place and exercise my Faith in God aright how to pay my Duties and Worship to him and consequently to my Salvation But now I am arrived at the Borders of the Controversy betwixt the Trinitarians and the Vnitarians the Athanasians and nick-nam'd Arians But to pass my Task 't is requisite to give yet a further Description of this One most High God which following Description is said to be drawn from Scripture consequences but is much more plainly set down in words at length in other Authors 1. I shall first cite the Athanasian Creed on this Subject The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says thus I believe in One God the Father Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God begotten of the Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made of one Substance with the Father by whom all things were made And in the Holy Spirit the quickening Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son and in like manner is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son and who spake by the Prophets 3. Next I shall cite the first of the 39 Articles of the Church of England There is but One living and true God c. and in Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity 4. Next I shall cite Mr. Joseph Wright in his Book intitul'd Brief Animadversions on five Articles pag. 2. So that we did then and do hold that there is One only true and living God the Father Son and Holy Spirit all three of the very same Divine Nature and Being And in the same Book pag. 3. lin 28. When we say these three are one we did and now believe that the Father Word or Son and Holy Spirit are all three of the same Divine Nature and Being from everlasting to everlasting the Creator and Governor of all things One only true and living God in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons Thus far Mr. Wright 5. Next I shall cite Dr. Owen in his Book intituled The Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated printed An. 1669 pag. 29. In the Declaration of this Doctrine unto the edification of the Church there is contained a further explanation of the things before asserted as proposed directed and in themselves the Object of our Faith namely how God is one in respect of Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being How being Father Son and Holy Ghost he subsisteth in these three distinct Persons And Pag. 112. The distinction which the Scripture reveals between Father Son and Holy Spirit is that whereby they are three Persons distinctly subsisting in the same Divine Essence or Being Now a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property subsisting in an especial manner as in the Person of the Father there is the Divine Essence or Being with its Property of begetting the Son subsisting in an especial manner in the Father and because this Person hath the whole Divine Nature all the essential Properties of that Nature are in that Person Page 122. Seeing here that the name of God supplies the place of a Species tho it be singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely singular and One and cannot be multiplied yet in respect of communication it is otherwise it is communicated unto more 6. I shall cite next Mr. John Preston in his Book intitul'd Life eternal or a Treatise of the Knowledg of the Divine Essence fourth Edition printed 1034 page 48 49. If there be two things in God then there is Multiplication now all Multiplication ariseth from some Imperfection from some want and defect for if one would serve two would be needless if one Medicine would cure two would be unnecessary so in all things else So that the reasâ—n of Multiplication is because one will not serve the turn Therefore God being all-sufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and entire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further thus Wheresoever there is any composition there must be two or three things so that there may be a Division they are separable tho not separated But where Division is there may be a Dissolution and so Destruction though it never be But of God we cannot say that this may be and consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most entire Being without all Composition and Multiplication If God be not simple there must be parts of which he is compounded but in God blessed for ever there are no parts because then there should be Imperfection for every part is imperfect I shall cite one Author more and then make some use of the whole 7. Mr. Thomas Monk in his notable Book of the Trinity intituled A Cure for the cankering Error Pag. 55. has these words Not to the end it should make a Multitude of Gods or divide the Essence but to distinguish the Persons because tho there be one Person of the Father another Person of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost yet the Father is not another thing or another God distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost neither is the Son another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost neither is the Holy Ghost another thing or another God distinct from the Father and the Son because the Nature of God is but one and indivisible although the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another and therefore they are not of divers natures of another and divers Substance not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence the same Eternity the same Will the same Operation c. And page 57. ' Qu. Be there any parts or kinds in God Answ None at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit no Composition or Division and simply and in every respect of Unity one Having given you this Description of the Most High God both from the Holy Scriptures and those Authors I shall now come to make that use of it which at first I promised and intended and that is to shew that there is no essential but only a circumstantial difference in the Apprehensions of the Parties before named concerning the Most High God and the Description here given of Him Only note that that which concerns the difference about the Son and Holy Ghost will be here spoken unto but occasionally and in short
finding none Why where is it What is become of it that great difference that hath troubled the World and Church so many hundred years and set good men together by the ears Toâ—th and Nail occasion'd a great Volume of hard bitter sharp biting Words against each other and yet you see we are all agreed about the main Matter Substance or Essence of the most High nay and in all the essential Properties of him too And yet can there be any material difference about him notwithstanding that 's strange how can this thing be Why yes yet there is a difference but whether a material one or no must be left to my considering Reader to judg It is not whether this Divine undivided Essence about which and all its essential Properties we are fully agreed whether I say it subsist in one Divine Person For this is also jointly agreed on all hands as I shall presently shew But it is this Whether it subsist only in One Divine Person or both in One and also in like manner in Three The Orthodox is for the latter the Heretick affirms the former Thus near are we come and I doubt not anon to shew you that we are yet nearer than all this But first I 'll demonstrate this tho first of all we must treat of the word Person what in this Controversy is understood by it And because I am a little at a loss to explain the thing I will therefore give you Dr. Owen and Mr. Monk's Description First Dr. Owen if you look back to the first Quotations of him Now says he a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property of subsisting in an especial manner Secondly Dr. Hall as I find him quoted by Mr. Monk Page 46. of his Cure for the cankering Error hath these Words We may think here of one Substance in three Subsistences one Essence in three Relations one Jehovah begetting begotten proceeding Father Son Spirit yet so as the Son is no other thing from the Father but another Person or the Spirit from the Son Also Mr. Monk in his 63 page propounds this Question How doth the word Essence differ from the word Person in God his answer is Essence is the Nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them not without them subsisting by it self to wit the very Deity it self And therefore the essential Properties which be in them are one in number of one nature Now Person is the subsisting in the Divine Nature or the nature of God which having relation to others is distinguished by some incommunicable Properties for indeed the Persons are only distinguished not severed as indeed three men are indeed separated tho they be one in kind The Reason is because the Essence of God is infinite and impartible and therefore it is all in every Person which are not severed one from another but only distinguished amongst themselves But as for the Essence of Angels and Men it is finite and partible so that it is not all in every single Person but part in one and part in another One Passage he hath in page 39. Fourthly All the Attributes whether relative negative or positive or if any other in that they proceed from the Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person The Father is eternal the Son is eternal the Holy Spirit is eternal because the whole Essence is in every one of them I need not cite any more because so far as I am able to distinguish Dr. Owen Dr. Hall and Mr. Monk have spoken the general sense of all that have writ on this Subject And now having shewed you the Description that these men give if I can tread right in this narrow Path I will try to give you according to the best of my judgment the sense of what they mean by the word Person or Persons in the Divine Essence First then I do suppose by Person here is not intended a distinct separate Being from the Essence or from one another nor yet a distinct spiritual Substance for this were to divide the Substance into three distinct divided Persons Neither must it be supposed that Person hath a distinct Mind or Will from the Essence or the other Persons for that will necessâ—rily imply three or four Minds and Wills in the Most High which would be absurd Neither must the Person have any one part of the Divine Essence peculiar to it self for that would divide the Essence into parts and the Divine Properties also and so bring all into confusion as hath been shewn therefore Person must be supposed to be something not at all separated from any part of the Essence or of the other Persons Therefore says Mr. Monk Essence is the nature which is not more belonging to one and less to another of the three Persons but common to them all yea one and the same and cannot be divided and is all in each one of them and therefore concludes that the essential Properties which be in them are one in number that is that the essential Property of Love and the essential Property of Mercy and the essential Property of Justice and all the rest are all and whole in one Person and all and whole in another And therefore elsewhere says That all the Attributes both relative negative and positive or any other of the Divine Essence are true of every Person because the whole Essence is in every Person So that in short the thing is this that a Person separate from Essence is nothing but is only the whole undivided Essence subsisting in a certain manner or mode that is in one manner in the Father in another manner or mode in the Son and in another manner in the Holy Ghost that is not three distinct intelligent Beings but only one infinite intire distinct intelligent Being subsisting in three undivided inseparable Manners or Modes And this is the general sense so far as I was ever able to discern of all the Authors that ever I read on this Subject But if this be the Knot of the Controversy about the most High God perhaps some will say it is dark I say perhaps so too very like it may be so else what 's the matter think you that so many Men who have long been loving Friends and good Men yet by this Controversy have had their Eyes so blinded that they could not see one another with an Eye of Charity And what else should be the reason that in the Churches where it hath been controverted there hath oftentimes arose such a Mist and thick Darkness that many could not see their Seats at the Lord's Table And if any shall ask me the meaning of the matter I must answer with Mr. Monk page 43. That the perfect manner how one person is in
and the Wâ—man whom thou gavest me c. Next Abraham Gen. 15.2 And â—â—raham â—â—â—d Lord God what wilt thou give me Chap. 17.18 O that Ismael might live before Thee And when he would make his Servant swear by the True God Chap. 24.3 he did not distinguish him as one in three but says he I will make thee swear by the Lord the God of Heaven and the God of the Earth Also when the Servant several times in this Chapter directs his Prayer to this God he doth not distinguish him personally in three but says O Lord God of my Master Abraham I pray thee send me good speed Then for Jacob when he tells his Father Laban how his Substance came to be increased Gen. 31.42 he doth not say the God subsisting in three Persons but says he the God of my Father the God of Abraham c. and Chap. 32.10 I am not worthy of the Mercies and all the Truth which Thou hast shewed me Ver. 11. Deliver me I pray thee And thou saidst I will surely do thee good In short in several places he distinguishes him verbatim as God discovered himself to Abraham viz. God Almighty but not one word of God in three Persons Next Moses Exodus 5.23 For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Thy Name he hath done evil to this People Neither hast Thou delivered thy People at all Chap. 15.1 Then sang Moses and the Children of Israel this Song unto the Lord He hath triumphed gloriously the Horse and his Rider hath He thrown into the Sea And in this Song you have the Terms he thee thy thou thine him repeated no less than 35 times and yet neither you yours they or them once mentioned respecting the most High Thus have I briefly run over the sum of the most remarkable Instances of persons paying their Devotions to the most High in the Old Testament and I might have instanced David Solomon Daniel and many others yea down to Zechariah's days and it appears as if they were all agreed to conceive of and acknowledg an undivided single Essence and its Properties But no Footsteps do appear of their distinguishing the Essence in three persons in their Conceptions And if the Israelites ever had any such conception of God methinks it should not be lost and if not lost it is strange Josephus should not mention it since he gives an account of things as far back as Moses even from the beginning and often speaks of God and his essential Properties describing the true Object of the Jews Worship and yet always speaks of him as one in Vnity of Essence but hints not a word of divers Persons And as Josephus then so the Jews now acknowledg no such thing as Mr. Monk says page 70. he says the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the Blindness of the Jews who do affirm an Essence altogether without distinction Now I say 't is strange if this were understood amongst them especially as so material a thing as is now supposed that then both the Jews now who yet profess the true God and are zealous of the Mosaical Law and Josephus so long ago should yet be ignorant of so remarkable a matter In the next place I come to the New Testament to see whether we may judg it the Will of God that we should worship and adore his Essence as subsisting in one Person or in three And first I will consider the Apostle Stephen what he says of the most High Acts 7.2 he calls him the God of Glory and ver 32. he cites and describes the antient Description without enlarging viz. I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. And ver 48. The most High dwells not in Temples made with Hands Herein is a discovery of God's Greatness but no distinguishing his Persons And remarkable it is that Paul about to instruct the ignorant Athenians in the knowledg of the true God as the Object of their Worship Acts 17.23 24 25. first lets them know that they ignorantly worshipped the unknown God and that him he would declare unto them And accordingly says God that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwells not in Temples made with mens hands as though he needed any thing seeing he giveth to all Life and Breath and all things Herein the Apostle very notably sets forth his most glorious Attributes and invisible Being by his creating and preserving of all things But says not one word of the distinction of Persons Now if tâ—e Knowledg of this were so necessary to be known in order to Salvation as is imagined Paul had no less need to instruct these ignorant Athenians therein as much as in the Knowledg of the Essential Properties and Power Next we will consider Eph. 4.6 There is One God and Father of all who is above all Here you see a plain discovery of the Vnity of the Godhead and his Supremacy but the Description of Persons is still wanting To this I will add 1 Cor. 8.6 But to us there is but One God the Father of all things Here again the Object of Worship is described as the first Cause and Foundation of all things of whom are all things 2. The Inseparableness and Oneness of his Being is asserted but One God 3. He is so far from directing us to fix our Conceptions on him as distinguished into three Persons that he solely centers him in One even as subsisting in the Father Now what rational Man can conclude from hence but that we are to conceive of the Object of Worship as intirely subsisting in and to be called by the Appellation of the Father and so to be worshipped That is in plainness that we are to conceive that all that we believe to be God most High whether Essence Attributes or Persons whatever we may think of its various subsisting in our selves yet it is to be adored and distinguished by the Person of the Father where we all say that 't is all and whole But further I shall add the Authority of him who cannot err John 4.22 23 24. Ye worship ye know not what We know what we worship for Salvation is of the Jews But the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth From this pertinent place I note as follows First That it contains a Discourse of our Saviour directly concerning Worship 1. Blaming and describing the ignorant false Worshippers Ye the Samaritans worship ye know not what 2. Describing the true Worshippers 1. By the manner how in Spirit and in Truth 2. The Matter or Object what and that described two ways 1st His Essence a Spirit 2dly The Person who viz. the Father the true Worshippers shall worship the Father Further from this Text
because I shall treat more largely distinctly and directly of them in their proper place Whereas I am now precisely treating of the Most High God But to the end that a plain Discovery of the Difference concerning the Most High which hath made such a Noise and Confusion in the World in many Ages and in our times may appear I shall state the Sum of the case in this one short Question Whether the most Glorious Eternal Intire Vncompounded Vndivided Vndividable Essence of the one Most High God do at the same time and at all times from Eternity to Eternity subsist all and whole both in one Person and also in like mâ—nner in three Persons or all and whole only in one Person Our dividing Brethren are for the first part of this Question and our accuâ—â—d Brethren are for the latter part thereof That this is the Sum of the Difference and that this Diffâ—rence is only Ciâ—cumstantial is now my business to make appear which I shall endeavour to do partly from the former Description and Quotations partly from the natural force of our Opinions and partly from further Quotations But in the first place give me leave to treat a little in the Negative Let us first observe where the difference is not The Question controverted is not whether or no any of the Idols of Israel of old or any of the Multitude of the Aegyptian Gods or antient Heathen Deities formerly worshipped by them or the false Deities worshipped by Infidels in foreign Parts now I say the Question is not whether any of these be the true God or no. Neither is the Question whether the glorious Essence or Godhead which the Scripture says is in Heaven whether He alone and only He be the Most High God and that we ought to pay our duty to none but Him and such as He shall delegate under him for these things are owned on all hands Neither is it at all questioned on either hand whether there be above one Most High God or whether his Essence be infinite eternal independent all Wisdom Power Greatness Holiness Justice Love Mercy Knowledg Bounty Goodness Truth Perfection Nay in all the Essential Properties of the Divine Nature which Holy Scripture and Reason do teach there is still a joint Consent and Agreement on all hands Where then is the difference as to cause so loud a noise of Heresy Heresy these Men deny the Foundation of all Christian Religion and Worship nay deny the true God! Why let us consider a little since there is an agreement about and in all the essential Properties of the true God and an Agreement which Essence is the true God Is there any known material difference about the Essence it self the matter of it let us examine No we find none here neither for that it is an intire uncompounded impartible undividable one Substance or Essence those supposed Hereticks say and so say we Let us look over the Quotations already cited First says Athanasius's Creed not dividing the Substance 2. The Nicene Creed says One Substance 3. The first of the 39 Articles says one living and true God without Body Parts or Passions of One Substance 4. Mr. Wright says that all three are in the same Divine Nature and being in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons and on that account grants that the Father is the only true God 5. Dr. Owen says God is One in respect of his Nature Substance Essence Godhead or Divine Being and further says that the name of God is a singular absolutely as it respects the Divine Nature which is absolutely sâ—ngular and One and cannot be multiplied 6. Mr. Preston says that God being Allsufficient it is not needful yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him and consequently he must be most simple without all composition a pure and intire Essence full of himself and nothing besides And a little further says consequently there cannot be two things in him but what he is he is One most simple most pure and most intire being without all Composition and Multiplication and further he says there are no parts in him Lastly Mr. Monk says That the Persons tho distinct amongst themselves yet are not differing things one from another because the nature of God is but One and indivisible and further says they are not conjoined or knit together in one Substance as Men which have one common Essence They are not only of the like Substance but of one and the same Substance have the same Essence c. And in answer to the Question Are there any Parts or Kinds in God answers none at all because he is a most simple Essence which doth admit of no Composition or Division and simple and in every respect of Unity One. Thus you see having summed up the Evidence as says the Foreman so they say all they are all agreed in their Verdict both Orthodox and Hereticks so called are thus far in all respects jointly and fully agâ—eed as with one Voice to publish that their apprehension of the one true God respecting his Essence is an undivided undividable intirely one Substance not subsisting or possible to be subsisting in parts or having any Parts in him And so says the Scripture God is a Spirit not Spirits And indeed this Doctrine of the Vnity of the Divine Essence we must maintain or else we do nothing for if once we admit of several parts in that Essence we may as well admit and there seems a necessity that it should be so many several Spirits and indeed so many Most High Gods which can be called one only by consent and agreement or at most one in kind But the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods most High is repugnant to Reason refuted by Scripture and abhorred by Mahometans Besides if you divide Essence in your thoughts then you must divide the Essential Properties such as Mercy Justice Wisdom Bounty and the rest I say you must divide them into as many parts as you divide the Essence in your thoughts As for example Suppose you divide it into three parts then you must suppose in your mind three Attributes of Justice three of Mercy three of Wisdom and so of all the rest or else you must imagine some of the Attributes in one part and some in another as thus Justice and Power in one Mercy and Wisdom in another Truth and Bounty in another and so of the rest or else you must imagine that some of the parts have none of the Attributes and that will be Blasphemy and Nâ—nsense since I think all will confess that nothing can be essentially God most High but that which is or hath all the Divine Essential Properties And so go which way to work you will if you admit of Parts you confound the Substance as Athanasius says But enough of this We are unanimously agreed in the Unity and Undividedness of the Divine Essence Well thus far are we come looking for the difference but
Innovations and Institâ—tionâ— have been introduced people thinking still to mend things by bringing it nearer to their own Conceptions have often made it worse in not heeding the Standard These things pâ—emised I shall give my Answer to the Question and do say that to me it doth not aâ—pear that it is the pleasure of God that Worship should be paid unto him under the appellatiâ—n and with the câ—nception of a single Essence subsisting bâ—th in one and three distinct Manners Modes or Persons But rather that it is his declared Will that his Subjects should pay their Adoration to him under and with the conception and appellation of one supream Soveraign and singular Substance inseparâ—ble in Essence and Divine Properties subsistâ—ng in one Divine Persâ—n and Spirit And for this I will give my Reasons First as hath been hinted I take it for granted that let the Doctrine of three Persons in one Essence be as clear as the Sun yet with whaâ— conceptions we must worship must be câ—nf â—â—ble tâ— God's Word Bâ—t now to the Reasons My first Reason iâ— notwithstanding the various Appellatioâ— which God chose in fâ—rmer Dispensations to make himself knoâ—n to his Sâ—bjects by as the Object of thâ—â—â— Wâ—rship tho they did plainly discover the Unity of hâ—s Eâ—sâ—nce and also his essential Properties yet I remember not one Discovery of him as a single Essence in a threefold subsâ—stâ—nâ—â— or one Essence and three Pâ—rsâ—nâ— And there seems no such discovery under the 〈◊〉 Dispensâ—tion Which will appâ—â—r â—irs◠〈◊〉 take notice how he disâ—overâ— himsâ—â—â— in genâ—ral both at first to Adam seâ—â—ndly to Nâ—â—â— before and also after the Fâ—ood and hi◠〈◊〉 forth the Law to the Generations 〈…〉 Flood also to Abraham Iâ—â—â—â— Jacâ—â— Mâ—â—â— and to Iâ—rael in general and in particâ—lar in giving sorth his Law Nâ—w oâ— sâ—rv◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ral to all such as he makeâ— discovery of himself as the Object of their Worship he maâ—â—s use of such Denominations 〈◊〉 arâ— of the â—â—ngular number as I Mâ— M◠〈◊〉 Minâ— and not we or ours Liâ—ewise wâ—â—n â—â—y â—f 〈◊〉 did mention this sacred Mâ—â—â—â— in pâ—â—â—â— their Worship they made 〈…〉 such Eâ—pressions as shewed it was thâ—ir Sâ—ntâ—mâ—nt that they conceived of him as one intire Oâ—ject and not one and three â—s Thee Thâ—â— Thou â—r Thine not Ye You Yâ—â—r 〈◊〉 Yours which shews that â—hateveâ— thâ—â— â—â—lieved of different Peâ—sâ—ns in that one sin 〈◊〉 Essence or an one intire Substance in a â—â—â—â—fold Manner or Mode of subsisting 〈◊〉 yet no where appears that they or any oâ— tâ—â—â— before-named did but if so aâ— aâ— resaiâ— yet it appears they thâ—ught it thâ—ir Duty tâ— give Appellations to denominate and consequently to conceive of the Obiect oâ— tâ—â—ir Worship as a single one in one Person â—r intelligent Being without thinking it so material to take notice of Name of 〈◊〉 of a threefold manner of subsistin◠〈◊〉 â—â—nâ—le Essence both in one and three in tâ—e Aâ—t of Worship which yet sure were thâ—s sâ— material and essential a part of right â—â—rshiâ— as now supposed methinâ—s it◠〈◊〉 have appeared if not in all yet aâ— lâ—â—st in 〈◊〉 of the many Instancâ—s we have in Scriâ—ture of Persons expreâ—siâ—â— thâ—mselves in tâ—◠〈◊〉 of Worship and Adoration â—â—t â—â—w to return 〈◊〉 tâ—e â—irst tâ—â—â—t Gods disâ—â—vâ—ring hiâ—â—â—â— to man In thâ— first place to avoid an Objâ—â—tâ—â—â— oâ—â—erâ—e I am not speaâ—ing of what iâ— said â—hen â—â—d speaks concerning making Man or going down to see the Builders of Babel for this is foreign to my present business which is not now to dispute pro or con either to prove or deny the Doctrine of three Persons in one Essence but my particular Business is to shew how God hath discovered himself to Man Therefore let none cry out and say you have forgot the word Vs in the forenamed places For first whether it be there prâ—cisely demonstrated three undivided Persons in one intelligent Being the Dissenters from Athanasius's Creed will not be wanting to bring Reasons to the contrary which as aforesaid is not now my business to take notice of But secondly observe if they do yet these are Words spoken in Heaven which no mortal Man did ever hâ—ar nâ—r wâ—re they directed to man but spoken in the Heavâ—nly Mansions by him who perfectly knows and understands himself But that which I insist upon is that always when God directs his Speech to Man or Men discâ—vering himself to them as the Object of their Worship he theâ— speaks in the singular number Now this I take for granted because I think it will not â—e denied that the Manner or Mode of Godâ— describing of himsel◠〈◊〉 Man as the Object of their Worship oâ—ght to be the Directions of our Conceptions â—f him in the Act of Worship And that this is not plural but singular will appear in the particular Examination of the above-hinted Instances 1. To begin with Adam Gen. 3.11 Hast thou eaten of the Tâ—ee whereâ—f I commandâ—d that thou shouldst not eat and ver 15. I will put enmity c. Then to Noah Gen. 6.13 And God said untâ— Noah The end of all Flesh is come before M E and behold I will destroy them ver 17. Behold I even I do bring a Flood of Waters Ver. 18. But with thee will I establish my Covenant 2. The like or the same Expressions you have Chap. 7. at ver 1 4. and Chap. 9. In the Deed Contract or Covenant whereby God makes himself knâ—wn to and with the new World after the Deluge we find him thus expressing himself ver 3. The green Herb have I given you Ver. 5. Your Blood of your lives will I require at the hand of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of every Man's Brother will I require it Ver. 9. And I even I establish my Covenant with you Ver. 11. And I will establish my Covenant with you Ver. 13. I do set my Bow in the Cloud Ver. 15. And I will remember my Covenant which is between Me and you and every living Creature of all Flesh and the Waters shall no more become a Flood to destroy all Flesh Observe the Covenant made with all Flesh was under the notion of a single Being and not a threefold subsisting Now touching God's discovering and describing himself to Abraham the first time Gen. 12.1 2 3. Get thee into a Land that I shall shew thee and I will make of thee a great Nation And I will bless thee and I will bless them that bless thee The second time of appearance ver 7. And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said Vnto thy Seed will I give this Land The third time of appearance Chap. 13.15 16. Fourth time of appearance Chap. 15.1 The word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a Vision saying Fear not I am thy Shield Likewise ver 7 14 18. and Chap. 17.1 2. at the making the Covenant the Lord appeared unto Abraham and sâ—id I am the Almighty
worships all the Divine Essence under the proper Name and Appellation under which it should be worshipped to wit that of the Father These things considered I see no reason why we should so stigmatize our Brethren because they worship the most High under the proper Name and Person that they ought and do not use improper Names to do it by as our Son who art in Heaven or our Christ who art in Heaven or our Spirit who art in Heaven since those Names or Persons whatsoever their Essence be do not require us to worship the most High in them but to understand and improve the Knowledg of their Office and remember that that Person who was nailed to the Cross who cried out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me was the Mediator betwixt God and us the very Christ the anointed who did never require his Disciples to worship him as the most High SECT IV. Treating particularly of his Human Nature AS touching the Contention about the human Nature of Christ strange it is to me and would have been stranger had I not once dipped my Fingers in the same folly that Men so well agreeing in the main substantial Points of the Faith of Christ should yet notwithstanding so teaze one another about a Circumstance so dark as this is They all believe that his Body was the true Son and sent of God that he was a real Man that he was a sufficient Sacrifice and Saviour But all this will not satisfy them except they know what he was made of yet the Scripture leaves it so that if we make any determination we must bring the plain Words to our meaning for as it is said he was made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh it is also as expresly said the Word was made Flesh John 1.14 And Solomon the wisest of Men and the greatest Searcher into Nature's Secrets that ever was says Who do know how the Bones do grow in the Womb of her that is with Child speaking of an ordinary Conception If an ordinary Conception be so dark then much more this Conception of our Lord which was beyond and contrary to the Course of Nature Therefore to make the Ignorance thereof so damning and the certain Knowledg of it the Test of Communion seems to savour of Presumption and it is something pleasant to see old grave men discoursing so seriously and learnedly how far any Woman contributes towards any Child conceived in her a thing so intricate that the most famous Philosophers have been at Daggers Draw about it and when any man hath thought his Thought about it he may be right and he may be wrong because we are all left without light to travel in those Paths For my part I intend not to follow them in this Discourse or Controversy the whole appearing to me and to many others to be needless since tho it must be granted that somebody is and must needs be mistaken and under Misapprehensions in the case yet the Mistakes are not so pernicious to lead the mistaken to question whether this be the true Messias promised to Adam and all along prophesied of by the Prophets but they whoever they be are very confident as well as the other that this is the true Christ therefore pray why all this stir this Jehu-like driving seems not to savour much of a true Christian Spirit But I shall conclude this Section with a Comparison for illustration of my meaning which I have heretofore frequently made use of sometimes with good success in Discourses of this kind We will imagine two Persons A and B Servants to C do grow refractory and run away from C and deservedly in their rambles are taken by the Enemy and made Slaves of in a foreign Land help themselves they cannot but C hearing and well understanding their Misfortune and Misery notwithstanding their former Ingratitude yet pities them and sends by a trusty hand a sufficient Ransom to redeem them and obtain their Liberty The Ransom arrives and they are accordingly redeemed and presently embark to go home to C as they sail homeward they being as well they may be much affected with their Liberty they are often discoursing concerning their Ransom they both agree and question not that it was none of their Deserts but the free Love and Bounty of C was the cause of the Ransom 's being sent neither do they question in the least whether or no it be come or being come whether it be sufficient for in all this they are satisfied But in their Discourse it happens this Question is dropt that is Whether the Ransom was Gold or Silver A thinks he hath sufficient Reasons to believe it was Silver and B thinks he hath as sound Reasons to believe it was Gold they terribly inforce their Arguments on both sides and possibly neither of them both certainly know the truth of the matter or have any infallible or certain Rule to know yet they are both very confident one says he is sure he is in the right and he is sure the other is in the wrong And so after they have vexed and teaz'd one another more than enough the Contention at last arises so high that A will stay no longer in the same Ship with B but will leave him and sail in some other Ship nay stay says B do not leave me since I love you and we are agreed in the main things and do find thanks be to C that the Ransom was sufficient and why should we part about this Circumstance especially since we were both Partners in Slavery and Misery and were both made happy and set at liberty by this one Ransom and since we are both Strangers in this Country neither is there any in the Ship speak the same Language that we do let us enjoy the Comfort of each others Society and be helpful one to another in Advice and Discourse who knows being amongst Strangers and Enemies how we may need each others help and consider how comfortable it will be for us that have been loving Friends and Companions and Fellow-Country-men to talk together in our own Language while those Barbarians gabble in an unknown Tongue and barbarous Language Therefore pray do not leave me but tarry with me Ay says A if you 'l say as I say and think as I think that the Ransom was Silver I 'll tarry with you then and all shall be well but if you will not say so I am resolved I 'll be gone I 'll keep you company no longer nor I 'll regard nor take no more account of you than of one of those Strangers and Infidels from whence you come nay you are full out as bad as they or rather the worst of the two you deserve if you had your Desert to be cursed out of my Company Says B these are hard Words and so much the harder coming from one I so much esteem and for so small an occasion Howbeit I am not by any of your
Mr. Taylor 's fourth Reason is in page 11. Because they that deny Christ to be the Essence of God deny the Lord that bought them This Reason standing on the same bottom with the former the same Answer may suffice His sixth Reason for he hath no fifth that I can find is This Principle of Christ's being the Essence of God is the Rock upon which Christ hath built his Church For proof of which he cites Mat. 16.15 where Peter confesseth Thou art Christ the Son of the living God And our Lord saith Vpon this Rock will I build my Church But the necessary Consequence of Mr. Taylor 's Reason or Proof is so far off that my dull Genius will not reach it I will put it into the form of an Argument To be a Son of God is to be the Essence of God But Christ owns that he is the Son of God Ergo He owns he is the Essence of God But then perhaps some unhappy Brain or other will say At that rate of Reasoning one may prove Adam Angels and Saints to be all the very Essence of God for they are all called Sons of God I speak not this as supposing that Christ is the Son of God in no other Sense than Adam Angels and Saints are but to shew how short Mr. Taylor 's Arguing comes of what he intends it for But Mr. Taylor saith page 13. Except by the word Son of God we understand one and the same thing it is impossible we should have one and the same Faith If this be true setting the Unitarians aside there are not many of us Trinitarians have one and the same Faith for some by Son of God intend a distinct intelligent Being and Mind from Father and Spirit as Dr. Sherlock Some say it is only a Mode of the divine Essence but not the divine Essence it self as Mr. Monk Some in effect say it is called a Person but indeed in a proper Sense is not and that therefore it is a Somewhat as Dr. Wallis Some say it is a Quality and Property of the divine Essence Some say it is the Essence it self The School-men say it is God knowing himself by a reflex Act. Thus you see we are all to pieces amongst our selves and when we are united and understand by the Son of God one and the same thing 't is like the Unitarians will fall in with us But alas alas now am I come to the killing Reason of all Reasons to wit the seventh page 13. if I can but dispatch it I shall think my Work near done it is this The Doctrine of Christ his being the Essence of God is a Principle of that Consequence that the Christian Religion stands or falls with it To demonstrate this Mr. Taylor lays down these two fearful and monstrous Positions namely That if Jesus Christ be not true God of the same Essence with his Father it follows first that the Mahometan Religion is preferable to the Christian and Mahomet was a greater Prophet than Christ Secondly That Christ was an Impostor and Deceiver the Jews did justly in sentencing him to Death for Blasphemy That the Christian Religion is Idolatry and Superstition and the Messias is not yet come This roaring Reason makes a terrible Noise in Country Churches If this be true 't were enough to make a Man afraid to come near a Unitarian as long as one lives Unitarians did I say nay Mercy Mercy for as to several of our leading Trinitarians what will become of them for Mr. Monk plainly denies that Christ is the Essence of God but only a Person or Mode Dr. Wallis is of the same Mind and I am almost afraid Mr. Taylor is leaning that way and if he should what a lamentable thing would that be But now by way of Reply First observe that this Expression Christ of the Essence of his Father is not directly in express terms taught us by our Lord or the holy Scripture Secondly That our Proofs are only Consequences a long time ago and still much controverted by very learned Men and yet Mr. Taylor adventures to be so confident as to say in effect that supposing his Opinion be not true that is if he be mistaken then Christ must needs be beneath Mahomet nay an Impostor and the Jews did well to put him to Death for Blasphemy These are very high Words and look too bold and presumptuous I confess if the Pope and Church of Rome had said so it had been no very surprising thing because they believing themselves infallible might therefore look upon their Interpretation of Scripture even in the most nice and dubious Points to be certainly and infallibly true for infallible Persons cannot err But for Mr. Taylor who I doubt not thinks himself a fallible Man for him I say to hug and magnify his own Opinion in so intricate and curious a Question wherein as hath been hinted the most learned Trinitarians are greatly divided in their Apprehensions and to value it at such a rate as to think and proclaim that either his Notion must be true or Christ must be false this is very amazing And I cannot forbear thinking that Mr. Taylor had Monsieur Lamoth's Book by him when he penn'd this Reason Lamoth in his Discourse of the Trinity p. 15. hath these Expressions That in case the Doctrine of the Trinity as now held be not true then the Apostle Paul had not common Sense nor any tolerable degree of Understanding nay was a Mad-man and the rest of the Apostles were Blasphemers And page 33. I make no difficulty saith he to say they have deceived us most shamefully and their Writings are no better than continual Blasphemy if Christ be not God But Secondly I shall endeavour to demonstrate that in case Mr. Taylor should be mistaken and Christ be supposed not to be of the Essence of God yet it doth not thence follow notwithstanding all Mr. Taylor says that he was worse than Mahomet or that the Christian Religion is worse than Mahometism To which purpose I will consider what he says His chief if not only Reason for this is in page 15. Because the Christian Religion brings in Idolatry but Mahomet abolishes it I answer I shall not concern my self with Mahometism nor magnify it for expelling Idolatry But for the Christian Religion that it brings in Idolatry in the case supposed I deny for if the Christian Religion necessarily brings in Idolatry it must be either in the Unitarians or the Trinitarians But it doth not necessarily bring in Idolatry in the Unitarians nor yet in the Trinitarians therefore the Christian Religion doth not necessarily bring in Idolatry To make short for proof of the minor I refer you to the close of my Answer to his first Reason I come now to his second monstrous Assertion namely If Christ be not the Essence of God then he is an Impostor Now the consequence of this I deny and on the contrary affirm that tho Christ were not of the