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
'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
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
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