Three are one and the same
blessed God Object 3. Let me add Is it only these Divines that speak thus or is it not the divinely inspired Pen-men of the Holy Scripture who speak the same The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth he not tell chap. 1. v. 3. That the Son is the express Image of his Father's Person and can he be a Son representing as a lively Image the Person of his Father and yet not a distinct Person Doth not St. John chap. 1. expresly tell us that the Word was made Flesh and was this the Father or the only begotten of the Father See v. 14. This only begotten of the Father when in the Humane Nature he was baptized was he not a distinct Person from the Person of the Father testifying of him by a Voice from Heaven This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased And was he not a distinct Person from the Holy Ghost who descended in a bodily Shape like a Dove upon him Luke 3. 21 22. And does not our Lord Christ himself when speaking of Father Son and Holy Ghost clearly distinguish these as Three Persons in telling us John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things have we not here the Person sending the Person sent and the Person in whose Name he 's sent But what need I thus argue for a Distinction of Persons I don 't at all question here but this Author will readily grant that the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost as set forth in Scripture are three different Persons for he tells us P. 32. § 94. It is evident that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguish'd from the Son as two Men or Angels can be and Mankind that are incapable of apprehending Metaphysical Niceties cannot but conceive them so and hence it is as we have shewn before that he makes God and the Father or Person of the Father equivalent Terms so excluding the Son and blessed Spirit from being God or equal to the Father so that he owns them no otherwise to be Three Persons than as three Beings or Substances which do really differ one from another Answ You will thus see at length what this Author is and how his sometimes seemingly applauded Unitarianism ends in Arianism and the Truth is the very worst Dregs of the Poyson of his Doctrine lye here not in his denying any Trinity of Persons but his denying a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the divine Essence he can be well enough content that the Word be the Person incarnate the Holy Ghost the Comforter or Person sent so he can but strip them of their Divinity or make that Divinity which the Scripture seems as he grants to ascribe to them to agree to them only in a tropical or figurative Sense but to ascribe this truly to them together with proper divine Worship this he makes to be Idolatry Here 1. I would have it noted that I may meet with and refute his Railery which hath diffused it self through a great Part of his Pamphlet that when this Author speaks of the Trinitarian's worshiping the Three Persons as Three distinct Almighty Beings as Three Gods as Three compleat distinct Objects of Worship and as paying at other times divine Worship to one of them and at the same time not paying it to another that all this is meer Calumny and hath not a Word of Truth in it they worship indeed Three Persons as they are one and the same Almighty Being or God but not as Three Almighty Beings or Gods such Tritheism they abhor as much as himself or any other They worship Three Persons what as three distinct Objects of Worship No but as all three in Conjunction making up the one great compleat and adequate Object of our Worship they worship the Son and blessed Spirit as well as Father but do they when they worship the Son not worship the Father and blessed Spirit at the same time Or when they worship the blessed Spirit do they not worship the Father and the Son at the same time as this Author would Persuade That 's false yea it 's impossible that divine Worship should be paid to one of these and not to another when the Three are but one and the same God blessed for ever Obj. Here I would ask this Author when he does in Worship apply himself to God as our great Redeemer does he in his so doing exclude God our Creator from sharing in that Worship Or when he doth in a more special manner apply himself to God as our Sanctifier doth he by so doing exclude God our Creator and Redeemer from sharing in that Worstip And must he for this his applying himself unto God under these different Respects needs be a Polytheist and an Idolater If not why then must Trinitarians be such for applying themselves in divine Worship to the Person of the Son or of the blessed Spirit If he say it is because three divine Persons are three Gods Answ This is most false most repugnant to Descriptions given by all sound Trinitarians of divine Persons and hath fully been answered and therefore I shall here pass it over as a meer Calumny 2. I would have it noted that when the Author tells us § 47 that the Notions of the Trinitarians when apply'd to the Incarnation and Satisfaction must be very uncouth and further that when they speak of these and when they endeavour to prove the Spirit and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Persons that then they are real Trinitarians that is such in his Language as set up three Gods and further adds § 48. that these who will be thought to be neither real nor nominal Trinitarians cannot properly be said to believe any Trinity except at the most a Trinity of Cyphers and that as he thinks it cannot be presumed that Men of so great Sense to mention no other than Sarum and Worcester would assert so absurd a thing but that they knew if they declared what they suppose the three to be they must inevitably run into Polytheism or Vnitarianism Answ 1. And is there then no Medium betwixt these two Extreams One would have thought that the Writings of so many learned Men as have writ on this Subject if he had not resolved to have shut his Eyes against clearest Light should have convinced him that there is Do not these expresly tell if we must repeat things again that these three are three Persons that however three Persons cannot exist in one singular finite Essence where Personality flows from the Termination of Essence yet three Persons may exist in one singular infinite immense Essence where Personality flows from Essence after a different manner which the boldest Arians and Sacinians dare not deny And if Personality does not result from divine Essence as it does from created Essence why there may not exist three Persons in the one when yet there can but
it to be eclipsed and not manifested to these at other times But 2. Seeing the Author would seem so quick-sighted as to find an Argument in this Scripture John 17. 5. against the Divinity of Jesus Christ but so stark blind as to find none in the same Scripture for it I would therefore improve it a little for getting the Scales of his Blindness removed and whereas our Lord Christ prays Glorify me with thine own self with that Glory which I had with thee before the World was Hence I argue if the Glory that Christ the Son had with the Father before the World was was not the increated Glory of the Son as most high God which this Author does ridicule then it was but the Glory of a created Being But that could not be For 1. If it was but the Glory of a created Being then there was a created Being before Creation yea before the first Moment of Creation But that 's impossible and the Author himself who is so good in finding out Contradiction where there 's none will sure see a Contradiction in this The Consequence is undeniable for the very first Moment of Creation God gave Being or Existence to the Heaven and Earth as the Phrase in Gen. 11. clearly imports and yet the Son had his Glory with the Father before this i. e. through the boundless Tracts of Eternity Let the Author answer this Argument if he can But 2. If the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was no other than of a created Being then it highly concerns this Author to declare what created Being he means for 1. it could not be that of his Humane created Being for Christ had no such Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary If then the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was was the Glory of such Being it must then be the Glory of such Being when there was no such Being if this be not downright Contradiction I know not what is 2. It could not be the Glory of Angelick created Nature for Scripture is express that Christ took not on him the Nature of Angels Heb. 2. 16. Besides Scripture sets him above all Angels making him the Object of their Worship Heb. 1. 6. yea in the very same Place where it mentions them as ministring created Spirits it mentions the Son as God having an eternal Throne and as the great unchangeable Creator of this great World Heb. 1. 7 8 10 11 12. Now if the Son did exist before the World and yet neither as God Angel or Man I wonder what Species of Beings this Author will reduce him to He who in Scorn so often asks the Trinitarians what a something they mean by a second or third Person in the Trinity may well be asked what a something he means by the Son of God as having Glory with his Father before the World was and what a Compound he will make the Person of our Redeemer as consisting of an Humane Nature and of some other yet never before heard of pre-existing Nature I doubt before he have done he 'll turn that great Mystery of God manifested in the Flesh into a meer Chimaera but I tremble to mention such Blasphemies 4. As to what this Author adds P. 25 26 27. of his Letter § 77 78 79 80 81 82 83. tho I find little besides idle Repetitions of former Matter which hath already been fully answered yet some few Remarks I shall make and 1. Whereas he tells us P. 25. That it is impossible that the same numerical Act of Creation could be done by three Persons because the self same Act could not be done three times and if one Person does an Act no other can do the sels same Answ Such Stuff as this and that which follows argues the Author's gross Ignorance about the divine Persons whom he supposeth to be separate divided Beings like Humane Persons acting divisim separatim were this so his arguing would be to purpose But he knows well enough and so his Ignorance will be found to be wilful Ignorance that the Three Divine Persons according to the Doctrine of all Orthodox Trinitarians are not divided Beings Minds Natures Essences but one and the â—ame most pure and simple divine Beings Minds Natures Essences with three distinct relative Properties which do not so much as make any real Composition in that one glorious Being and yet are true Relations arising from their proper Foundations in that one most simple immense Being as he may easily understand from what hath been said if he have a Mind to be informed and so he might have satisfied himself that it contradicts no Idea of ours at all that one divine Person does the very same numerical Action another does 2. Whereas in the same Page he does insinuate That infinite Divine Wisdom teacheth Men he means according to the same Doctrine of the Trinitarians that there are two needless and useless Persons in God himself whose Actions are to no manner of purpose only to do what the first Person is not only all sufficient to do but actually and wholly does that if the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act they are no other than necessary Agents and all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing the same Acts he wholly does Answ This whole Discourse is false and impious and not without greatest Calumny fixed on Orthodox Trinitarians For may he not find if he will but take notice of it generally averring 1. That the Second and Third Persons are so far from being needless and useless that they do as necessarily subsist in the divine Essence as the first Person 2. That altho the Father has a free Will and Power to do or not do viz. ad extra whatever he pleaseth yet this must be so understood that he hath this in Union and Conjunction with the Son and Spirit and not as divided or separated from them Therefore what he would infer that the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act the Father doth consequently that they are no other than necessary Agents that all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing what he wholly does is idle and blasphemous as if the Power of doing aâ—d Will for doing were the sole Power and Will of the Father and not the joint Power and Will of Father Son and Spirit or as if the Son and Spirit did not in entire Conjunction with the Father perform the same Act ad extra and with the same Freedom when the Act is the Joynt Act of all Three And I pray is that we say here the Language only of some late Tritarians and not the Language of sacred Scriptures yea and of Christ himself What else do those Words of our Lord import John 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work did not the Father work Miracles Did not Christ work the same in Conjunction with him
whatever of Action it may import appropriated here to the Holy Spirit yet it is but like all other Actions ad extra common to the Three as we have before fully evidenced P. 30. where he may find what is here or elsewhere by him objected in reference to these Acts fully answered But. Quest. 2. What then does this Author mean in telling of an hundred Actions which the Scripture relates of one God and denies of the other two Gods Does he charge Scripture and the divinely inspired Penman of it with Polytheism or asserting a Plurality of Gods Answ To do him Right I think this is not his Meaning but that by one God he means the true God and by the other two Gods two made Gods such as truly are not God but only have such a Name and are falsly advanced to divine Dignity by Trinitarians whom therefore he charges as Idolaters yea as bad or worse than Pagans More Stuff of like Nature he hath in his 9th Chapter which tho chiefly intended against Dr. Sherlock and his Party yet towards the Close of it as § 93 94. he does bitterly inveigh against the others as Polytheists and Idolaters having a Creed not stuffed with so many Lines as Contradictions yea and when it 's evident as he tells us that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguished from the Son as two Men or Angels can be In his 83. § he adds these things are so frequently objected and so little Care taken to answer them be our Writers that I thought I could not do better than to represent those to you that we may if it be possible receive a full and satisfactory Answer And now I hope the Christian Reader may fully see what this Author would be at and I should not thus far have raked into the filthy Dunghil of his Blasphemies but to make a full Discovery of him and that even the weaker and more incautious Readers may now see him in his perfect Colours For such Conclusions as these are clearly deducible from his own Words and the most candid Construction that can be put on them viz. 1. That God the Son and God the Spirit when worshipped by Christians with Divine Worship become meer Idols 2. That those Christians who adore these or either of these as true God are as gross Idolaters as Pagans who worship Stocks and Stones and in some respects more vile than they 3. That all such as write in Defence of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of divine Essence are simple Persons fond of venting absurd and silly Hypotheses and Books and Creeds stuffâ—d with nothing but flat Contradictions and what I pray will follow from these Conclusions but that 1. All Christians in the World for many hundred Years together were meer Idolaters yea as bad or worse than Pagan Idolaters 2. That Idolatry destroying the very Essence of a true Church Christ therefore for about a thousand Years i. e. from the Time that Arianism was exploded by the Christian World till the time that it was broached anew by Socinus had no true Church Could any Pagan or Mahometan have disgorged the Poyson of a bitter Spirit against Christ and his Members at an higher rate than this But this Man pretends to believe Divine Revelation let me then expostulate the Matter a little with him Can he cast all this Dirt on Trinitarians and not on Scripture and the sacred Writers of it yea on Christ himself Is it only Trinitarians that say Christ is God equal with the Father and doth not blessed Paul say the same Phil. 2. 6 Is it these only that say that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father and doth not Christ himself say the very same Joh. 5. 23 Do these only tell us that Christ the Son is the great Maker Preserver and Upholder of all things and doth not the great Apostle St. John in the first Chapter of his Gospel and Paul in the first Chapter to the Hebrews say the very same Is it these only that say that the Son is the mighty eternal God and doth not the great Prophet Isaiah say as much Chap. 9. Vers 6. stiling him the mighty God the everlasting Father or Father of Eternity Or is it only these who pay that same Divine Worship to the Son become our Redeemer which they pay to the Father in Conjunction with him and do not the innumerable Companies of blessed Angels and Saints yea ten thousand times ten thousand of these with every other Creature in his Kind pay the very same Let him consult Rev. 5. 11 12 13. and he 'll find they do and must all these therefore be Idolaters Oh Blasphemy And as to the blessed Spirit is it only the late Trinitarians who acknowledge his Infinity and Omniscience did not the Royal Prophet David do the same See Psal 139. 7 8 c. Is it only these that declare him to be the true God the great Searcher of Hearts and did not the great Apostle Peter in the Case of Ananias who lyed to the Holy Ghost declare as much when he told him Act. 5. 3 4. Thou hast not lyed unto Men but unto God And did not Ananias to his Cost find it so The Author might do well to consider who it is he casts his blasphemous Reproaches on were it only upon a Company of poor frail Men who possibly may err this were not so much but to cast these on sacred Scripture on the infallibly inspired Pen-men of it and on glorifyed Angels who say and do as much as Trinitarians do yea and on Jesus Christ himself and on the Holy Spirit this is dreadful Before he had gone thus far he might well have considered what our Lord saith Mat. 12. 31. All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven unto Men but the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto Men or if it be not too late I wish he might yet consider it and repent He pretends § 83. that his End in writing was to receive if possible a full and satisfactory Answer from those learned Persons to whom he writes and what if such an Answer come from one sometimes Member of one of those famous Universities to whom he makes his Address Is not this as much as may suffice both for detecting and confuting his fallacious arguing and for giving ample Satisfaction if he have an Heart prepared for Reception of it However this be thus much I can sincerely profess that for so much of his Letter as relates to those Trinitarians whom he doth abusively stile Nominal and who indeed are the sound and Orthodox Trinitarians I have been so far from overlooking any thing that might seem to have any Weight or to carry any Colour of Reason with it that I have chosen rather as to some of his Objections repeated again and again in different Places under somewhat different Terms to give Answer again and again rather than suffer the incautious