Christians to believe concerning this Point III. What ill Consequences can attend such a Faith First then I am to Enquire What it is that perplexes and obscures our Faith in the Holy Trinity For before I enter upon a distinct and particular Consideration of the Doctrine it self 't is necessary to point out some of the Principal Causes which have occasioned so many False Absurd and Ineffectual Expositions of it And they are these four The Prejudice and Bigottry of Men indiscreetly Pious The Vanity and Design of such as value themselves upon inventing New Notions or laughing at the Old ones The not discerning or considering the Bounds and Limits of our Knowledge And lastly An imprudent Choice of improper ways of Expression The two first of these have a general Influence upon all Religious Controversies but are more especially concerned in this For there 's never more room for Superstitious and Rigorous Impositions nor fairer Advantages for Cavilling and drawing absurd Consequences than where a Mystery is the Subject of Debate There are some who are apt to be concerned and cry out as if the very Foundations of all Religion were overturning when any particular Scheme or Notion they are fond of is called in Question On the other side I have no small Reason to believe there are several who strike at Christianity it self under the Pretence of bringing down the value of Mysteries And indeed if we consider the general Temper of Mankind 't is no wonder that there 's more Superstition and Infidelity in the World than True Religion For believing every thing and believing nothing a sudden Veneration or Contempt of whatsoever is proposed to us equally gratifie the lazy Inclinations of the Soul which loves an easie undisturbed course of Thoughts and is very difficultly brought to endure the Labour of Attention and Enquiry Nay of those who seem to have conquer'd this Trouble there are few who lay themselves out in a free and impartial search of Truth but are wholly employed in the pursuit of some Notion they have before-hand taken up and are resolved to maintain They are already determined what to believe and only seek out Arguments to Justifie or Recommend their Opinions to others How far these general Reflections are applicable to the present Case has been hinted already in the beginning of this Discourse where 't is very discernible from the Ways and Methods made use of for settling the Doctrine of the Trinity that Prejudice and Vanity a false Zeal and an ill-grounded Contempt have had a large share in the Management of this Controversie Another Reason why our Endeavours of Expounding this Point have been vain and unsuccessful is the want of discerning or considering the Bounds and Limits of our Knowledge from whence it comes to pass that oftentimes we strive to soar above our pitch and imagine we understand some things better than really we do But especially Men of abstracted Thinking are very apt to deceive themselves with false Idea's and are firmly perswaded they conceive things distinctly which they have but a confused Notion of As for instance It has been delivered down as the constant Faith of a long Succession of Eminent Philosophers that the whole Substance Nature and Essence of the Soul is wholly and entirely in all the Body considered together and wholly and entirely in every single Particle of it And this is a Notion which at first view has a great appearance of truth and clearness and is such as the Understanding readily closes with But if we would strictly and distinctly Examine our selves what we mean by those Terms I believe we should be able to give but a very obscure Account of our Opinion and at last be forced to confess we understand no more than this by them That the Soul is the Principle of all the Operations performed in the Body But so it sometimes happens that we are transported too far in our Enquiries after hidden Truths till we are lost in Speculation and vainly think to Fathom the depths of Knowledge and Wisdom without considering the shortness of our time Whereas we ought rather to examine and find out the Bounds of our Thoughts know the just extent and compass of our Understanding and then rest satisfied with what we are Capable of without desiring to know more than we can or pretending to know more than we do But further the Doctrine of the Trinity has suffered very much by the Discourses made about it upon another Account And that is that some of the Authors of such Discourses have imprudently made choice of improper ways of Expression Either perplexing plain Revelation too much with Philosophical Terms and Niceties or exposing the Faith to contempt by homely indecent Similies and disproportionate Comparisons Now to keep clear of all those Rocks I have discovered others to have split upon I have endeavoured what I could to deliver my self from Prejudice and confusion of Terms and to speak Justly and Intelligibly And not being yet prepossest in favour of any particular Explication the better to preserve my freedom of Examining the Subject in hand I have purposely forborn to search the Fathers Schoolmen or Fratres Poloni or read over any later Treatises concerning this Controversie while I was composing the present Essay resolving to consult nothing but Scripture and my own Natural Sentiments and draw all my Reflections from thence taking only such which easily and without constraint offered themselves 2. And thus having cleared the way and removed every thing which I thought might obstruct or misguide my Enquiries I come in the second place to consider the Doctrine it self and Faithfully and Impartially to Examine what is sufficient for Christians to believe concerning the Trinity or which is all one in this case what is necessary to be believed For certainly he believes enough and cannot in reason be taxed for a narrow defective Faith who believes as much as is required of him For the better proceeding in which Enquiry I shall lay down this as an evident Truth which every Man will grant me that nothing is necessary to be believed but 1. what 's possible to be believed and 2. what 's plainly revealed But here I would be understood as to the last part of the Assertion only of such matters which are known to us no other way than by Revelation For in several other cases I confess we may be obliged to believe meerly upon Humane Testimony Nay even Revelation it self as it is a matter of Fact claims our Assent upon no higher a ground But further I shall take this for granted too in a Protestant Country that Scripture is the only Standard of all Necessary Revealed Truths Neither in the present Instance is there any room for a Traditionary Faith For besides that all the Fathers and Ancient Writers ground their Expositions of the Trinity wholly upon Scripture I cannot conceive that the Subject is capable of a plainer Revelation as I shall endeavour to shew more
fully in the following Discourse We are therefore in the first place to consider how far 't is possible to believe a Trinity and next to examine what the Scripture requires us to believe in this matter Now there are two Conditions requisite to make it possible for us to believe a thing 1. That we know the Terms of what we are to assent to 2. That it imply no contradiction to our former Knowledge such Knowledge I mean which is accompanied with Certainty and Evidence First then we can believe a thing no further than we understand the Terms in which it is proposed to us For Faith concerns only the truth and falshood of Propositions and the Terms of which a Proposition consists must be first understood before we can pronounce any thing concerning the Truth or Falshood of it which is nothing else but the agreement or disagreement of its Terms or the Idea's expressed by them If I have no Knowledge at all of the meaning of the terms used in a Proposition I cannot exercise any Act of my Understanding about it I cannot say I believe or disbelieve any thing my Soul is perfectly in the same state it was before without receiving any new Determination If I have but a general confused Notion of the Terms I can give only a general confused Assent to the Proposition So my Faith will always bear the same Proportion to my Knowledge of the Subject-matter to be believed To make this plainer by an Instance suppose I am required to believe that A. is equal to B. If I don't know either what A. or B. stands for or have no Notion of Equality I believe nothing more than I did before this was proposed to me I am not capable of any new determinate Act of Faith All that I can believe in this case can amount to no more than this That Something has some respect to something else that the Matter I am required to believe is affirmed by a Person of great Knowledge and Integrity who ought to be credited in what he says and therefore the Proposition here laid down is probably true in that sense the Author means And what am I the wiser for all this What addition is there made to my Faith or Knowledge by such a Proposition But farther suppose I know that A. and B. stand for two Lines and that by Equal Lines is meant Lines of the same length such Knowledge can produce only a general confused belief that there is some certain Line imaginable just of the same length with some other Line But if by A. and B. are meant two right Lines which are the sides of a given Triangle and I take a Mathematician's Word for it without demonstration that they are equal or of the same length this is a particular distinct Act of Faith by which I am satisfied of the Truth of something which I did not believe or know before From whence it follows that Terms and simple Idea's must be clearly and distinctly understood first before we can believe any thing particular of the respects and relations they bear to one another which is the only proper Object of Faith Another Condition necessary to render a thing capable of being believed is that it implies no Contradiction to our former Knowledge I cannot conceive how 't is possible to give our assent to any thing that contradicts the plain Dictates of our Reason and those evident Principles from whence we derive all our other Knowledge As for Example I do not see how any Authority of Revelation can overthrow the Truth of this Proposition That the Whole is bigger than any of its Parts For First I cannot more clearly and distinctly perceive any external Impressions made upon my Soul nor be more certain that such Impressions proceed from God than I can perceive and be assured that the Idea's I have of Whole and part bear this relation to one another Secondly The nature and constitution of things makes it impossible that this Proposition should be false for such and such Things or Notions being supposed such and such Habitudes and Respects must necessarily result from them So long therefore as I have the same Idea's of whole and part and the same Faculties of Perception I shall always perceive the same relation betwixt them And if my Idea's of whole and part were changed or a new Texture and Frame of Soul given me I should indeed perceive different relations betwixt these new Idea's but this would by no means destroy the Truth of my former Conceptions 't would still be certain according to the Idea's I had before of whole and part that the whole was bigger than any of its parts Which Idea's will always unalterably have the same relation to one another But Thirdly Was it possible this Proposition could be false considering only the nature of the things themselves the Nature of God furnishes us with other Arguments of the Truth and Certainty of it And 1st It is not consistent with the Justice Wisdom or Goodness of God to require us to believe that which according to the Frame and Make he has given us 't is impossible for us to believe For however some Men have advanced this absurd Paradox that God can make Contradictions true I am very certain that upon an impartial Trial of their Faculties they would find 't were perfectly out of their power to believe explicitly and in the common Sense of the Terms that a Part can be bigger than the Whole it is a Part of But 2dly Admitting it possible for us to be deceived in such Propositions which have a constant uniform and universal appearance of Truth and Evidence this would destroy all manner of Certainty and Knowledge and leave us wholly in Darkness Ignorance and Despair or which is more Injurious to the Divine Goodness to imagine under an absolute necessity of being deceived For 't is not only impossible for me to believe that such a Proposition as this That the VVhole is bigger than any of its Parts is false but I cannot deny my positive express assent to it as true The Light and Evidence in this Case is so clear and strong that I am not at Liberty so much as to suspend my Judgment 3dly 'T is Blasphemy to think that God can contradict himself and therefore right Reason being the Voice of God as well as Revelation they can never be directly contrary to one another Now to apply all this to the present Case suppose I am required to believe That One and the same God is Three different Persons I only suppose it here because I have not yet proved how far and in what sense we are obliged to believe a Trinity If this I say be the Proposition I am required to give my assent to 't is plain by what has been proved before that I can believe it no farther than the Terms of which it is made up are known and understood and the Idea's signified by them consistent In
Three Infinite Beings distinct from one another any more than Three Infinite Powers or Three Infinite Spaces because all Distinction implies some Limitation and Limitation is a Contradiction to Infinity We can indeed conceive Infinite Power as in some manner bounded by Infinite Wisdom Justice Mercy or the like but in no wise as limited by any other Power We cannot therefore conceive one Infinite Being as bounded by another Infinite Being for then we should conceive Infinite Power limited by another Power and the like of all other Attributes which are the same in both For the Notion of an Infinite Being includes in it all the imaginable kinds of Infinite Perfection But if we say there are Three Infinite Beings and all the Perfections of each are coincident what ground can we have for such a Distinction Not so much to use the former Instance as for that of three straight Lines between the same Points for there the different times of describing the same Line may in some manner help us to form a confused Conception of different Lines But 't is not in the Power of the Soul to represent to its self Three Eternal Beings of Coincident Perfections Here 's nothing for the Imagination to lay hold of no manner of ground to deceive our selves into a confused belief of such a Distinction And therefore I do not see how 't is possible for us to believe there are Three distinct Principles or Natures all of the same Infinite Perfections which together we call God And if there be but One Omnipresent Infinitely Perfect Being how can he be truly and fully represented to any Mind under Three different Idea's The truth of an Idea consists in its Agreement and Conformity to the Original it represents And if so how is 't possible there should be Three Idea's exactly and adequately conformable to the same Original and yet different from one another Either these Differences found in the Idea's are not in the real Pattern and then the Representation is false or they are and then the Unity of the Object is destroyed 'T is true indeed we do often apply different Idea's to the same individual Object but these are either Partial and Inadequate Conceptions of the Nature and Essence of it or Expressive of something Accessory and Extrinsecal to the Nature of the thing such as Modes Circumstances and Relations Those Partial Conceptions we frame of the Divine Nature are what we call the Attributes of God Which how different soever from one another in our thoughts are all necessarily included in the simple Idea of God and therefore cannot be the ground of such a Distinction as we are now enquiring after For when I say that God is Holy Wise or Powerful I only say that explicitly and in part which I said implicitly and in full when I pronounced the Name of God and the meaning of such Propositions is no more but this That a Holy Wise Powerful Being of all other Infinite Perfections is Holy Wise Powerful c. All which Perfections though considered separately under different Appearances by our imperfect Faculties being really but one simple Idea can be applyed to but one Single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature or Principle and that for the Reasons just now mentioned concerning the Conformity of Idea's with their Patterns From whence it follows that according to the Notions we are capable of framing of Vnity and Distinction which I have particularly examined with Reference to the Holy Trinity all the Personal Distinction we can conceive in the Deity must be founded upon some Accessory Idea's Extrinsecal to the Divine Nature a certain Combination of which Idea's makes up the Second Notion signified by the word Person And if we fairly and impartially Examine our own Thoughts upon this Subject we shall find that when we name God the Father we conceive the Idea of God so far as we are capable of conceiving it as Acting so and so under such Respects and Relations and when we name God the Son we conceive nothing else but the same Idea of God over again under different Relations and so likewise of the Holy-Ghost But if this be all that is meant by Trinity in Vnity Three Persons and One God where is that stupendious Mystery so much reverenced and adored by some What becomes of the great Difficulty and Obscurity complained of by others What is it that has puzled the Understandings and staggered the Faith of so many Learned and Inquisitive Men in all Ages since this Doctrine was first delivered This is an invincible Prejudice against the Account now given and indeed against any other Explication whatsoever that has nothing in it hard to be understood or believed For how can it be imagined that what has passed for a Mystery these Sixteen Hundred Years should now at last be comprehended as plainly as a common ordinary Notion But if this Account of the Trinity be too easie and falls far short of those High Expressions of Distinction found in Scripture as I think it does and no other grounded upon any Notions our Souls have framed of Vnity and Distinction can be true or consistent as I have before particularly proved then it necessarily follows that God must be One and Three in some way or manner not conceivable by Humane Understanding And what we are to believe in this case is the Subject of my next Enquiry which I am perswaded may very easily and quickly be resolved For if we are fully satisfied from Revelation that these Terms One and Three may and ought to be affirmed of God but not in any sense of the words we are here in this present state capable of conceiving And moreover if it be true as I have already shewn it is that we can believe a thing no farther than we understand the Terms in which it is proposed to us 't is plain from hence that all we can possibly believe in the matter of the Trinity is That One and the same God is Three in some way or manner we are not able to comprehend And if we are sure we cannot comprehend what this Distinction is whereby God is Three in vain do we look out for Terms to express something which we have no manner of Conception of Whatever words we use whether Person Hypostasis or any other we can invent or Languages furnish us with they all signifie the same thing that is some kind of Distinction we do not understand And we may rack our Thoughts tire our Imaginations and break all the Fibres of our Brain and yet never be able to deliver our selves clearer All therefore that we can know of the Trinity by Reason can amount to no more than an Obscure confused Knowledge which we are forced to express in general and abstracted Terms because we are sure no other reach our thoughts though these are not sufficient to explain all we mean by them Nor is
this to be wonder'd at that we should have confused Notions of things which no particular Idea's our Minds are furnish'd with can render clearer to us For if we consider the Degrees and Limits of our Knowledge and take a strict Survey of our whole stock of Thoughts we shall find there are very few things that we know fully and distinctly Most of our Notions differ only as more or less confused more or less general There is a certain Scale of Knowledge wherein every thing is so fitted and proportioned to our Faculties that we cannot descend below such a determinate pitch in our Conceptions or Explications of any Object proposed to us As for instance suppose a Blind-Man has a desire to know what Colour is 't is certain he can never form a true distinct Idea of it but yet he is capable of a general confused Knowledge which wants but one degree of Particularity to be clear and perfect Conception He may know that Colour is not any Substance but some Mode or Determination which owes its Existence and Support to some other Being that it is not Extension or any other Accident or Quality perceivable by any of the Senses he enjoys He may further be made to understand that it is some kind of Sensation produced by the impression of other Bodies upon that part of a Man's which is called the Eye which other Men perceive though he does not Now 't is plain that such a Man knows a great deal of the Nature of Colour more by far than another Blind-Man who has not made the same Enquiries and Reflections about it and so much as will secure him from having any other Idea imposed upon him for that of Colour which is so distinguished and circumstantiated to him that should he now receive his sight he would presently acknowledge the marks before described to him And yet after all it may be truly said while he continues blind he has no manner of Idea of Colour because he has no distinct Idea of that particular kind of Sensation to which his general Idea's are applyed And therefore he can go no lower in his Explications of the Notion he has of Colour For if he explains it by any Sensation which he receives from his other Senses the Idea's he has then in his Mind are indeed more particular and distinct but the Judgment he makes upon them must be utterly false whereas before his Knowledge was only general and confused but yet true I have made choice of this plain familiar Instance of Sense to shew the unreasonableness of those who in higher Speculations complain that the terms brought to explain them are too general and abstracted and demand a further Explication of what we cannot possibly know beyond such a degree of Particularity which the Terms already made use of do express In vain therefore and unjustly are we urged to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity more particularly when we have brought it down to the utmost Particularity we are capable of conceiving and at the same time freely acknowledge we don't know it so distinctly as 't is capable of being known For then only is the Use of general abstracted Terms to be condemned either when the subject we are upon will admit of a more particular and sensible Explication or if it will not when by too much Refining and Abstracting we deceive our selves and think some Terms we have found out make the Thing clear to us tho' we have not really more distinct Conceptions of it than we had before and at the same time these very Terms make it more obscure and difficult to others And this is what I remarked before as a Prejudice to be avoided in an impartial Search after Truth But so long as we acknowledge we have only a general confused Notion of the Trinity or such a Three-fold Distinction in the Godhead as is consistent with the unity of the Divine Nature we may be allowed to explain this Notion in general abstracted Terms because we lay no greater a Stress upon the Terms than they will truly bear and require only a Faith proportionate to our Knowledge that is a general confused Faith which we expect a clearer and more distinct Revelation of hereafter And thus I have dispatched the first Branch of my Discourse wherein I proposed to consider how far 't was possible for us to believe a Trinity II. I come now to my Second General Enquiry viz. What it is the Scripture requires us to believe in this Matter For a distinct Resolution of which Question I shall observe the following Method First I shall barely and positively lay down the Doctrine of the Trinity so far as I judge it expresly contained in Scripture Secondly I shall endeavour to prove the Truth of what I assert Thirdly I shall consider the particular Additional Explications that have or may be given of the Scripture-Account of this Article 1. In speaking to the First it must be allowed that there is no such Proposition as this That One and the same God is Three different Persons formally and in Terms to be found in the Sacred Writings either of the Old or New Testament Neither is it pretended that there is any Word of the same Signification or Importance with the Word Trinity used in Scripture with relation to God There is one Text which plainly enough affirms without the help of Inference or Deduction that God is Three and One But this being a disputed Passage and no where else repeated in the same or the like Terms I shall not insist upon it Nor do I think such a Trinity as we profess to believe stands much in need of the Support of this Text the Matter and subject of our Faith in this Point being frequently largely and circumstantially mentioned and as it appears to me interwoven into the very Design of the Scriptures Now the Summ of all that the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach concerning a Trinity is this That there is but One only God the Author and Maker of All Things but that One God ought to be acknowledged and adored by us under those Three different Titles or Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost Which Terms whatever they signifie according to my Judgment upon a fair and impartial Consideration of all Circumstances that can determine their Sense are evidently applied to God in many Places of Holy Writ and consequently are truly and properly applicable to him 2. The Proof of which Assertion is the Second Thing I undertook But here I find my self forestalled by the successful Endeavours of a great many Learned Men who have carefully and nicely examined every Text that can be brought either for the Establishment or Confutation of the Doctrine of the Trinity I shall not therefore trouble my Reader with a particular detail of all their Arguments but only acquaint him truly and fairly what were the chief Motives which influenced and disposed me to make such a Judgment as I have
themselves sufficient to shew what the Faith of the first Christians was For who but one that believed that Christ was God could say with St. Paul I can do all things through Christ that strengthneth me or with St. Stephen at the instant of Death cry out Lord Jesus receive my Spirit From these and many other Texts it seems plain to me that Christ was worshipped and acknowledged as God and that therefore he ought so to be worshipped and acknowledged we have all the same Reasons to believe as we have that the Scriptures are True the Establishment of a False Worship being a thorough Disproof of the Authority that Commands it Supposing therefore the Truth of the Scriptures there 's no way of eluding this Argument but by giving another Interpretation to all those Places which seem to ascribe divine Honour to Christ which can no otherwise be done than by framing a particular Dialect for this Purpose and giving new Significations to Words when applied to our Saviour which they never had before when used upon other Occasions I shall not enter upon a particular Proof of this but pass on to Another Argument I observ'd from Scripture which gave me further Assurance of the Divinity of the Son and consequently of the Truth of the whole Proposition before advanced and that is The Character of Jesus Christ considered meerly as a Man Now 't is certain that the Man Christ Jesus the Son of David according to the Flesh is represented by all the Evangelists as having his Conversation in this World with all Lowliness and Humility and with perfect Holiness and Unblameableness of Life And it is not imaginable that a Person of this Character should have suffered any Titles to have been given him any Honour or Respect to have been pay'd him which were not strictly and indispensably due to him much less have taken the Honour and Worship peculiar to God only to himself if he had not been infallibly conscious that of a Truth God dwelt in him I cannot possibly conceive that one who declined all Appearance of Grandeur Dominion and Authority should have allowed of any thing that look'd like Worship or Adoration or might have been mistaken for it or that he who knew he was believed to be the Son of God in such a Sense which some thought Blasphemy would not have undeceived his Followers and justified himself to his Enemies had he not really been what 't was Blasphemy to have pretended to be if he were not I might easily pursue these Reflections a great deal further and bring more Arguments to confirm the truth of what I have asserted that these Names or Titles of Father Son and Holy Ghost are applyed in Scripture to the One True God but I judge it altogether unnecessary not only because it has been fully made out already in several set Discourses upon this Subject but because it is so plainly and expresly revealed that I am verily perswaded every Man that reads would believe were it not for the additional Explications such a Belief is charged with 3. Which is the next thing to be considered And indeed here lyes the whole difficulty of the matter the main stress of the Controversie For that God should be called Father Son and Holy Ghost is as easily to be believed as that he should be called Adonai Elohim and Jehovah That the same thing should be signified and expressed by several names is no such incredible Mystery But if we allow that these Terms Father Son and Holy Ghost are all applyed to God in Scripture 't is not thought sufficient to say that these are three several Names which signifie God but we are further required to believe that God is One and Three the same God but three different Hypostases or Persons And that one of these three Hypostases or Persons is both God and Man These are the hard sayings which puzzles some Mens Understandings and make them chuse rather to wrest and pervert the plainest Texts than admit such seemingly inconsistent Consequences Here therefore I shall Examine what grounds there are in Scripture for such an Exposition And what we are obliged from thence to believe when we express our Faith in this particular manner First then as to these forms of Expression That God is One and Three c. It is to be observed that these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost are applyed to God in Scripture in a different way from what any of his other Names are For the other Names of God signifie only Partial Conceptions of the Divine Nature such as Self-Existence Power c. and are all contained within the same Idea of God and so are indifferently used upon any occasion to express the whole Idea of God to which they belong which is the same under every denomination These therefore cannot be the Foundation of any distinction in the Godhead But Father Son and Holy Ghost according to our way of conceiving things signifie something Extrinsecal and Accessory to the Divine Nature as much as we know of the Divine Nature by reason the whole Idea of God being conceived as full and compleat before the application of these terms And though all of them are separately and together affirmed of God yet each of them in so peculiar a manner that there are several occasions where when one of these terms is used with relation to God 't would be improper to use either of the other From whence it follows that these three Names of God Father Son and Holy Ghost must denote a three-fold difference or distinction belonging to God but such as is consistent with the Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature For each of these Names includes the whole Idea we have of God and something more so far as they express the Nature of God they all adequately and exactly signifie the same 't is the additional signification which makes all the distinction betwixt them What particular kind or manner of distinction this is is not expressed in Scripture but since the Church has thought fit to assign a Name for it that of Person seems to me as proper and agreeable to the whole Tenor and Design of the Holy Writings as any other that could have been chosen for that purpose For Father Son and Holy Ghost whether we consider the Primitive sense and intention of the words the general and constant use of them or the particular Connexion and Circumstances in which they are mentioned in Scripture have plainly a Personal Signification each of them without any figure of Speech being determined to signifie some intelligent Being Acting in such a manner as is there related There needs no Proof of this the plain distinction of Persons imported by those Terms being the chief Argument made use of to shew that they cannot all be applied to God but must necessarily signifie Three distinct Beings But that they are all applyed to God in Scripture has been proved already And therefore Father Son and