neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
Faculties and Powers more but these being only Faculties and Powers neither of them is a whole entire Mind the Understanding alone is not the whole entire Mind nor Reflexion nor Love but the Mind is whole and entire by the union of them all in One but these being Persons in the Godhead each Person has the whole Divine Nature The Son has all that the Father has being his perfect and natural Image and the Holy Spirit is all that Father and Son is comprehending all their infinite Perfections in Eternal Love and they are all the same and all united into One God as the several Faculties and Powers are in One Mind 7. For this proves that these Divine Persons are intimately conscious to each other which as I before showed makes them One numerical God for as the same Mind is conscious to all its own Faculties and Powers and by that unites them into One so where there are Divine and Infinite Persons instead of Faculties and Powers they must be mutually conscious to each other to make them all One God 8. This proves also that though there are Three distinct Persons there can be but One Energie and Operation Father Son and Holy Ghost is the Maker and Governour of the World by one inseparable and undivided Energie neither of them do nor can act apart as the several Powers of the Mind all concur to the same individual Action Knowledge Self-reflection and Will do the same thing which is the Effect of Knowledge brought into act by Reflection and Will and yet the Effect may be ascribed to Knowledge and ascribed to Will as the making of the World is to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost not separately to either but as they act in Conjunction and produce the same Effect by One individual Energie and Power 9. This proves also that Father Son and Holy Ghost must be co-eternal as the several Powers and Faculties must be co-temporary and co-exist in the same Mind Understanding cannot be without a Power of Reflection nor that without Will and Love And I suppose no man will say that there could be any imaginable instant wherein God did not know and love himself This Account is very agreeable to what St. Austin has given us who represents the Father to be Original Mind the Son his Knowledge of himself and the Holy-Spirit Divine Love as I have done and gives the very same Account of their Union Cùm itaque se mens novit amat jungitur ei amore verbum ejus quoniam amat notitiam novit amorem verbum in amore est amor in verbo utrumque in amante dicente When the Mind knows and loves it self its Word is united to it by Love and because it loves its Knowledge and knows its Love its Word is in Love and Love in its Word and both in the loving and speaking or knowing Mind This is the Eternal Generation of the Son Itaque mens cùm seipsam cognoscit sola parens est notitioe suoe cognitum enim cognitor ipsa est when the Mind knows it self it is the sole Parent of its own Knowledge for its self is both the Knower and the Thing known that is the Son is begotten of the Father by a reflex Knowledge of himself and he gives us the same Account of the Difference between Generation and Procession that One is a new Production if I may so express it inventum partum repertum that is the Production of its own Image of its own Wisdom and Knowledge by Self-reflexion the other comes out of the Mind as Love does and therefore the Mind is the Principle of it but not its Parent Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam in eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium undè procedit ab ipsa quidem mente procedit quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet atque ita principium est amoris sui quo se amat sed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea sicut notitia sui quâ se novit quia notitia jam inventum est quod partum vel repertum dicitur quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura This I hope is sufficient both to explain and justifie this Doctrine which is the great Fundamental of the Christian Religion of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that Account I have given of it It must be confessed that the ancient Fathers did not express their Sense in the same terms that I have done but I will leave any indifferent and impartial Reader to judge whether they do not seem to have intended the very same Explication which I have now given of this venerable Mystery As for the Schoolmen they generally pretend to follow the Fathers and have no Authority where they leave them Sometimes they seem to mistake their Sense or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own The truth is that which has confounded this Mystery has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis Person and the like which some of the Fathers used in a very different Sense from each other which sometimes occasioned great Disputes among them not because they differed in the Faith but because they used words so differently as not to understand each others meaning as Petavius has shewn at large The more pure and simple Age of the Church contented themselves to profess the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that there was but One God and Three who were this One God which is all the Scripture teaches of it But when Sabellius had turned this Mystery only into a Trinity of Names they thought themselves concerned to say what these Three are who are One God and then they nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were Three Persons but One Nature Essence and Substance but then when men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other they were very unapplicable to this Mystery for what is the Substance and Nature of God How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence The Deity is above Nature and above terms of Art there is nothing like this mysterious Distinction and Unity and therefore no wonder if we want proper words to express it by at least that such Names as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures should not reach it I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and distinctions but that is a work of greater difficulty than use especially to ordinary Christians and I have drawn this Section to too great a length already to enter upon that now SECT VI.
though not separate from the other Divine Persons then at least the Godhead of each Person must be as distinct as their Persons are and we must acknowledge three distinct though not separate Gods I answer by no means We must allow each Person to be a God but each distinct Person is not a distinct God there is but One Godhead which can no more be distinguished then it can be divided from it self There is but One God and each Divine Person is this One numerical God has the whole entire Godhead in himself and the same One numerical Godhead is in them all thus each Divine Person is God and all of them but the same One God as I explained it before This One Supream God is Father Son and Holy Ghost a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God Now Father Son and Holy Ghost with all their Divine Attributes and Perfections excepting their personal Properties which the Schools call the Modi subsistendi that One is the Father the other the Son the other the Holy Ghost which cannot be communicated to each other are whole and entire in each Person by a mutual consciousness each Person feels the other Persons in himself all their essential Wisdom Power Goodness Justice as he feels himself and this makes them essentially One as I have proved at large Now if the whole Trinity be in each Divine Person by such an intimate and essential Union we must confess each Person to be God if the whole Trinity be God and yet there being but One Trinity One Father Son and Holy Ghost who are essentially One by a mutual consciousness it is certain all these Three Divine Persons can be but One God for where-ever you begin to reckon there are but Three and these Three are One If we consider the Father and Holy Ghost in the Son by this mutual consciousness we truly affirm the Son to be God as having all the Divine Perfections of the whole Trinity in himself if we consider the Father and the Son in the Holy Ghost for the same reason we affirm the Holy Ghost to be God but the natural Order of the Trinity is to reckon from the Father as the Fountain of the Deity that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God for the Son and Holy Spirit are in the Father not only by a mutual consciousness as the Father and the Son are in the Holy Ghost but as in their Cause if I may so speak and the Ancient Fathers were not afraid to speak so as in their Root their Origine their Fountain from whence they receive the communications of the Divine Essence and Godhead the Son by Eternal Generation being God of God Light of Light the Holy Ghost by Eternal Procession from the Father and the Son Thus all these Divine Persons are naturally united in the Father who is the Fountain of the Deity and all essentially in each other by a mutual consciousness which makes each Person God and all One and the same God without any shew of Contradiction SECT V. The Doctrine of the Fathers and of the Schools concerning the Distinction of Persons and the Vnity of Essence in the Ever Blessed Trinity considered and reconciled to the foregoing Explication of it THis Notion of the Union of the Divine Persons in One numerical Essence by a mutual consciousness to each other is so very plain and gives so easie and intelligible an account both of the Phrases of Scripture and all other Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity that this alone is sufficient to reconcile any Man to it but I am very sensible how afraid Men are and not without reason of any new Explications of so Venerable a Mystery and such a Fundamental Doctrine of Christianity as this is and therefore I must ward this blow as well as I can and remove the prejudice of Novelty and Innovation Now if it appear that I have advanced no new Proposition but have confined myself to the received Faith and Doctrine of the Catholick Church if that Explication I have given of it contain nothing new but what is universally acknowledged though possibly not in express terms applied to that purpose I use it for if that explication I have given be very consistent with nay be the true interpretation of that account the Ancients give of a Trinity in Unity I hope it will not be thought an unpardonable Novelty if I have expressed the same thing in other words which give us a more clear and distinct apprehension of it and to satisfie all men that it is so I shall compare what I have now said concerning the Distinction of Persons and the Unity of Essence in the Ever Blessed Trinity with the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools I. To begin then with the distinction of Persons I have not indeed troubled my Readers with the different signification of Essence and Hypostasis Substance Subsistence Person Existence Nature c. which are terms very differently used by Greek and Latin Fathers in this Dispute and have very much obscured this Doctrine instead of explaining it but I plainly assert That as the Father is an eternal and infinite Mind so the Son is an eternal and infinite Mind distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost is an eternal and infinite Mind distinct both from Father and Son which every body can understand without any skill in Logick or Metaphysicks And this is no new Notion but the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and Schools Three Persons signifie Three who are infinite in Knowledge and Wisdom and all other Perfections which belong to a Mind Now no Man who acknowledges a Trinity of Persons ever denied that the Son and the Holy Spirit were intelligent Beings or Minds When they tell us which is their common Language that the Son is the substantial Word and Wisdom of the Father what is this else but to say that he is an intelligent Being or infinite Mind Greg. Nyssen calls the Son or Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Intellect Athanasius observes from our Saviour's words I and my Father are One that are signifies two or the distinction of Persons as One signifies the Unity of Essence for he does not say I and my Father am but are One. And therefore if the Father be an eternal Mind and Wisdom the Son also is an eternal but begotten Mind and Wisdom as the Nicene Creed tells us That he is God of God Light of Light very God of very God St. Austin in his Sixth Book of the Trinity takes notice of a common argument used by the Orthodox Fathers against the Arians to prove the coeternity of the Son with the Father that if the Son be the Wisdom and Power of God as St. Paul teaches 1 Cor. 1. and God was never without his Wisdom and Power the Son must be coeternal with the Father for it is distraction to say that the Father was ever without his Wisdom or Power was
say that there is but One man is no more than to say there is but One Humanity and to say there are Three men is to say there are Three Humanities or Three Human Natures and the Name of Nature cannot be a proper Name of distinction and therefore ought not to be multiplied for that which is the same in all cannot distinguish one Person from another This he observes all men are very sensible of for when they would call any particular Person out of a Crowd they do not call him by the Name of Nature that is they do not say you man come hither for this being a common Name as the Nature is common no man could tell who was meant but they call him by the Name of his Person Peter or Iames for though there are many who partake of the same Human Nature yet there is but One man or One Humanity in them all Persons are distinguished and divided and multiplied by peculiar personal properties and therefore may be numbred but Nature is One united with it self a perfect indivisible Unity which neither increases by addition nor is diminished by Substraction but though it be in a Multitude of Individuals is whole entire and undivided in all And therefore as a People an Army a Church are named in the single number though they consist of Multitudes so in exactness and propriety of Speech man may be said to be One though there are a Multitude who partake of the same Human Nature So that hitherto all that the Father hath said tends only to justifie this Form of Speech as having nothing absurd or incongruous in it to acknowledge that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there is but One Divinity or Godhead not Three Gods for though this sounds as harsh as to own that Peter is a man and Iames a man and Iohn a man and yet there are not Three men but One man which Custom has made very absurd and contradictious to say which is the Objection he was to Answer yet he observes that according to strict propriety of speaking this is no absurdity to say there are not Three men but One man nay that it is an abuse of Speech to say otherwise because man is the Name of Nature not of a Person and therefore there is but One man as there is but One Human Nature in all those who partake of it for Human Nature is but One whole and indivisible in all and therefore cannot distinguish One Person from another and therefore not be a Name of Number But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words and oppose the common and ordinary Forms of Speech Did he in good earnest believe that there is but One man in the World No! No! he acknowledged as many men as we do a great Multitude who had the same Human Nature and that every One who had a Human Nature was an individual man distinguished and divided from all other Individuals of the same Nature what makes him so zealous then against saying that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men Only this that lie says Man is the Name of Nature and therefore to say there are Three men is the same as to say there are Three Human Natures of a different kind for if there are Three Human Natures they must differ from each other or they can't be Three and so you deny Peter Iames and Iohn to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Nature and for the same reason we must say that though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet there are not Three Gods but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Godhead and Divinity lest we destroy their Homoousiotes or the Sameness of their Nature and introduce Three Gods of a different Nature like the Pagan Polytheism which is the first reason he gives why we do not say there are Three Gods to avoid the suspicion of Polytheism in numbring and multiplying Gods as the Heathens did which he says is a sufficient Answer for ignorant and unskilful People But to say this in gross will not satisfie more inquisitive men and therefore he assigns the reason for it that Individuals in strict propriety of Speech ought not to be numbred by the name of their Nature because that argues a diversity in their Natures to say Three men is to say there are Three different Humanities whereas Humanity is One and the same in all and as men are not distinguished so they ought not to be numbred by the Name of Nature and that this is all his meaning appears from the reason he gives why this improper way of speaking may be tolerated without any inconvenience when we speak of men that we may say there are Three men but it is very dangerous to apply this to the Divinity and say there are Three Gods because there is no danger by this Form of Speech that that there are Three or more men that any one should be betrayed into that Conceit that we mean a Multitude of Humanities or many different Human Natures but there is danger lest our naming more Gods or saying that there are Three Gods men should imagine that there are divers and different Natures in the Divinity that is that the Three Persons in the Godhead are not all of the same Nature Here St. Gregory lays his Foundation That we must not say there are Three Gods because there is but One Divinity Father Son and Holy Ghost being all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Nature whereas God being the Name of Nature to say there are Three Gods is to say there are Three different Divinities or Divine Natures which destroys the Homoousiotes of the Godhead which is the Sum of his Argument against using the Name of Nature Plurally to say there are Three men or Three Gods There is nothing more plain than this in the Dialogues of Maximus who all along explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity and the One Humanity by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Sameness of Nature and therefore there can be but One Nature though it subsist in several Persons or Individuals Now indeed had they gone no farther in explaining the Unity of the Godhead than this Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature there had been some reason to quarrel with them but they do not stop here but proceed to show how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature in all Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity proves a true Numerical and Essential Unity of the Godhead which it does not and cannot do in created Natures without this it is evident there can be no Essential Unity unless we will allow of a Composition of different Natures in the Godhead where the Nature is the same it may be One not only by a Logical but by a Real and Essential Unity Gregory Nyssen
when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his Words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me authority to Expound the Words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every mans private Conceits and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such Matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any Sense of it much less to give such a Sense of it as the Words will not bear This shows that men may pretend to Expound Scripture according to Reason when the Dispute is nothing else but a Clash of Reason with Scripture as this Author phrases it for so it is when the usual signification of the Words and the Scope and Circumstances of the Place require one Sense and men force another Sense on it upon pretence of Expounding Scripture by Reason that is to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words signifie that is the Sense of Scripture and when they will not admit this Sense because they apprehend it contrary to Reason though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place that is nothing else but a Controversie between Scripture and Reason My present Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity or by others for it this is a voluminous Work and has often been done by others and if there were any just Occasion of doing it again it deserves a Treatise by it self but indeed it is the Doctrine it self which the Socinians dislike more then our Expositions which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough were the Doctrine so but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason and therefore must never allow that the Scripture teaches such a Doctrine which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind reconcile men to the Doctrine and the Scripture is plain without any farther Comment this I have now endeavoured and I believe our Adversaries will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expositions of Scripture but yet I am unwilling to dismiss this Argument without some few Observations about the Sense of Scripture This Author refers us to the History of the Vnitarians which though it be but a little Book in all Senses is too large to be particularly examined now but however I shall give some taste of it In the first Letter the Author marshals those Texts which he thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful Readers I shall more particularly examine that He reduces the Scriptures under several Topicks or Heads of Arguments 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than he none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious for though Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the Godhead the equality and sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of Persons a Son is equal to his Father by Nature but inferiour to him as his Son if the Father as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wisdom the Son a personal subsisting but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is superior to the Image the Father to the Son and therefore though I know such Texts as he alleadges My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's Human Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to his Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and the Son is God of God and therefore the Father may be called his God As for Christ's receiving Commands from the Father though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office and so concerns him as God Incarnate as by the Dispensation of the Gospel he is the Minister of God's Will and Pleasure yet I grant even as God he receives Commands from his Father but it is no otherwise than as he receives his Nature from him by Nature he is the Word the Wisdom the Command of the Father his reflex Image whereby he produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and Counsel into act Thus St. Austin answered the Arrian Objection That Christ was but God's Instrument and made the World by God's Command Let them consider with what other words the Father commanded his only Word But they frame to themselves an Imagination of two near one another but separated by their distinct Places one commanding another obeying Nor do they understand that the Fathers Command it self that all things should be made is no other Word of the Father but that by which all things are made that is the substantial Word and Wisdom and Command of the Father his only begotten Son 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that he is the Creature the Possession the Servant and Subject of God It is well he added absolutely and without restriction but he had done better if he had remembred it in his Proofs that Christ is called a Creature he proves because he is the first-born of every Creature but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction for he is so to the first-born of every Creature that he is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies That by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all
next place let us consider the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel which gives a glorious Testimony to the Divinity of Christ and a plain demonstration of the incurable perverseness of Hereticks In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God Our Historian tells us The Trinitarian Exposition of this Chapter is absurd and contradictory 'T is this In the beginning i. e. from all Eternity Answ. From all Eternity is before the beginning or without beginning not in the beginning Reply This is false No man expounds in the beginning of Eternity but when St. Iohn tells us In the Beginning was the Word we say this proves the Eternity of the Word for that which was when all things began which had a beginning was it self before the beginning and without beginning especially when it was so in the beginning that it gave beginning to every thing else that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made Was the Word i. e. was God the Son Answ. But where in Scripture is the Word called God the Son Reply This Word indeed is God the Son but we do not Paraphrase it so in this place In the beginning was God the Son but in the beginning was that Divine Person who is called the Word The Word was with God i. e. The Son was with the Father Answ. It seems then that God in this Clause is the Father But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost and is not he too according to the Trinitarians God or a God If he is why doth St. John only say The Son was with the Father and how comes the Father to engross here the Title of God to the Exclusion of the Holy Ghost Rep. This is true also the God with whom the Word was is the Father but that is not his Character here neither no more than the Character of the Word is the Son But by God the Apostle here means that Original mind and Wisdom that Supreme and Soveraign Being whom all men called God without making a distinction of Persons in the God-head And therefore whereas he thinks that he has got the Trinitarians at an Advantage when the Apostle adds and the Word was God his triumph is vain What says he shall we do here was the Word the Father for so they interpreted God in the foregoing Clause No! no! neither so nor so The Word was God signifies the Word was a Divine Person in the Godhead and the Verse is very plain In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God intimately and inseparably united to him and that not as a Faculty or Power as Reason is in Human Minds but as a Divine subsisting Person for the Word was God God is the Name of a Being absolutely Perfect and the Light of Nature teaches us that there is but One such Supreme Being or but One God but Nature does not teach us that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God though when Revelation has discovered this Mystery natural Reason is able in some measure to understand it and see the necessity of it as I have already shewn and if there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Reason will tell us that each Person is God though all Three Persons are but One God This is the Trinitarian Hypothesis and if the words of the Evangelist do easily and naturally agree with this Hypothesis and cannot reasonably signifie any thing else that is a sufficient Argument to me that this is the true Interpretation of the Text In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That is In the beginning of all things was the Divine Person whose Name and Character is The Word this Word was inseparably united to that Supreme Being whom we call God and was himself God a Divine Person subsisting in the Vnity of the Godhead not a Power and Faculty as Reason is in Man Can any thing be more easie and obvious and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity Or if you change the Subject and the Praedicate as others will have it and read God was the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it makes no difference at all for this Supreme Being whom we call God was and is the Word though not Only the Word for God is the Father and God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost though God is not only the Father nor only the Son nor only the Holy Ghost but the Supreme God is Father Son and Holy Ghost Now when the Evangelist had said That the Word was God or God was the Word there was great reason to repeat the same was in the beginning with God which our Historian thinks a meer Tautology for the intention of it is plain to inculcate more expresly on us that though the Word be God yet the Word is not all that God is as Grotius well observes for the Word was with God and therefore a distinct Person from some other Person who is callâ—d God that is that Eternal and Original Mind and Wisdom who is the Father of the Word And why the Name of God should peculiarly be appropriated to the Father as the Fountain of the Deity I have often observed But yet the Evangelist does in this Verse say something more than he said before and therefore this is no Tautology He had said That the Word was in the beginning that it was with God that it was God now he adds The same Word was in the beginning with God that is was always with him never separated from him and this is added for the sake of what follows That the Word was so with God in the beginning that God made the World by his Word For all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made which was made which is another very mysterious Repetition which nothing can give so plain an Account of as our Hypothesis All things were made by him this is full enough without the following addition nay indeed signifies more than what follows in strictness and propriety of Speech seems to do for that nothing was made without him of it self does not signifie that he made all things but that he had something to do in it as he may have who is not the principal Actor But our Doctrine gives a plain account of this Addition when the Evangelist had said That this Word who was with God in the beginning made all things there was an obvious Objection viz. then it seems that God with whom the Word was did not make the World if all things were made by the Word to have attributed the Creation of the World to the Word so as to have excluded God from making the World had been very absurd and contrary to the sense of Mankind God made the World by his Word the Word made all
the Orphicks by Heraclitus and Zeno as Tertullian and Lactantius affirm Nay that the Stoicks and Platonists and especially Philo Iudaeus uses it in the same sense who attributes the making of the World to the Word which he calls the Name the Image the Son of God To which purpose he before cited Rabbi Eliezel that God and his Name were before the World was made and explains this by the sayings of some Fathers as all meaning the same thing and we know they meant by it a Divine Person The Wor d was with God Grotius does say that this is opposed to the Words being made Flesh and appearing in the world but he was far enough from thinking that these words have only a negative sense that to be with God signifies only not to be in the world for he tells us what the positive sense is that with God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Father the very sense which our Historian before rejected as absurd and explains it by what Wisdom says 8 Prov. 30. Then I was by him as one brought up with him and I was daily his delight rejoycing alway before him which he does not think a Prosopopoea but spoken of a subsisting Person The Word was God Here Grotius produces numerous Testimonies to prove that that Divine Person who is called the Word not the Faculty of Wisdom and Power in God is God He says indeed that the ancient Hebrews and Primitive Christians teach that when an Angel is in Scripture called Iehovah it is not a meer Angel sed cui adfuerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Angel to whom the Word is joyned or united not as the Historian says to whom the Divine Wisdom has been in an extraordinary degree communicated that is an extraordinary wise Angel for there is no other sense in it but I know not what Grotius meant by the Union or Presence of the Word with the Angel but I know the Primitive Christians asserted That the Angel called Iehovah was the Word Grotius assigns this Reason of the Repetition that because the Evangelist had called the Word God he would have us understand that he is so God that he is also with God that is that the Word is not all that God is but only One Person in the Godhead which he observes that Origen and others after him called the Distinction of Hipostasis tho' the Primitive Christians and Athanasius himself used that word Hipostases in a different sense and the Christians seemed to take up this sense of it from the Platonists But whatever becomes of the Phrase this is plainly what Grotius meant by the Word 's not being all that is God that is that he is but One Person in the Godhead not that he is but One communicable Attribute in God This is sufficient to show how our Historian has abus'd this Great Man when he represents him as making the Word only the Divine Wisdom and Power not a Divine Person and all his other mis-representations depend on this and need not be particularly examined But I perceive our Socinian Historian is ashamed of that Exposition which Socinus and his genuine Disciples give of this Chapter which had been a sign of some Understanding and Modesty had he not invented as foolish and sensless an Interpretation himself for it is not Grotius's but his own Socinus was sensible that the Word must signifie a Person but would allow it to be no more than a Man called the Word not with respect to his Nature but Office as the greatest and most excellent Prophet who reveals God's will to the world Our Historian was convinced that the Word must be something Divine which was with God from the beginning of the world and was not different from God but is God and did create all things at first and was in a sense Incarnate was made Flesh did abide on and inhabit an human Person the Person of Iesus So far is very well But then he will not allow the Word to be a Person but a Divine Quality or Accident the Wisdom or Power of God and the fault of this is that it is unintelligible Nonsense to describe the Word so pompously as distinct from God but with God in the beginning and himself God and to ascribe the making of the world to him and tell us that he was made Flesh and all this while the world is only a communicable Attribute in God what we call the Faculty of Reason in Men This is a new way of making a God of a Prosopopoea and incarnating a Prosopopoea which must be a very figurative God and Incarnation But I observed before that when any Vertue or Power or Faculty is spoken of as a Person what is said of the Vertue or Power belongs to the Person in whom that Vertue and Power is and what that is said to do is done by the Person or else it is not a figurative but a false and absurd form of speech As when Charity is said to suffer long and is kind the meaning is a charitable man is so a Prosopopoea is easily understood and conveys its sense clearly and elegantly to our minds but where there is nothing but Nonsense at the bottom it must not be made a figure for a figurative Speech is good sense Let us then examine his Prosopopoea by this Rule In the beginning was the Word that is the Wisdom and Power of God and this Wisdom and Power of God was with God that is God was with himself and this Wisdom and Power of God was God that is God was God what sense I beseech you is there in this That the Wisdom and Power of God made the world I grant is sense because God did make the world but if there be any sense in the words being made Flesh it is certain that God is Incarnate For the Wisdom and Power of God which is with God and is God cannot be Incarnate unless God be Incarnate Unless we can divide God from his Wisdom and separate the Wisdom of God which was with him from the beginning from God to be Incarnate in Man The Wisdom of God can no more be Incarnate unless God can be Incarnate then the Wisdom of an Angel can be Incarnate without the Incarnation of the Angel and thus this Socinian is turned Sabellian and Patropassian However I confess we are beholden to this Historian for he has given up this place to us which is one of the most express places for the Divinity of our Saviour He allows that the beginning is the beginning of all things that Word signifies something Divine even the Wisdom and Power of God that to be with God is to be intimately present with him that to be God is to be God himself That all things were made by him is meant of the first Creation of the world that this Divine Word was made Flesh and did abide on the human Person of Christ Jesus the only difference between us is whether
this Word of whom all these things are said be a Divine Person or only the communicable attribute of Wisdom and Power in God and this after what I have said I leave to any man of common understanding to determine But what becomes of his beloved Socinus all this while when the very Master-piece of his Wit and Invention is rejected by his own Disciples for if this Socinian be in the right his Master was greatly in the wrong By the Word he understands a Person but One who is the Word not by Nature but Office by the beginning he understands the beginning of Iohn the Baptist's Preaching in this beginning the Word was that is Christ was in being was in the world when Iohn the Baptist began to preach a great discovery But he was with God known to God only at that time which is very hardly true and was God by Dignity and Office not by Nature All things were made by him not created the world was not made by him but all things are new made by him that is all who believe in him are made new Creatures and after a great many great things said of this Word at last the Evangelist discovers this great Mystery the Word was made Flesh that is the Word was a Man If this be not ridiculing Scripture nothing is I am sure it represents the Evangelist very ridiculously to tell the World that Christ who was half a year younger than Iohn was in the world when Iohn began to preach but how great a Person he was and what his Office was was then known only to God Which if it were true is no great Mystery and to say this in such a mysterious pomp of words as there is nothing like it in all the Scripture is such a vain affectation as no School master but an arrant Fop would endure in a School-boy I shall not go about industriously to confute that which they themselves begin to be ashamed of but shall only lay down one rule of expounding Scripture and all other Writings which is a very reasonable one and will easily answer all the Art and Fallacy which is used in this Cause and that is this to expound all words and phrases to a proper and literal sense and to the utmost extent of their signification where the Circumstances of the place do not require a figurative and limited sense if we do not allow this there is no certain rule of expounding but men may interpret according to their own Fancies and Imaginations to any sense that the word was ever used in and then we may make any thing of any thing even a good Catholick of Socinus himself Now according to this Rule in the beginning must signifie the first beginning of all things for that is beginning in its utmost Latitude and that is the proper signification of beginning when there is nothing to limit it and there is nothing here Was the Word must signifie the Word did subsist and therefore is a Person God must signifie God by Nature which is the first and proper signification of the Word not a Metaphorical God by Dignity and Office for there is nothing to incline it to that sense All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made must signifie the first Creation of all things when God made the world by his word for that is the proper Notion of making all things to give being to them and as there is nothing in the Text to require any other sense so its relation to in the beginning when God made all things by his word determines it to this sense This is all true and certain if it be a good Rule to expound words in a proper sense when there is nothing that requires an improper and metaphorical sense And then it is nothing to the purpose to show that in the beginning sometimes signifies the beginning of the Gospel that God sometimes signifies a metaphorical God that making all things sometimes signifies new making all things for all this I allow when the Circumstances of the place require it when there is any thing added to determine these words to this sense but will never allow it where there is not and therefore cannot allow it here and if we must expound these words properly in this place there is an end of this Controversie But I must hasten to a Conclusion and therefore this shall serve at present as a Specimen how these men pervert Scripture and impose forced and ridiculous senses on it and by the help of what I have now discoursed it will be easie to detect all their other Fallacies and rescue the Scriptures from their perverse Comments as I shall be ready at any time to shew when I find a just occasion for it Secondly Socinianism as reasonable and accountable a Doctrine as our Historian says it is makes the Jewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable The Jewish Worship was External and Ritual but very pompous and mysterious and had there not been something very Divine and Mysterious praefigured by it it had been no better than a Childish piece of Pageantry unworthy of the Wisdom of God unworthy of the Nature of Man But the New Testament assures us that all these mysterious Ceremonies were Types of Christ and were accomplished in him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge or in whom are all the hidden Treasures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of wisdom and knowledge that is all those Treasures of wisdom and knowledge which were formerly hid and concealed under the Types of the Jewish Law for they were but a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. And yet if Christ were no more than a meer Man the Antitype falls very short of the Types I shall instance at present only in the Temple and its Worship and Ministers The Tabernacle and Temple was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence and was so contrived as to be a Figure both of Heaven and Earth for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us that the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven into which the High Priest only entred and that but once a year to make Expiation and therefore the other Courts of the Temple which were for their daily worship did represent the Earth on which men worship God for God being the Maker and Soveraign Lord of the world who has Heaven for his Throne and Earth for his Footstool it was fitting the House where he dwelt should be an Emblem and Figure of the whole world But we must all confess that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence to dwell in a House made with hands to appoint this the peculiar place of his worship ordinarily to accept no Sacrifices but what were offered there c. Had it not praefigured something more Divine and Mysterious
And adds The very truth is they cannot otherwise defend the Incarnation or Personal Vnion of an infinite God to a finite Man This is Gibberish which I do not understand but this I do understand which I suppose is the meaning of it if it have any meaning That an Eternal Being who has no beginning and no succession of Being may Coexist with time and that an infinite Mind who has no parts or extension is present every where without extension This I have sufficiently discoursed already and refer my Reader to it But he has a thundring Argument against this But withal it must be owned that then the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation do infer imply and suppose all the Contradictions that Mr. Johnson has objected to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation I hope not all for that is a very good Discourse and I only wish for the Author's sake si sic omnia but pray what is the matter His whole Book and all his Demonstrations are founded upon these two Suppositions That a longer time doth not all of it coexist in a shorter nor is a greater extension constipated or contained in a less Suppose this for I have forgot what his Demonstrations are and have not the Book now by me what is this to the Trinity and Incarnation though a longer time cannot all of it coexist in a shorter which I hope is not so loosly expressed by Mr. Iohnson because it is not sense for time is in a perpetual flux and nothing of it exists but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what is this to an Eternal Being's coexisting with time without time or succession Though a greater Extension cannot be contained in a less what is this to an infinite Mind's being present every where without Extension for here is no Comparison between a longer and shorter time but between Time and Eternity which is not Time nor Succession nor between a greater and less Extension but between a finite and infinite Mind neither of which have any Extension But suppose the worst how does this concern the Doctrine of the Incarnation If he could tell how to apply all the Demonstrations of Mr. Iohnson which he tells us in Print he forbears to do because the Press is not open to them these Absurdities and Contradictions would not fall upon the Doctrine of the Incarnation but upon the Notion of an Omnipresent God who has no Parts nor Extension which was not invented to salve the Difficulties of the Incarnation but is the true Notion of God and his Omnipresence who is not Omnipresent by Parts but is every where a perfect and infinite Mind and if he can ridicule God out of the World we will quarrel no more about the Incarnation I do not at all wonder that he boasts so much what Follies and Contradictions he could discover in the Athanasian Creed for a man who cannot understand common Sense can never fail of finding Follies and Contradictions 2. He proves That the Vnion between God and Man cannot make one Person as the Vnion of Body and Soul does because the Vnion of Soul and Body is not the Vnion of Two Persons but only of One Person the Soul to a thing otherways without Life Reason Memory or Free-will But in the pretended Vnion of God with Man there are Two distinct and very different Lives Memories Reasons and Free-wills which utterly destroys a Personal Vnion for that supposes but One Life One Reason One Memory One Free-will Now this is false as to matter of Fact for though we will allow the Soul to be the Person yet by its Union to the Body it has two sorts of different Lives Wills Affections Appetites Reasons the Animal and Sensual and the Rational Life Will Appetites a Carnal and a Spiritual Reason that is two different Principles of Flesh and Spirit as much as if every Man had two Souls So that there may be two Lives two Wills c. in the same Person and it makes no difference in this Case whether these two Wills be seated in two different Subjects or the same Soul by its vital Union to Matter have two distinct Wills and Reasons and therefore we must find out some other Notion of a Personal Union than this that one Person can have but one Will one Reason c. for it is plain one Person may have two Wills and Reasons and if he may have two he may have three according to the number and diversity of Natures which are united into One Person Now when I inquire what it is that unites different Natures into One Person I do not mean what it is that naturally unites them neither what the natural Union is between Soul and Body in the Person of Man nor of God and Man in the Person of Christ for this we know nothing of and therefore no pretended Contradictions and Impossibilities in this shall hinder my belief of it as I discoursed in the first Section But how two different Natures may be so united as to make but One Agent for One Agent is One Person Now there are but two things necessary to this 1. That these different Natures be so united that the superior Nature have the Government of the whole Person unless there be One governing Principle there cannot be One Agent and therefore not One Person and the superior Nature must be the Governour and the Person as this Author tells us the Soul is the Person in man as being the superior governing Principle and in the Soul Reason has the natural government of Sense as being the superior Faculty proper to a Spirit whereas Sense results from its Union to Matter And thus in Christ the Divine Word is the Person and in this Personal Union of God and Man has such a government of Humane Nature as Reason has over Sense in Man and therefore St. Iohn tells us That the Word was made Flesh or was Incarnate for the Person of the Word took Humane Nature into a Personal Union with himself And this is the Reason why all the Actions and Passions of Humane Nature are attributed to Christ as the Son of God because the Word is the Person to whom Humane Nature is united and who has the sole government of it as all the Sufferings and Actions of the Body are attributed to the Man though the Soul is the Person because it is the superior and governing Power and constitutes the Person 2. To compleat a Personal Union it is necessary there be One Consciousness in the whole As a Man has a conscious Sensation of every thing which is done or suffered either by Body or Soul feels its own Reasonings and Passions and all the Pains and Pleasures of the Body and in this Sense there must be but one Life in one Person and this own Consciousness to the whole is the One Life But then we must observe That where different Natures are united into One Person this universal Consciousness to the whole Person is seated
only in the superior and governing Nature as it ought to be because in that the Natures are united into One Person and that must govern and take care of the whole Thus the Mind in man is conscious to the whole man and to all that is in man to all the motions of Reason and Sense but Sense is not conscious to all the Actings of Reason which is the superior Faculty though it is conscious as far as is necessary to receive the Commands and Directions of Reason for the Body moves at the command of the Will and it is so far conscious to its Commands Thus in the Person of Christ who is God-man the Divine Word is conscious to his whole Person not only to himself as the Divine Word but to his whole Humane Nature not by such Knowledge as God knows all men and all things but by such a Consciousness as every Person has of himself But it does not hence follow that the Humane Nature is conscious to all that is in the Word for that destroys Humane Nature by making it Omniscient which Humane Nature cannot be and its being united to the Person of the Word does not require it should be for an inferior Nature is not conscious to all that is in the superior Nature in the same Person This Union of Natures does require that the inferior Nature be conscious to the superior as far as its Nature is capable and as far as the Personal Union requires for so Sense is in some degree conscious to Reason and it cannot be one Person without it And therefore the Human Nature in Christ is in some measure in such a degree as Human Nature can be conscious to the Word feels its Union to God and knows the Mind of the Word not by External Revelations as Prophets do but by an Inward Sensation as every man feels his own Thoughts and Reason but yet the Human Nature of Christ may be ignorant of some things notwithstanding its Personal Union to the Divine Word because it is an inferior and subject Nature And this I take to be the true account of what our Saviour speaks about the Day of Judgment Of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the Angels in Heaven but my Father only where our Saviour speaks of himself as a man and as a man he did not at that time know the Day of Judgment though personally united to the Divine Word who did know it for as he is the Divine Word so our Saviour tells us That he seeth all that the Father doth and therefore what the Father knows the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father must know also But yet the Human Nature of Christ was conscious to all the actings of the Divine Word in it as we may see in the Story of the Woman having an Issue of Blood twelve years who in the midst of a great Crowd of People came behind him and touched his Garment and was immediately healed our Saviour presently asked who touched him and when all denied it and Peter wondered he should ask that Question when the Multitude thronged him and pressed him Iesus said some body hath touched me for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me he felt the miraculous Power of the Divine Word working in him as a man feels what is done in himself This I think gives some account how God and Man may be united into One Person which though it be a great Mystery which we cannot fully comprehend yet is not wholly unintelligible much less so absurd and contradictious as this Author pretends As for what he adds about believing and professing this Faith let him apply it to Christ's being the Messias or any other Article of the Creed and see what Answer he will give to it for what if men can't believe it are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it whether we can or no doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation No! but if it be credible and what a wise man may believe and what he has sufficient Evidence to believe he shall be damned not because he can't but won't believe it But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it if he profess against his Conscience he sins and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned then God requires some men to sin in order to their Salvation God requires no man to profess against his Conscience but he shall be damned for not believing it not for not professing what he does not believe it looks like a Judgment upon these men that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest Reason they impose upon themselves or hope to impose upon the World by the most Childish Sophistry and Nonsense And now I shall leave our Note-maker to harangue by himself and perswade Fools if he can that the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing but Popery or must be parted with for the sake of Iews or be made a Complement to the Morocco Ambassador and his admired Mahomet or must be sacrificed to Peace and Unity and to secure men from damnation who will not believe I will not envy him the satisfaction of such Harangues it being all the Comfort he has for I am pretty confident he will never be able to Reason to any purpose in this Cause again Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end Amen THE END ADVERTISEMENT A Preservative against Popery in two Parts with a Vindication in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran a Jesuit 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church 4 o. A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor Novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. A Practical Discourse concerning Death The Fifth Edition 8 o. The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England with a more particular Respect to the Oath lately enjoyned of Allegiance to Their Present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary The Fifth Edition 4 o. By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Printed for W. Rogers The Creed Brief Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Vossius de tribus Symbel dissert 3 Cap. 29 30. Cap. 31. Ibid. Cap. 48. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 44. Dissert 2. c. 1. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Answer Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Aug. lib. contra Serm. Arrian c. 16. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Cont. Arium Disput. Tom. 1. p. 116. Paris 1627. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ita est filius quoque ipse
and what is the Rule of Faith are two very distinct Questions and to apply what is said of the Catholick Faith to the Rule of Faith becomes the Wit and understanding of an Heretick This is the very Argument which the Papists use against our Authors Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Scriptures that they do not contain all things necessary to Salvation because they do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protestant Faith that the Canon of Scripture which we receive is the Word of God now what Answer he would give to Papists with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture let him suppose I give him the same Answer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the Athanasian Creed and we are right again But his parting blow is worth some little observation That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of Faith then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith But why did he not say the same thing of the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed or any other Creeds as well as of the Athanasian Creed for it seems a Creed as a Creed for there is no other sense to be made of it is a very unnecessary thing if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks even his dear Arians and Socinians have troubled themselves and the World to no purpose in drawing up Creeds and Confessions of Faith But this Author ought to be sent to School to learn the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith A Rule of Faith is a divinely inspired Writing which contains all matters to be believed and upon the Authority of which we do believe a Creed is a Summary of Faith or a Collection of such Articles as we ought to believe the Truth of which we must examine by some other Rule the sum then of our Author's Argument is this That because the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and contains all things necessary to be believed therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the Scripture such Propositions as are necessary for all Christians explicitely to believe He might as well have proved from the Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith that therefore there is no necessity of Commentators or Sermons or Catechisms as that there is no necessity of Creeds But as senseless as this is there is a very deep fetch in it for he would have no other Creed but that the Scripture is the Divine Infallible Compleat Rule of Faith which makes all other Creeds unnecessary and then he can make what he pleases of Scripture as all other Hereticks have done before him But let me ask this Author whether to believe in general that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith without an explicite belief of what is contained in Scripture will carry a Man to Heaven There seems to me no great difference between this general Faith in the Scriptures without particularly knowing and believing what they teach and believing as the Church believes We suppose then he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scripture necessary to Salvation and ought not the Church then to instruct People what these necessary Articles of Faith are and what is the true sense of Scripture about them Especially when there are a great many damnable Heresies taught in the Church by Men of perverse Minds who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction and does not this shew the necessity of Orthodox Creeds and Formularies of Faith And this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient Creeds though the Holy Scripture be the only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith viz. That they are a kind of secondary Rule as containing the Traditionary Faith of the Church It is no hard matter for witty Men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical Doctrines and to defend them with such Sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking Men and the best way in this case is to have recourse to the ancient Faith of the Christian Church to learn from thence how these Articles were understood and professed by them for we cannot but think that those who conversed with the Apostles and did not only receive the Scriptures but the sense and interpretation of them from the Apostles or Apostolical Men understood the true Christian Faith much better than those at a farther remove and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this Tradition to be preserved in the Church their Authority is very Venerable and this gives so great and venerable Authority to some of the first General Councils and therefore we find Tertullian himself confuting the Hereticks of his days by this argument from Prescription or the constant Tradition of all Apostolick Churches which was certain and unquestionable at that time and as much as Papists pretend to Tradition we appeal to Tradition for the first Three or Four Centuries and if the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed have as good a Tradition as this as certainly it has it is no unnecessary Rule though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable Rule as the Holy Scripture is where there are two different Senses put on Scripture it is certainly the safest to embrace that sense if the words will bear it which is most agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Primitive Church contained in the Writings of her Doctors or Ancient Creeds or such Creeds as are conformed to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Then for taking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made that Creed Gennad Schol. Arch Bishop of Constantin This Addition of the Filioque or the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son which was disputed between the Greek and Latin Church is no corruption of the Essentials of the Christian Faith about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as I observed before nor does Athanasius deny Salvation to those who do not believe it For he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity does not relate to every particular Word and Phrase but to that Doctrine which immediately proceeds That the Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity is to be Worshipped which the Greeks acknowledged as well as the Latins and therefore agreed in the Substantials of Faith necessary to Salvation And that I havereason for what I say appears from this that after the Latins were perswaded that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Son they were far enough from denying Salvation to those who
go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under a pretence of teaching them a Creed and Things Divine to despoil them of their Reason the Image of God and the Character of our Nature But let us in two words examine the Parts of this monstrous Proposition as 't is laid down in the Creed itself Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we not but confound the Persons that have say they but One numerical Substance and how can we but divide the Substance which we find in Three distinct divided Persons Our Author should have kept to Athanasius's Creed which he undertook to expose and then we had not heard of this Objection for the Creed does not say that there are Three Persons in One numerical Substance but in One undivided Substance nor does it say that there are Three divided Persons in this One undivided Substance but Three Persons which may be Three and yet not divided but intimately united to each other in one undivided Substance Now tho' we should grant it unconceivable how Three distinct Persons should have One numerical Essence that the Essence of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost should be numerically the same and yet their Persons distinct for it is not easie to distinguish the Essence or Substance from the Person and therefore not easie to tell how there should be but One Substance and Three Persons yet it is no Absurdity or Contradiction to say that Three real substantial Persons should subsist in One undivided Substance and then there is no necessity either to confound the Persons or divide the Substance We must allow the Divine Persons to be real substantial Beings if we allow each Person to be God unless we will call any thing a God which has no real Being as that has not which has not a real Nature and Essence whereas all Men grant there are no Accidents or Qualities or Modes in God but a pure and simple Essence or pure Act and therefore the Three Divine Persons are substantially distinct though in One undivided Substance which shews that to say That the One true God is Three distinct Persons and Three distinct Persons are the One true God is not plainly as if a Man should say That Peter James and John being Three Persons are One Man and One Man is Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Because Peter Iames and Iohn are not only distinct but divided and separate Persons which have Three divided and separate Substances which therefore cannot be One Man as Three distinct Persons in One undivided Substance are One God This is sufficient to vindicate the Athanasian Creed which only asserts Three distinct Persons in One undivided Substance which has nothing absurd or contradictious in it but because this Author founds his Objection upon One numerical Substance let us briefly consider that too for the Divine Essence or Substance is certainly numerically One as there is but One God and the difficulty is how Three distinct substantial Persons can subsist in One numerical Essence I will not pretend to fathom such a Mystery as this but only shew that there is nothing absurd in it and take down the confidence of this vain Pretender to Reason and Demonstration Let us then enquire what it is that makes any Substance numerically One that if there be any Absurdity in this we may find out where it lies Now in unorganiz'd Matter it is nothing else but the union of Parts which hang all together that makes such a Body One whether it be simple or compounded of different kinds of Matter that is One numerical Body whose Parts hang all together In Organical Bodies the Union of all Parts which constitute such an organized Body makes it One entire numerical Body though the Parts have very different Natures and Offices but this is of no use to explain the numerical Oneness of the Divine Essence because the Divine Substance has no Extension and no Parts and therefore cannot be One by an Union of Parts In finite created Spirits which have no Parts and no Extension neither that we know of no more than a Thought or an Idea or a Passion have Extension or Parts their numerical Oneness can be nothing else but every Spirit 's Unity with itself and distinct and separate subsistence from all other created Spirits Now this Self unity of the Spirit which has no Parts to be united can be nothing else but Self-consciousness That it is conscious to its own Thoughts Reasonings Passions which no other finite Spirit is conscious to but itself This makes a finite Spirit numerically One and seperates it from all other Spirits that every Spirit feels only its own Thoughts and Passions but is not conscious to the Thoughts and Passions of any other Spirit And therefore if there were Three created Spirits so united as to be conscious to each others Thoughts and Passions as they are to their own I cannot see any reason why we might not say that Three such Persons were numerically One for they are as much One with each other as every Spirit is One with itself unless we can find some other Unity for a Spirit than Self-consciousness and I think this does help us to understand in some measure this great and venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Vnity For God being present every-where without Parts and without Extension we must strip our Minds of all material Images and Figures when we contemplate the Unity of the Divine Nature Though we should suppose but One Person in the Godhead as well as One God as this Author does yet we must consider his Unity not as the Unity of an infinite Body but an infinite Mind which has no distinct Parts to be united and let any Man who can give me any other Notion of the numerical Oneness of an infinite Mind but Self-consciousness that though present every-where it is still intimate with itself and in the very same way and for the very same reason Three Divine Persons who are as intimate to each other and if I may so speak as mutually conscious to each other as any One Person can be to itself are truly and properly numerically One. This I suppose is what several Ancient Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circumincession which I confess is an ill word and apt to raise very material Imaginations in us as if the Divine Persons were united in One Substance as Three Bodies would be could they touch in every Point whereas we know not what the Substance of an infinite Mind is nor how such Substances as have no Parts or Extension can touch each other or be thus externally united but we know the Unity of a Mind or Spirit reaches as far as its Self-consciousness does for that is One Spirit which knows and feels itself and its own thoughts and motions and if we mean this by Circumincession Three Persons thus intimate to each other are numerically One And
Beings are distinguished and united and then there will appear no difficulty or absurdity in the essential union of Three Minds by a mutual consciousness to each other That the essential unity of a Spirit consists in self-consciousness every man may feel in himself for it is nothing else which makes a Spirit One and distinguishes it from all other Spirits and therefore if Two Spirits were conscious to all that is in each other as they are to what they feel in themselves they would be united to each other by the same kind of unity which makes every individual Spirit One And why then should not this be thought an essential unity between the Divine Persons of the ever Blessed Trinity And is there any difficulty in conceiving this that Father Son and Holy Ghost should be thus intimately conscious to each other The Scripture plainly asserts that it is so as I have already proved and there is no impossibility in the thing nay if we will allow Three infinite Minds it is impossible it should be otherwise A finite created Spirit indeed is conscious only to itself and not to any other created Spirits but God who is an infinite Mind is conscious to all created Spirits dwells within us and sees all our Thoughts and Motions and Passions as perfectly as we do our own how he does this we know not that he does so the Scripture assures us and that there is nothing impossible in it our Reason will tell us for certainly that infinite Mind which made all finite Spirits can see them too that is see all the Thoughts and Passions of a Spirit which is the only way of seeing a Spirit and that can be no infinite Mind which does not for there is something which it does not know if it does not know our thoughts If then it be essential to an infinite Mind to be conscious to all Spirits if we allow that there are Three infinite Minds we must grant that they are mutually conscious to each other though an infinite Mind is conscious to all that is in created Spirits yet there is not a mutual consciousness and therefore no essential unity between them for created Spirits are not conscious to an infinite Mind as it is impossible they should unless they were infinite themselves for a Mind which is conscious to an infinite Mind that is a Mind which comprehends an infinite Mind must be infinite But it is a contradiction to say there are Three infinite Minds unless they are mutually conscious to each other for if there be any thing in one which is not in the other they cannot both be infinite unless one infinite can be greater than another The truth is we have no positive Notion of Infinity but only in a Mind and it is impossible to conceive any Three Beings that are infinite but only Three infinite Minds and Three Minds may be infinite but then they must be mutually self-conscious or they cannot all be infinite When we think of an infinite Being we are presently confounded with the corporeal Images of an infinite Substance or a Substance infinitely extended and this we can make nothing of for indeed it is demonstrable that there can be no such thing We have an imagination of infinite space which we can set no bounds to but how far soever we extend our thoughts we can still imagine something beyond that but then we have no Notion that space is any thing but only a capacity to receive something nay it seems to me to be nothing else but an imaginary Idea of Extension separated from Body and Matter as we conceive place to be distinct from the Body which fills the place and therefore that if the Body were annihilated place would remain still of the same dimensions which the Body had that filled it and this is the conception of an imaginary space infinitely extended But it is as plain as any demonstration that no real Being is infinitely extended for there is and can be no actual Extension infinite The Extension of a real Being must really and actually be and yet there is not a more self-evident Proposition than this that there is no Extension so great but that it may be extended farther and then there can be no such thing in being as an infinite Extension for if there were there would be such an Extension as could not be extended farther unless we can extend that which is actually infinite already We may easily observe what it is that cheats us into the Opinion of infinite Extension as if there were such a real thing viz. That we cannot see to the end of all possible Extension we cannot extend our thoughts so far but we can imagine something farther and therefore we fancy that there is something infinitely extended though we cannot comprehend it or see to the end of it which would be a contradiction to see to the end of that which has none But we should observe that it is not the defect of our imagination that we cannot conceive an infinite Extension but Reason tells us that there neither is nor can be any such Extension but what may be extended farther now what cannot be cannot be a real thing for whatever is real is It is exactly the same case in Numbers there neither is nor can be an infinite number because there is no number so great nor can any number be so great but it may be made greater by adding to it so that Numbers Extension and the same may be said of Time and Succession are called infinite not that they have any real and positive infinity but because we can add to them without end which is a demonstration that they neither are nor can be infinite for what is infinite is capable of no additions and there can be no Number Extension or successive Duration but what is capable of infinite additions and therefore is at an infinite distance from being infinite By this time I suppose every one is convinc'd that infinite Extension does not belong to the Idea of a God because there is no such thing in Nature and if infinite Extension does not no Extension can for nothing is God but what is infinite Though the truth is this very word infinite confounds our Notions of God and makes the most perfect and excellent Being the most perfectly unknown to us for infinite is only a negative term and signifies that which has no end no bounds no measure and therefore no positive and determined Nature and therefore is nothing that an infinite Being had not use and custom reconciled us to that expression would be thought Nonsense and Contradiction for every real Being has a certain and determined Nature and therefore is not infinite in this sense which is so far from being a perfection that it signifies nothing real But since Custom has made it necessary to use this word it is necessary to explain what we mean by it That an infinite Being signifies a Being absolutely
Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
has two ways of doing this 1. He observes that the Name God and so those other Names which are ascribed to the Divinity do not so properly signifie the Divine Nature as declare something relating to it for the Divine Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which has no Name and which no words can express and signifie as the Scripture teaches but the Names given to God only teach us either what we ought not to attribute to the Divine Nature or what we ought but not what the Divine Nature it self is This is a fair Introduction such as becomes a wise man who considers how unknown the Essences of all Things are to us much more the Substance and Essence of God and how it confounds our Minds when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the Godhead to have the least conception or thought about the distinction and union of Natures and Essences and therefore he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Inspector and Governour of the World that is it is a Name of Energie Operation and Power and if this Vertue Energie Operation be the very same in all the Persons of the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost then they are but One God but One Power and Energie and thus he proves it is and that not as it is among men who have the same Power and Skill do the very same Things profess the same Art are Philosophers or Orators alike and yet are not all One Philosopher or One Orator because though they do the same thing yet they act apart every one by himself and have no Communion nor share in what each other do but their Operations are proper to themselves alone but in the Divine Nature it is not so the Father does nothing by himself nor the Son by himself nor the Holy Ghost by himself but the whole Energie and Operation of the Deity relating to Creatures begins with the Father passes to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit The Holy Trinity does not act any thing separately there are not Three distinct Operations as there are Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but one motion and disposition of the good Will which passes through the whole Trinity from Father to Son and to the Holy Ghost and this is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any distance of Time or propagating the Motion from one to t'other but by One thought as it is in One numerical Mind and Spirit and therefore though they are Three Persons they are but one numerical Power and Energie By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied That this Father does not make the Persons of the Trinity Three Independent and Coordinate Gods who are no otherwise One than Three men are by a Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature but has found out such an Unity for them as he confesses cannot be between Three men even such an Unity as there is in a Spirit which is numerically One with it self and conscious to all its own Motions for I leave any man to judge whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this one single Motion of Will which is in the same instant in Father Son and Holy Ghost can signifie any thing else but a mutual consciousness which makes them numerically One and as intimate to each other as every man is to himself as I have already explained it Petavius was aware of this and therefore will not allow this to belong to the same Argument but to be a new and distinct Argument by it self Now suppose this yet methinks he should have suspected he had mistaken the Fathers Sense when he found him contradict what he apprehended to be his Sense within the compass of two Pages but indeed the mistake is his own for the Father pursues his intended Argument to prove that though the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we ought not to say that there are Three Gods but One God This he proves first because God is the Name of Nature and the Name of Nature must not be expressed in the Plural number when the Nature is the same without any the least conceivable difference for to say there are Three Gods is to say that there are Three different Divine Natures which introduces Polytheism as to say there are Three men is to say there are Three different Human Natures for if they be the same they are not Three and therefore the Name of the Nature must not be expressed plurally how many Persons soever there are who have the same Nature This was to secure the Homoousiotes of the Divine Nature and if he had stopped here Petavius and Dr. Cudworth might have said what they pleased of him but having secured the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature which was the great Dispute of those days between the Orthodox and the Arians he proceeds to show how this same Nature in Three distinct Persons is united into one numerical Essence and Godhead and this he does first by showing that God signifies Power and Energie and that all the Three Persons in the Trinity have but One numerical Energie and Operation and therefore are but One God which is only the improvement of his former Argument for the Sameness of Nature is necessary to the Sameness of Operation for Nature is the Principle of Action especially in God whose Nature is a pure and simple Act and an unity and singularity of Energie and Operation is a demonstration of One numerical Essence for the same single individual Act cannot be done by Two separate Beings who must act separately also Secondly As for those who are not contended to contemplate God as a pure and simple Act or Energie which easily solves this difficulty how Three Persons are One God they having but One numerical Energie and Operation I say as for those who not contented with this inquire after the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts that this perfect Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature without the least difference or alteration makes them numerically One and returns to what he had first said That the Name of Nature should not be expressed Plurally it being One entire undivided Unity which is neither encreased nor diminished by subsisting in more or fewer Persons I confess I do not understand his reasoning in this matter he seems to destroy all Principles of Individuation whereby One thing is distinguished from another where there is no difference or diversity of Nature for Things he says must be distinguished by Magnitude Place Figure Colour or some other diversity in Nature before we can number them and call them Two or Three and therefore since the Divine simple unalterable Nature admits of no Essential diversity that it may be One it will not admit of any number in it self but is but One God Whereas I confess to my understanding if the same pure unmixt
any Man that this is the mutual consciousness which I have described and by this St. Austin represents the Trinity in Unity and I hope his Authority will defend me from the charge of Innovation and I am sure the reason of the thing will defend itself But for the better understanding of this we must further observe that the Fathers resolve the Unity of the Godhead into the Unity of Principle that is though there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost yet the Father is the Original Fountain of the Deity who begets the Son of his own Substance and from whom and the Son the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds of the same Substance with Father and Son So that there is but one Principle and Fountain of the Deity and therefore but One God But this as Petavius well observes does not of itself prove the Unity of the Godhead but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sameness of Nature and therefore the Fathers add That God begets a Son not without but within himself for the Wisdom of God is within him and inseparable from him This they illustrated by the Sun its light and splendour which are coaeval and inseparable by the Fountain and its Streams by a Tree and its Branches which are united in One which Comparisons must not be strained farther than they were intended as if Father Son and Holy Ghost were one in the same manner as the Sun and its Light or the Tree and its Branches or the Fountain River and Streams but only that there is such a natural and essential Union between the Divine Persons as makes them One numerical God But there is something still to be added to this to compleat this Notion that as the Father is the Fountain of the Deity and the Son and Holy Ghost inseparably united to him so Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to One God as St. Austin calls the Trinity Vnam quandam summam rem One Supreme Thing And as all acknowledge that the Three Persons are One God and since God is the most necessary Being all Three Persons are necessary and essential to One God That there must necessarily be Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead and there can be no more For the explication of this I shall proceed by these steps which are all plain and universally acknowledged 1. That there are no Accidents nor Qualities nor Faculties in God as there are in created Spirits but whatever is in God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Substance a pure and simple Act. This is universally acknowledged by all Christians St. Austin affirms That there are no Accidents in God Athanasius That there is no Composition in God as between Substance and Accident and it is much alike as to Mind and its different Faculties and Powers which is a Composition but that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pure simple Act but there is no need of Testimonies to prove that which Natural Reason proves for nothing can be Eternal and Self-orginated but a pure and simple Act for what is compounded is made for it wants a Maker 2. That it is essential to an eternal Mind to know itself and to love itself for this is essential to a Mind no human Mind can be without it much less the most perfect and excellent Mind and therefore God does know himself and love himself and his own Image 3. That Original Mind and Wisdom and the Knowledge of it self and love of it self and its own Image are distinct Acts and never can be One simple individual Act. They are distinct Powers and Faculties in men Knowledge Self-reflexion and Love and are so distinct that they can never be the same Knowledge is not Self-reflection nor love either Knowledge or Self-reflection though they are inseparably united they are distinct 4. Therefore these three Acts which are so distinct that they can never be the same must be three substantial Acts in God that is three Divine subsisting Persons for there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God no Accident or Faculties as there are in Creatures 5. That these are the true and proper Characters of the distinct Persons in the ever blessed Trinity The Father is Original Mind and Wisdom the Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father that is the reflex knowledge of himself which is the perfect Image of his own Wisdom the Holy Ghost that Divine Love which Father and Son have for each other It would be very impertinent to confirm this by the Authority of the ancient Fathers because all men who know any thing of them know that this is their constant language I am sure this is very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Answers all those Characters we find there of the Son and Holy Ghost The Son is expresly called the Word and the Wisdom of God That Word which was in the beginning which was with God and was God 1 Iohn 1. For God did certainly always know himself and therefore this Word was always with God intimately present with him not as our transient and vanishing Reflections are but as a permanent and substantial Word the subsisting and living Image of his Fathers Wisdom as he is called the Brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Person 1 Heb. 2. His Fathers Glory and Person is Eternal and Original Wisdom He is his Fathers begotten Wisdom or the bright Reflexion of his Wisdom which is as perfect and exact as the Fathers Knowledge of himself And therefore St. Iohn might well say No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him 1 Iohn 18. And our Saviour might well tell us As the Father knoweth me even so know I the Father 10 Iohn 15. that he seeth all that the Father doth That he receiveth all his Commands from the Father that he that seeth him seeth the Father and many such like Expressions he uses to signifie his perfect knowledge of his Father for he is that Wisdom and Knowledge wherewith his Father knows himself and if the Father perfectly knows himself he is the perfect Image and Wisdom of the Father For this reason he is called the Son because he is the perfect Image of the Father begotten of his own Eternal Wisdom by a reflex Act upon himself for he begets his own Son in his own likeness by knowing himself and therefore the Son must be of the same Nature the very Wisdom of the Father unless the Father knows himself otherwise than he really is This is the Eternal Son and Word of God whereby he made the Worlds for it is this reflex Knowledge and Wisdom which makes all things The Eternal Ideas of Truth and Wisdom in the Divine Mind effect nothing no more than meer Speculation does in us till it is brought into Act by reflexion for it was this reflex
Nature is a meer Creature a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal or Prerogative Acts of Government and Power must not every Being be represented by one of his own Kind a Man by a Man an Angel by an Angel in such Acts as are proper to their Natures and must not God then be represented by One who is God Is any Creature capable of the Government of the world does not this require infinite Wisdom and infinite Power and can God communicate infinite Wisdom and infinite Power to a Creature or a finite Nature that is can a Creature be made a true and essential God if our Adorers of Reason can digest such Contradictions as these I hope they will never complain of Absurdities and Contradictions more A God without infinite Perfections is only a Titular and Nominal God and to say that Creatures may have all the Perfections of God is to say that God can make an infinite Creature which has a thousand times greater Contradictions than the most absurd Explication of the Trinity can be charged with for then a true and real God may be a Creature then the Divine Nature is not eternal but may be created then the Divine Nature is not numerically One but if the first God so pleased he could make a world of Gods as well as of Angels or Men. If then this Kingdom to which Christ is advanced cannot be administred without infinite Wisdom and Power then he is by Nature a God for otherwise all Power in Heaven and Earth could not have been committed to him because he was not capable of it could not administer it and would God choose a King who could not administer the Government of the World nor do any thing towards it And yet the Difficulty remains if he be by Nature the Son of God and the Natural Lord of the World how is he said to be exalted by God and to receive a Kingdom from him as the Reward of his Sufferings when he was already possessed of it ever since the Foundations of the World being the Natural Lord of all Creatures and therefore had no need to receive that which was his own or purchase what was his Natural Right by such mean and vile Condescensions as suffering Death upon the Cross. And therefore rightly to understand this we must consider the Nature of Christ's Kingdom that it is not meerly the Natural Government of the World but a Mediatory Kingdom God is the Supreme and Natural Lord of the World King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the only Ruler of Princes and while God governed the World only as its Natural Lord the Son had no distinct Kingdom of his own but in Conjunction with his Father For though there always were Three Divine Persons in the Godhead yet the Father being the Fountain of the Deity the Government of the World was administred in his Name But Mankind quickly Apostatized from God forfeited immortal Life corrupted their Manners and defaced the Image of God upon their Souls and the Government of God considered only as our Maker and Soveraign Lord could give no hope nor security to guilty sinners and this made a Mediatory Kingdom necessary to reconcile God and Men and to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature and this Power and Dignity God bestowed upon his own Son who had the most right to it and was best qualified for it being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father but he must first become man and publish the Will of God to the World and make Expiation for Sin and then he should rise again from the dead and set down at the right hand of God And therefore we may observe that all this Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church God hath put all things under his feet and given him to be Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him which filleth all in all That is he has made him the Governour of the whole World as Head of the Church For the Salvation of Mankind required the Government of the World to be put into his Hands that he might restrain the Power and Malice of wicked Spirits and destroy the Kingdom of Darkness and imploy good Angels in the Service and Ministeries of his Church as the Apostle tells us They are ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of Salvation That the Government of this lower World might be administred by him with a peculiar regard and subserviency to the great ends of his Spiritual Kingdom For the Church of Rome is so far in the right that the Supreme Head of the Church must be Supreme in Temporals too in ordine ad spiritualia but their fault is they give this Power to a vicarious Head which is due only and can be administred only by Christ who is the true Supreme Head of all things to his Church The Government of Israel was a Type of this The Kingdom of Israel was originally a pure Theocracy God was their King and governed them almost as visibly by his Priest his Oracles his Judges whom he extraordinarily raised up as a Temporal King governs his Subjects But in time they grew weary of the Government of God and desired a King like other Nations upon which God tells Samuel They have not rejected thee but rejected me that I should not reign over them But yet he complies with their Desires in giving them a King and their King was peculiarly God's Anointed and God's King who ruled God's People and Inheritance by God's peculiar and delegated Authority for the Government of Israel did not cease to be a Theocracy when they had a King for they were God's People and Inheritance still but now the King was between God and the People whereas God governed them more immediately before And therefore as David was a Type of Christ so his Kingdom was typical of the Kingdom of Christ Yet have I set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion which seems to have some aspect on David though it received its just Acomplishment in Christ and hence the Kingdom of the Messias is called the Throne of his Father David not that Temporal Kingdom which David governed for his Kingdom was not of this World but that of which David's Kingdom was a Type and Figure the Government of the Church who are God's People of whom the carnal Israel was a Type which he rules by a vicarious but a Soveraign Authority for God and in his name and stead This gives a plain account how God may give this Kingdom to his Son and that as the Reward of his Sufferings It may be a Gift because it is not a Natural Right for it is not a Natural Kingdom but erected by the Wisdom and Counsel of God for the Salvation of Sinners and it must be the Reward of his Sufferings because it is a Sacerdotal Kingdom which is founded in the
Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication might well say But will God indeed dwell on the Earth Behold the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Thee how much less this House that I have built The Temple then was a Figure and we must enquire what it was a Figure of Now a typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signifie nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of something that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence Now our Saviour calls his Body the Temple Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which St. Iohn tells us He spake of the Temple of his Body The Temple then which was God's House where he dwelt was but a Figure of Christ's Body Christ's Body then was that in truth and reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's visible Presence on Earth But God was not visibly present on Earth unless he were personally united to Human Nature that the Body of Christ was the Body of God or of the Divine Word by as true and real an Union as any man's Body is his Thus God may be personally and visibly present among men as a man though his Soul be as invisible as the Deity is yet visibly present by his Union to a visible Body But if Christ be not God incarnate if the Divine Word be not personally united to Human Nature the Body of Christ is but as figurative a Temple as the Temple at Ierusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor is in Speech God was as really present in the Temple as he was in Christ without a personal Union for God fills all places and is really present every where but yet was peculiarly present in the Temple to peculiar ends and purposes to hear Prayers to accept their Sacrifices and Oblations to give forth his Oracles and Responses and if Christ be but a meer Man he dwells no otherwise in him but by Inspiration and though Christ was more perfectly inspired than the Jewish Oracle this does not alter the Nature of God's Presence does not make one a typical and figurative the other a real Presence for God is really present in both but not personally united to either The typical Presence of God in the Tabernacle and Temple is not opposed to a real Presence by real and sensible Effects but to a visible Presence God is present every where but he is invisibly present but as he had chosen Israel for his peculiar People and Inheritance so he would dwell visibly among them but this could be done no other way but either by taking a visible Body or by some instituted signs of his visible Presence the first he would not do yet but intended to do in the fulness of time which his own infinite wisdom had appointed for it and in the mean time did praefigure this visible appearance of God on Earth in Human Nature by some visible Symbols of his Presence by a visible House wherein he dwelt by a visible Throne or Mercy-Seat and by placing a visible Oracle among them So that the Temple as a Type was a Type and Figure of God's visible Appearance and dwelling upon Earth and therefore if it was a Type of Christ's Body as Christ himself tells us it was God did visibly dwell in Christ by a Personal Union for nothing else can make God visible but a Personal Union to a visible Nature To this St. Iohn plainly alludes when he tells us The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacled among us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Ierusalem by his dwelling personally in Human Nature and we beheld his Glory that is says our Historian the glory of the man on whom the Word did abide and inhabit in him But St. Iohn says it is the glory of the Word made Flesh the glory of the Word as of the only begotten of the Father did shine in Human Nature there were visible signs of the Glory of the Incarnate Word This glory he says was beheld in his Miracles and in his Transfiguration and on many other occasions very many indeed in his Life and Doctrine especially for how would they have the glory of the Incarnate Word seen but by the visible Operations of it in Human Nature How does a Human Soul discover its glory but by visible Actions Thus our Saviour tells us that he is greater than the Temple I say unto you in this place is one greater than the Temple Now the Temple was God's House and figurative Presence and if he were greater than the Temple God dwelt in a more perfect manner in him that is he was not a symbolical visible Presence of God which was all he could be had he been no more than a man but a visible God even the Lord of the Temple as the Prophet Malachi assures us Behold I will send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come into his Temple even the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye delight in behold he shall come saith the Lord of Hosts This Messenger all men own was Iohn the Baptist The voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths straight Now our Historian confesses he prepared the way for Christ and God says he shall prepare the way before Me which proves that Christ is this Lord of Hosts for whom Iohn was to prepare the way but that I at present intend is that he for whom Iohn was to prepare the way is the Lord of the Temple for it is called his Temple Now we know the Lord Jehovah was the Lord of the Temple for the Temple was God's House dedicated to his Name and Worship he dwelt in his Temple before by Types and Figures but now he was to come visibly and personally into his Temple and therefore he might well say he was greater than the Temple since he was the Lord of it that Incarnate God of whom God's dwelling in the Temple was a Figure and which had been a very empty and insignificant Figure unworthy of the Wisdom and Majesty of God had it not praefigured the mysterious Incarnation of the Son of God Thus as God had a Typical House so he had a typical High Priest and typical Sacrifices That the High Priest who once a year entred into the typical Holy of Holies was a Type of Christ who entred into Heaven The Apostle teaches us 9 Hebr. that the Jewish Sacrifices were typical of
the Sacrifice of Christ's Death and the several kinds of them typical of the various Effects and Vertues of Christ's Death we learn every where in the New Testament which I believe is the true meaning of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world not meerly slain in God's Decree for what God has decreed shall be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done but this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures from the foundation of the world ever since the fall of Adam in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall which were typical of the Sacrifice of Christ for God had then promised that the Seed of the Woman should break the Serpents Head and for my part I must profess I know no Principle of Natural Reason that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts in Sacrifice to God and therefore must think the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution Now that a Human Priesthood and the Sacrifices of Beasts were not acceptable to God in themselves the Apostle to the Hebrews sufficiently proves and I would desire some of our Learned Reasoning Socinians as they think themselves honestly to tell me what account they can give of this Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices which is becoming God why should God be propitiated by a man subject to the same sins and infirmities and very often guilty of them that other men are why innocent Beasts must die to expiate the sins of men when the Apostle tells us that it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin And yet if there were no more in it then God's meer appointment and institution I do not see but the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices might have been as effectual as any other I think they are so far in the right and consistent with their own Principles that as they own Christ to be no more than a Man so they make him only a metaphorical Priest and his Death a metaphorical Sacrifice for a meer man can be no more than a metaphorical or typical Priest and Sacrifice but then the difficulty is how Christ is the Antitype to the typical Priests and Sacrifices of the Law if he be but a metaphorical Priest and Sacrifice himself for the Antitype ought to be that in truth and reality which the Type is a Figure of and though they were typical yet they were true and proper Priests and Sacrifices and made a true and proper Expiation for sin as far as they reached and therefore one would think should typifie not a metaphorical but a true Priest and Sacrifice though of a more excellent and perfect Nature This is easily accounted for if we allow the Divine Word to be Incarnate and to be our Priest and Sacrifice but without this the Jewish oeconomy is a most absurd and unaccountable Institution Thirdly Socinianism ridicules the Christian Religion that is makes it a very mean and contemptible Institution which I shall shew in a few words The Fundamental Mystery of the Christian Religion is the stupendious Love of God in giving his own Son his only begotten Son for the Redemption of Mankind This our Saviour lays great stress on God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life By this one would have thought that Christ had been the Son the only begotten Son of God before he gave him as Isaac who was a Type of Christ was Abraham's Son before he offered him at God's Command for that it is the Argument of Love when we part with what we have and what is dear to us but this is not the Case if Socinianism be true God did not give us any Son he had before but made an excellent Man whom he was pleased to call his only begotten Son though he might have made as many such only begotten Sons as he pleased and him he gave for us that is made a Man on purpose to be our Saviour God's love indeed in redeeming sinners is very great be the means what they will but his love in giving his only begotten Son for our Redemption which our Saviour fixes on as the great demonstration of God's love is not so wonderful if this giving his Son signifies no more than making a Man on purpose to be our Saviour In the next place the Apostles mightily insist on the great love of Christ in dying for us and his great humility in submitting to the Condition of Human Nature and suffering a shameful and accursed Death even the Death of the Cross. Ye know the Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ that for your sakes he became poor that ye through his poverty might be rich For the love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Iesus who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man be humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross. Now supposing Christ to be but a meer man who had no Being before he was born of the Virgin who knew nothing of his own coming into the World nor for what end he came whose undertaking was not his own voluntary choice but God's appointment where is the great love where is the great humility of this How did he become poor for our sakes who was never rich Yes says our Historian he could have lived in the greatest splendor dignity and plenty He that could multiply the loaves and fishes and the wine at the wedding of Cana need not have wanted any Comforts of life Right if he can prove that God would have enabled him to work Miracles to have made himself rich and great and to have ministred to Secular Pomp and Luxury if he had so minded but he being a meer Creature could work no Miracles nor to any other ends or purposes than God pleased and therefore if by God's Decree he was to live a mean life here and dye an accursed death and he was made for this purpose he neither ever was rich nor ever could be rich and therefore did not make himself poor for our sakes He could not by the Constitution of God have done otherwise than he did if he would be the Saviour of Mankind and therefore if he was not rich before he came into the World and voluntarily chose his Poverty for us I do not understand the great Grace of his becoming poor for he never was rich nor ever could be in this World Thus what is that humility our Apostle so highly commends in our Saviour for suppose his being in the form of God signifies no more than being made like
Reason tell us That Three Divine Persons cannot be One God if my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it and therefore when the Scripture assures us that there is but One God as Natural Reason teaches and that this One God is Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost this contradicts nothing which Reason teaches but adds something which Natural Reason could not discover which is the proper use of Revelation Scripture teaches that there is but one God and that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God Reason teaches that there is but One God but does not teach that there are Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead nor does it teach that there are not and therefore though the Scripture teaches more then Natural Reason does which I suppose may be allowed by these Adorers of Reason yet it teaches nothing contrary to what Natural Reason teaches nay these men can not graft any Contradiction upon it without perverting the Faith of the ever blessed Trinity as it is taught in Scripture and has always been taught in the Catholick Church that is to find a Contradiction their business is to prove that these Three Divine Persons each of which is God must be Three distinct Gods and then Three distinct Gods cannot be One God this I grant and their Argument is unanswerable to those who own these Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods but what is that to us who teach that they are not Three distinct Gods but One God as the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church always taught and as of necessity we must teach if we believe a Trinity in Unity so that there is no Contradiction is not our Faith for that which they make a Contradiction is not our Faith but a Contradiction to our Faith as well as to common Sense and Reason Well! but if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore it may be either without contradicting the Natural Notions we have of One God and then here is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches that there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which in Scripture have not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God for what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then their Objection against this Faith that these Three Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous for it is demonstrable that if there be Three Persons and One God each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three distinct Gods but One. For if each Person be not God all Three cannot be God unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God and if all Three are but One God they cannot be Three distinct Gods so that whoever believes the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods does not believe a Trinity in Unity and whoever believes a Trinity in Unity cannot believe Three distinct Gods and if there be a Trinity in Unity each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three Gods but One God and now let him go look for his Contradiction in the belief of Three Persons and one God and when he has found it let me hear from him again So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question How can these things be and if I could give him no other Answer I should think it a very good one to say God knows Must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend though it be expresly taught by God himself Must we deny what we read in the Bible to be there because Reason does not teach it and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its Allusion to ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. for there is no other good Reason to be given for any Exposition but that the Words signifie so and the Circumstances of the Place and the apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictates of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it well say they then you must expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must expound Scripture according to the use and signification of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture no no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I perswaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I would not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them to put our own sense on Scripture without respect to the use of Words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to make it is not to learn from Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such Matters as are confessedly above Reason as the infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must expound it as I do other Writings for