elevates him above his Fellows so that he needs no Epistle of Commendation from me or any other Person his own Works praise him in the Gate and in the Consciences of many thousand nor doth any pruritus scripturiendi Itch of appearing in Print prompt him to this Undertaking but purely a Zeal for God his Cause Truth and Glory and the preventing of young Students being poisoned with Soul-destructive Errours that have edged his upright Soul and moved his able Hand to this uncouth Undertaking It 's true the Manner of handling this Subject is something abstruse and intricate for the Subject is high and profound and above the Reach of ordinary Capacities but I hope it may give some Satisfaction to the learned and ingenuous Reader and that this and all other Helps Polemical and Practical may be of Use to the Church is the Prayer of March 11. 1697. Thy Soul-Friend O. H. REFLECTIONS ON A LETTER Writ by a Nameless Author TO THE Reverend Clergy of both Universities And on his Bold Reflections on the Trinity c. IN the beginning of the Introduction p. 3. § 1 2. the On Ch. 1. Author would make the World believe that his design in this Letter is to get the best Light and Information he can to promote his Eternal Happiness and to engage the Learned Persons to whom he Writes to comply with his desires in taking opportunity to satisfy him and a great number of Pious Men who are affected with the same doubts occasioned by Divisions amongst the Clergy about the Doctrine of the Trinity Answ Had the Author acted with like Modesty in other parts of his Letter as he does here there might have been some ground to hope that he had truly desired for to get his doubts satisfied but when he dares be so bold as to Assert frequently that the Doctrine of the Trinity is no better than a bundle of flat Contradictions Who can believe that he had any other design in Writing than to vent his blasphemous Invectives against the Ever-blessed God Father Son and Holy Ghost His Discourse § 3. is idle vain Discourse for where will he find any Persons who pretend to believe they know not what i. e. empty sounds or words that have no Ideas fixed to them If he have met with any such Asses he should tell us who they are and not cast false Reflections upon all those Learned Writers who have writ upon and by undeniable Proofs from Holy Scripture defended the Churches received Doctrine about the Trinity His Discourse p. 4. § 4 5. is to the like purpose and such wherein he shews himself a false Calumniator for whereas he would perswade that new and wrong Trinities are dayly encreasing Authors having such different Ideas of them that there are almost as many Trinities as Writers and so would make it be believ'd that they do but ridicule the Christian Religion and render it most absurd and irrational in obliging People to put their trust in Three they know not what and to pay Divine Worship to each of them when the meer Light of Nature obligeth Man not to Adore for God any thing but what he believes to be an Omniscient and an Omnipotent Being able to Know and Relieve his Wants and that to pay Worship to any thing else is Idolatry Ans 1 It 's a gross and abominable untruth that there are almost as many Trinities as Writers about them I could easily shew that Learned and Orthodox Divines generally do sweetly accord in their Judgments about the Trinity and what if some few be found who differ from these must therefore the Orthodox Doctrine be rejected Where will he find that Christian Doctrine which hath not been depraved and corrupted by some or others Ans 2 But Secondly Where will he find such Writers about the Trinity who would oblige People to put their Trust in Three they know not what and to Adore any for God but an Omnipotent Omniscient Being As I do believe he cannot find one Writer about the Trinity who doth this therefore must it not be gross Calumny to Charge all with this What follows in p. 4. N. 6 7. viz. That the Trinitarians only agree in the same words that scarce three of these venture to explain themselves being of the same Mind and they that have published what they supposed the Three are have faln into gross Contradictions plain Polytheism or Sabellianism that they destroy one anothers Hypotheses but raise none needs no other Answer than to tell the Author all such Assertions are meer Falshoods and such as the greatest part of his Book is stuffed with as will hereafter be more fully evidenced We proceed then to Chapter II. and the Author 's Reasonings On Ch. ◠upon the Athanasian Creed And here we must tell the Author that if there be any Jangling amongst late Writers about the meaning of the word Person it is to be lamented yet is this no great Argument that they do not believe the Athanasian Creed Which saith We are compell'd by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person to be by himself God because doubtless all the said Writers whatever else they may differ in yet do acknowledge the same Christian Verity yea we do humbly conceive that there is not any Writer about the Holy Trinity worthy to be taken notice of but he do's acknowledge a Divine Person to be an Uncreate Eternal Incomprehensible Almighty Being yea God Blessed for ever And that it would be Idolatry to Worship him if he were not such but the Author in asking Is it not a Demonstration that those that pay the highest Adoration to a Person have no different Ideas of God and a Divine Person speaks not so right and accurately because altho these by Adoring a Divine Person do acknowledge him to be God yet they do not say that he is God as absolutely considered but as limited by a Relative Property and so the Ideas may differ Therefore his following Discourse that we cannot have an higher Idea of God than that he is such a Person and to frame any other it must be one that is lower and consequently Blasphemy against God is but vain and idle Discourse for neither the one nor the other of these Ideas is either higher or lower but equal the one being of God as absolutely considered the other of him as limited by a Personal Property and this he must be either forced to confess or deny that Scripture Phil. 2. 6. who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God for Ideas of Equals must be Equal Obj. As to what he adds If a Person be God there can be no real difference between them for which he quotes Heb. 1. 3. Col. 1. 15. Answ That Phrase Real difference is Homonymous for if by real difference be meant such as that which is Rei a Re we grant there is no real difference because God and a Divine Person or first and
second Person are not different Things or Beings but if by real difference he mean no more than a true modal distinction in opposition to feign'd and imaginary then we do assert such a difference or distinction and the Scriptures by him quoted are so far from opposing this that they do clearly evince it as we shall see afterwards What is contain'd in § 9. is as idle and impertinent for granting that if a Man be an Animal all that is contain'd in the Idea of Animal must be contain'd in that of Man what is this to the purpose But as if he would correct his own Impertinency he pretends afterwards to speak properly truly naturally viz. Man is a Rational Animal and a Rational Animal is a Man They are only different words to express the same Being so saith he a Divine Person and God are convertible Terms how absurd this Discourse is will easily appear if the Dissimilitude of the things compared be considered Man is defin'd by Rational Animal Man is the thing defined Rational Animal the Definition therefore these must needs be convertible Terms But it is not so here for neither is God the Thing defined and Divine Person the Definition nor is Divine Person the Thing defined and God the Definition So that its clear they are not in like manner convertible as Man and Rational Animal Surely the Author for all his pretending to Reason might have been more Logical But he tells us that Obj. Nothing is contain'd in the Idea of God but what is contain'd in the Idea of a Divine Person and so on the contrary And therefore the Terms are convertible Answ The Author is bold and forward in Asserting but as slow in Proving what he do's assert Where will he find one who asserts the Trinity but he will tell him That the Essence of God as absolutely considered is communicable to three Persons but the Divine Essence as limited by a personal Property is Incommunicable and is there then no difference in the Ideas of these He may as well tell us that Communicability and Incommunicability are the same which sure is a downright contradiction He might do well to give over such bold Assertions till he can make better proof of them or free them from most gross absurdity Obj. But the Author would perswade That Person being a Term which we give to all Intelligent Beings either Man Angel or God as we have no different Ideas of Man and a humane Person or of Angel and Angelical Person so we have the same Idea of God and a Divine Person Answ This will not at all follow except he could make it out that Personality does flow from the Divine Essence after the same manner as it doth from the Angelical or Humane Essence which he can never do for it flows from Angelical or Humane Essence as Finite and Terminated in it self but so it cannot flow from the Divine Essence it being Infinite and Unterminated Therefore tho Essence or Fundamental Subsistence in an Angel or Man being Finite and Terminated in it self can propagate only one modal Subsistence or Personality yet it will not follow by any Rational Consequence That the Divine Essence or Fundamental Subsistence which is Infinite and Unterminated must do the like Thus you see this high pretended Rationalist how weak and vain his Reasoning is But you will see more of the Poyson of this Doctrine in that which follows viz. God saith he is in holy Writ described as a Person and as the Father who is a Person is God so God as appears by a great number of Texis is a Person viz. the Father So that it is evident there is nothing more in the Idea of one than of the other and are convertible Terms and only different words which signifie the self same All. perfect Being Compare this passage with what we find p 32. in his close of the 9th Chapter viz. That it is evident that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguished from the Son as two Men or Angels can be So you see its clear the Author 's mischievous design in denying the Blessed Trinity is to overthrow and destroy so far as in him lies The Divinity of Christ and of the Blessed Spirit for in making the Person of the Father and God convertible Terms he excludes the Son and blessed Spirit from being God yea he makes God and the Son to differ as really as two Men or Angels So that you see his Work is to revive again the long since confuâ—ed and condemned Heresies and Blasphemies wherewith Arius did so much infest the ancient Church raising a dreadful Storm in it One would think that those many Scripture Texts which with greatest Plainness do hold forth the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost such as Isa 9. 6. Joh 1. 1 2 3 10. Joh. 17. 5. Heb. 1. 8 9 10 11 12. Psal 139. 7. Act. 5. 3 4. I Cor. 2. 10 11. with abundance more should have kept him from so daring an Attempt as to vent himself in downright Opposition to so many sacred Testimonies As to what follows p. 6. § 10. he tells us 1. That he hath according to his weak Ability uindicated the Honour of a Divine Person and clear'd the Athanasian Creed from speaking so contemptibly of him Answ The Author 's running into gross Mistakes about God and Divine Person argues indeed but weak Ability but it were well if Weakness were the worst surely his excluding the Son as well as Spirit from being God or Divine Person is so far from vindicating the Honour of Divine Person that it casts the vilest Aspersions not only on the ever-blessed God but also on holy Scripture which testifies that Father Word and Holy Ghost are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. But when he tells us he hath cleared the Athanasian Creed from speaking so contemptibly of him viz. Divine Person It 's strange if he can believe himself when a little after he tells us that this good charitable Creed only damns all those that cannot believe a Divine Person is and is not the same with God And that it makes it Damnation not to believe a Difference Is it not evident here that his Design in Reference to this Creed is only to ridicule it and so set it off as made up of Contradictions when yet the Contradictions are not found in the Creed but only floating in his own Brain yea and to make the Compiler of it the worthy Athanasius fall under the Fate of Damnation if he believe his own Creed as Sect. 1 And what is this but to damn all the Christian World from the Time that the Arian Heresy was exploded in it till such time as it was reviv'd again by Socinus yea and to rob God of a Church during those many hundred Years But how comes this great Master of Reason to be so highly conceited of himself as to account all the ancient Fathers in and since the Time of Athanasius all the
just Ground to stile these Assertors of the Trinity whom he doth distinguish from such as he doth after call Real Trinitarians Here before I pass on give me leave to observe that however most orthodox Divines tell us see Polan Syntag. p. 226. That the Distinction of the divine Persons ought to be the least Distinction Therefore Counsels and Fathers generally say that it's Relation only that makes Distinction and Number in God yet however they all agree in Opposition to Sabellius that this is not meer nominal but a true Distinction which will hereafter be further evidenced Obj. And now to come to the Chapter it self where first I shall take notice of that Passage of the Author § 35. because that being answered the Solution of his other Objections will be very Facile or rather the Objections will vanish of themselves His Words are these It contradicts our clearest Ideas to suppose the same numerical Substance that is in one Person to be at the same time in another and we can as little apprehend what we mean when we say the same numerical Substance constitutes three infinite Persons as when we say the same Substance constitutes three finite Persons Is not the reason the same between an infinite Person and an infinite Substance and between a finite Person and a finite Substance Answ As to that Homonymous Phrase three infinite Persons I have shewn before in what Sense it may be allowed and and in what Sense it may not and therefore shall not here trouble my self or the Reader with it again but as to the Remainder of his Discourse I must tell him that altho it contradicts our clearest Ideas to suppose the same numerical finite Substance that is in one finite Person to be at the same time in another yet it no way contradicts our clearest Ideas that the same numerical infinite Substance that is in one Person with one Mode of Subsistence should be at the same time in another Person with a different Mode of Subsistence Neither is the reason the same between an infinite Person and infinite Substance and between a finite Person and a finite Substance And his Mistake about this is the Foundation of all his other Mistakes and Soul-ruining Errors That the Reason is not the same between infinite Substance and infinite Person as it is between finite Substance and finite Person is evident because finite Substance does propagate modal Subsistence which in rational Nature we call Personality as it 's finite and terminated yea and where it hath its Terms but infinite Substance not being so terminated but infinitely excluding all Terms and Bounds cannot therefore propagate Personality in like manner as the finite doth for that would be to make it imperfect and if it doth not propagate this after the same manner then it follows undeniably that the Reason is not the same betwixt infinite Substance and infinite Person or Personality as between finite Substance and finite Person or Personality So that this Author 's self-evident Propositions will be found to be self-evident Untruths and his Reasoning is no better when he would infer that because the same numerical finite Substance is but in one Person therefore infinite must be so too Obj. But he would perswade that if by reason of the Difference between finite and infinite there is a Difference between the Number of Persons that the Substance is in it would follow that the Difference of Number is infinite because the infinite Distance betwixt these would suppose this Answ This Reasoning of his is vain and false as the former for as Scripture is express in it that there 's Three and no greater Number of Persons in God than three viz. Father Son and Spirit so we have shewn how sanctified Reason sweetly complies with with divine Revelation in giving us clear Ideas of it how Three and no more than Three personal Properties may emane or flow from divine Essence as terminating it self by essential internal Acts upon it self Obj. But suppose the Author should here object if three relative Properties or Personalities flow from divine Essence by means of reflex acts of Essence how comes it to pass that these do not in like manner flow from angelical or humane Essence reflecting on it self after a like manner by the like Acts Answ There 's not the like Reason for it 1. Because these internal reflex Acts of Intellection and Dilection in the angelical and humane Nature are but accidental acts and most frequently intermitted and therefore cannot propagate Personalities but in the Divine Nature these are essential eternal acts and therefore may I had almost said must propagate something viz. in that Nature whence they emane and whereon they terminate 2. These reflex acts in the Creatures at least in our selves are very imperfect and cannot produce an express Image of that which reflects on the Nature as reflected on and consequently not a Person But in God these are most perfect and therefore produce that express Image which is a Person and so the Son is stiled Heb. 1. 3. The express Image of the Father's Person 3. We have shew'd before that angelical or humane Essence being finite and having Terms must therefore where-ever it terminates or where the utmost Bounds of its Extension are propagate Modal Subsistence or Personality for to terminate such Essence but the divine Essence infinitely exceeding all such Bounds and Limits cannot in this way suited only to a finite Creature propagate the same but doth it after an higher way suited to infinite immense Being And here I would demand of the Author either to shew us the way wherein infinite essence doth this seeing it's undenyable that it must be different from this of finite Beings or else give us some pregnant Reasons why it may not do it by terminating it self upon it self with the aforesaid reflex acts or else ingenuously confess that a Trinity of Persons or which is the same Father Son and Spirit in one and the same singular divine Essence is not only clearly reveal'd in the written Word but is likewise very fully consistent with true Reason and the Light of Nature as elevated and improved by divine Revelation and that he hath greatest Cause to be humbled for his bold blasphemous Oppositions to so great and clear a Truth Obj. And thus having discovered the Falsehood of his grand Conclusion § 35. I proceed to take notice of some few things more in this Chapter especially in § 33. where we find him thus reasoning If a Person be a Substance there must be three Substances because Substance is contained in the Idea of Person and consequently as many Substances as Persons all that we apprehend of a divine Substance is that he is a Subject in which all the divine Attributes exist that Person is the very same and these are only different Words to express the divine Being by whence he would infer most blasphemously § 34. That a Trinity of Persons in one Substance is
contrary to what he would infer that there 's but one ever blessed God tho three distinct Persons His 22d Section hath been answered over and over All that which he adds § 23 24 27 28. is wholly founded upon his own gross Mistakes as if it must needs follow from a Multiplication of Persons that there must be a Multiplication of Infinities and All-sufficiencies in God for suppose he may find some Assertors of the Trinity to allow such a manner of speaking as to call the three Persons three Infinite Persons or three All-sufficient Persons yet he knows well enough in his own Conscience that they mean no more than three Persons with one and the same Numerical Infinity and All-sufficiency or which is the same tres personas habentes eandem singularem infinitatem omni-sufficientiam And that they do account it the vilest Heresy yea even Blasphemy to assert a Plurality of Infinities and All-sufficiencies in God and does it not argue then the Author to be guilty of the vilest Sophism and Deceit yea such as is more suitable for the Devil the Father of Lyes than for any fair Disputant from an Homonymous Phrase that may be taken in different yea contrary Senses to infer from such a Sense or Interpretation as he puts on the Phrase Heretical and Blasphemous Conclusions as the Conclusions of such Authors as he knows do take and interpret the same Phrase in a quite contrary Sense Let him but take the Phrase in the Sense of these Authors and all his monstrous Conclusions will vanish He can neither infer that there are three Infinites or Infinities or three Infinite Spaces or three Gods or that the Trinitarians must be Idolaters either in worshipping something as God which is not God or in setting up a Plurality of Gods as he would perswade § 30. These will be found to be Brats of his own luxuriant Brain not to be laid at the Trinitarians Door As to what he adds § 31. That whatever Name we give the three yea tho we only say three yet so long as we pay Divine Worship to each we own three Gods because the three are three Objects of Divine Worship and whilst the one is worshipped the other is not worshipped c. We shall answer this hereafter viz. P. 24. when we come to confute this false and frivolous Charge more largely elsewhere insisted on by the Author Because we do not love with him to multiply Tautologies Object There 's only one thing more I would take into Consideration before I leave this Chapter that I may leave this Author the more inexcusable in his perverse Reasoning such as he makes use of Section 25 26. His Words are these viz. There cannot be supposed in God more Persons than one without supposing an infinite Number for what Reason soever moved the first Person to beget two Persons equal to himself the same Reason because their Nature is the same must move the other to beget their Equals and so on to Infinity for saith he if the first Person produced two equal to himself it was no doubt an essential Perfection of his Nature otherwise he might have chosen whether he would have produced them and they when produced would have had but a precarious dependent Being since they must depend on his Pleasure for their Continuance in Being as well as for their Being And he does further infer that if no more Persons can now be produced then an Essential Property is lost Answ The whole of his Discourse do's clearly evince that the Author had blind and gross Conceptions about the Eternal Generation of the Son and Mission or Emission of the Blessed Spirit and therefore it 's no wonder to find his whole Discourse made up of those two grand Ingredients Impudence and Ignorance For 1. How shamefully does he contradict himself when he tells us that if the first Person produced two equal to himself it was no doubt an Essential Perfection of his Nature and yet as § 25. that it was for some Reason that moved him to it How can both these hold If the Act was an Essential Perfection then it was no arbitrary Act but if it was an Act to which the Agent was moved by some Reason then it was arbitrary and not essential If his Adversaries spoke Contradictions at such a rate as this he might then have had Ground to have charged these on them 2. What a begetting Act must that be which may or rather must according to him be multiplyed into infinite begetting Acts But had he framed no other Ideas of Eternal Generation and Eternal Mission but such as might have suited with the Nature of the most perfect eternal Spirit he would then have seen that that most sublime and scriptural Revelation of three Persons in the God-head is not only sweetly consistent with the highest Reason but likewise that it 's impossible that there should be more than three Persons in the God-head Had the Author but perused and seriously weighed what is said as to this by the learned and accurate Doctor Ames in his Medulla Theologiae ch 5 § 16. and which is agreeable to what hath been said before by ancient Fathers Schoolmen and modern Divines sure he would not have talked at such a rate as he doth the Doctor here speaking of a Trinity of Persons in God hath these Words viz. potest tamen aliqua ex parte similitudine adumbrari Pater nempe est quasi Deus intelligens Filius Imago Patris expressa est quasi Deus intellectus Spiritus sanctus emanans a Patre per Filium spiratus est quasi Deus dilectus Filius producitur quasi per actum intelligendi ex intellectu vel memoriâ faecundâ Patris Spiritus sanctus producitur per actum amandi vel spirandi ex voluntate faecunda Patris Filii What I pray will the Author say to such a Discourse as this 1. Will he say that God doth not know himself by a reflex Act of eternal Intellection terminated on himself Surely this he neither can nor dare do 2. Will he say that God doth not after a like manner terminate an eternal Act of Dilection on himself He cannot say this 3. Can he assure us that Personalities in God cannot flow from such reflex Acts I am sure he cannot 4. Are there any moreinternal and eternal reflex Acts in God besides the two before mentioned from which Personalities can flow and can there any more than three Personalities flow from these in manner aforesaid supposing these to emane from the Divine Essence by Mediation of the said Acts I shall freely confess here we could not at all have gone thus far by the dim Light of our own Reason nor could so much as have thought no much less have asserted a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Divine Essence but when we have the great and ever-blessed God going before us in the infallible Revelation of sacred Scripture and assuring us that there
But that any Man of common Sense holding the Doctrine of the Trinity should affirm that the Three Persons are only three external Denominations of God according to his said different Operations I am far from believing 3. Tho I grant that some who assert a Trinity of Persons in God may tell us that these Three glorious Persons in God are represented by those three Faculties in Man viz. Understanding Will and Memory or these three Attributes of God Power Wisdom and Goodness but that these should say that the Three Persons are the same as Faculties in Man viz. Understanding Will and Memory or that they are those three Attributes of God Power Wisdom and Goodness I cannot believe but shall rather account that he saith till he make it good a meer Calumny And now being so perswaded as I am I might justly desist from giving my self any further Trouble in this Place save for some few Passages in this Chapter which I may not wholly pass over One is in § 46. A Question grounded on his own false Hypothesis viz. of there being no other Trinity but of infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power in one divine Being Hence he puts the Question Is it not Idolatry to pay divine Worship to three Beings each of which since each is God has infinite Wisdom Power and Goodness It 's granted that to pay divine Worship to Three Beings whatever Attributes we cloath them with is Idolatry but to pay divine Worship to Three glorious Persons Father Son and Spirit who are one and the same divine Being and so equally share in all the glorious Attributes and infinite Perfections of that Being is that true Worship which the Holy Scriptures and the infallibly inspired Pen-men of it have prescribed to us and to call this Idolatry is the highest Blasphemy tending to overthrow the very Foundations of the Christian Religion and of the Christian Faith Obj. But this Author propounds another Question viz. If there be but one Being with infinite Vunderstanding is it not unlawful to adore three such Beings each of which has an unlimited Vnderstanding Answ If this Author had propounded this Question to Dr. Sherlock or some whom he stiles real Trinitarians he might perhaps have had some Grounds for it but to propound it to those with whom he hath to do in this Place when he knows they grant as fully as himself or any Unitarian can do that it 's unlawful to adore Three Beings each of which has an unlimited Understanding is not only a frivolous idle Question but on his part very malicious as importing that those whom he stiles nominal Trinitarians do this when he knows the contrary that he knows the contrary is evident from his own following Words wherein he tells us that the Trinitarians are really as zealous as they pretend to be to defend the sacred Truth of only one divine Being Well then if these Trinitarians be zealous Asserters of only one divine Being as well as his Unitarians how comes he to ask them if it be not unlawful to adore three such Beings As if they did this when he knows they abhor it But this Author will tell us here Object 1. That it 's not in Sincerity but only in Pretence that these Trinitarians seem zealous in Defence of one Being Ans If he could make the World believe that these mean the same by Being as they do by Person which in this very Place he does cunningly but most falsly insinuate in his Jumbling those two Terms together Being or Person as if they were the same in the Language of Trinitarians as well as Unitarians Then he might well perswade that their Zeal for Defence of one Being whilst they assert Three Persons in God was but a pretended Zeal But when he knows that all these do assert Three Persons in God yet but one Being then what less can his charging these with want of Sincerity in their Defence of one Being be but meer Calumny His other railing Language in this § hath for its Foundation not the true Doctrine of the Trinitarians but his own ignorant or wilful Mistakes about that Doctrine But 2. I proceed to consider what this Author lays down i◠the two last Sections of this Chapter § 47 48. One while he represents these Trinitarians as such to whom the Unitarians owe their utmost Acknowledgment for vindicating their way of Worship and for joyning with them against the Politheists and disguised Pagans as Dr. Sherlock Another while as the same with Polytheists or disguised Pagans or as he means with the real Trinitarians Again he tells us he knows not under what Head to rank these who will be thought to be neither real nor nominal Trinitarians he thinks they believe no Trinity at all that they are forced in adoring the Trinity to confess they adore an unconceivable Mystery which is only worshiping of Words and Sounds or a Trinity of Cyphers that if they declare what the Three are they must inevitably run into Polytheism or Unitarianism that in saying the first of the Three is God the Father the second God the Son the third is God the Spirit they make them Three Gods whom they equally adore And p. 16. he aske what these Three are Father Son and Spirit Are they three Gods three Parts of God three Properties three Names And concludes in a scoffing way that it seems the whole Mystery of the Trinity lyeth in this tho' every one can tell what each of the three is yet none can tell what three they are or how they are three You see how this Author runs on in his old Cant refusing to take in any Satisfaction as to his Doubts and Queries abou the Trinity which he might have done a thousand times from the Writings of eminent Divines on this Subject had he been desirous to be informed or to have had his Doubts satisfied as he pretends to be For 1. Do they not tell him that the Three who bear Record in Heaven viz. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons in one God-head And does he not know that they say so Why then does he propose those idle Questions Are they three Gods three Parts of God three Properties or Powers of God three Names and why does he bely them when in Answer to that Question What Sort of three are they He makes them say that 's impossible to be known 2. Do they not tell him likewise that these Three Persons are one and the same great and blessed God and yet distinguished from each other by personal Properties that the first Person or Father is God as limited with the personal Property of begetting or conceiving that the second is God as limited with the personal Property of being begotten that the third is God as limited with the personal Property of proceeding from Father and Son and of being sent as Comforter so that one Person cannot be another Person and yet all the Three are one and the same
blessed God Object 3. Let me add Is it only these Divines that speak thus or is it not the divinely inspired Pen-men of the Holy Scripture who speak the same The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth he not tell chap. 1. v. 3. That the Son is the express Image of his Father's Person and can he be a Son representing as a lively Image the Person of his Father and yet not a distinct Person Doth not St. John chap. 1. expresly tell us that the Word was made Flesh and was this the Father or the only begotten of the Father See v. 14. This only begotten of the Father when in the Humane Nature he was baptized was he not a distinct Person from the Person of the Father testifying of him by a Voice from Heaven This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased And was he not a distinct Person from the Holy Ghost who descended in a bodily Shape like a Dove upon him Luke 3. 21 22. And does not our Lord Christ himself when speaking of Father Son and Holy Ghost clearly distinguish these as Three Persons in telling us John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things have we not here the Person sending the Person sent and the Person in whose Name he 's sent But what need I thus argue for a Distinction of Persons I don 't at all question here but this Author will readily grant that the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost as set forth in Scripture are three different Persons for he tells us P. 32. § 94. It is evident that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguish'd from the Son as two Men or Angels can be and Mankind that are incapable of apprehending Metaphysical Niceties cannot but conceive them so and hence it is as we have shewn before that he makes God and the Father or Person of the Father equivalent Terms so excluding the Son and blessed Spirit from being God or equal to the Father so that he owns them no otherwise to be Three Persons than as three Beings or Substances which do really differ one from another Answ You will thus see at length what this Author is and how his sometimes seemingly applauded Unitarianism ends in Arianism and the Truth is the very worst Dregs of the Poyson of his Doctrine lye here not in his denying any Trinity of Persons but his denying a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the divine Essence he can be well enough content that the Word be the Person incarnate the Holy Ghost the Comforter or Person sent so he can but strip them of their Divinity or make that Divinity which the Scripture seems as he grants to ascribe to them to agree to them only in a tropical or figurative Sense but to ascribe this truly to them together with proper divine Worship this he makes to be Idolatry Here 1. I would have it noted that I may meet with and refute his Railery which hath diffused it self through a great Part of his Pamphlet that when this Author speaks of the Trinitarian's worshiping the Three Persons as Three distinct Almighty Beings as Three Gods as Three compleat distinct Objects of Worship and as paying at other times divine Worship to one of them and at the same time not paying it to another that all this is meer Calumny and hath not a Word of Truth in it they worship indeed Three Persons as they are one and the same Almighty Being or God but not as Three Almighty Beings or Gods such Tritheism they abhor as much as himself or any other They worship Three Persons what as three distinct Objects of Worship No but as all three in Conjunction making up the one great compleat and adequate Object of our Worship they worship the Son and blessed Spirit as well as Father but do they when they worship the Son not worship the Father and blessed Spirit at the same time Or when they worship the blessed Spirit do they not worship the Father and the Son at the same time as this Author would Persuade That 's false yea it 's impossible that divine Worship should be paid to one of these and not to another when the Three are but one and the same God blessed for ever Obj. Here I would ask this Author when he does in Worship apply himself to God as our great Redeemer does he in his so doing exclude God our Creator from sharing in that Worship Or when he doth in a more special manner apply himself to God as our Sanctifier doth he by so doing exclude God our Creator and Redeemer from sharing in that Worstip And must he for this his applying himself unto God under these different Respects needs be a Polytheist and an Idolater If not why then must Trinitarians be such for applying themselves in divine Worship to the Person of the Son or of the blessed Spirit If he say it is because three divine Persons are three Gods Answ This is most false most repugnant to Descriptions given by all sound Trinitarians of divine Persons and hath fully been answered and therefore I shall here pass it over as a meer Calumny 2. I would have it noted that when the Author tells us § 47 that the Notions of the Trinitarians when apply'd to the Incarnation and Satisfaction must be very uncouth and further that when they speak of these and when they endeavour to prove the Spirit and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Persons that then they are real Trinitarians that is such in his Language as set up three Gods and further adds § 48. that these who will be thought to be neither real nor nominal Trinitarians cannot properly be said to believe any Trinity except at the most a Trinity of Cyphers and that as he thinks it cannot be presumed that Men of so great Sense to mention no other than Sarum and Worcester would assert so absurd a thing but that they knew if they declared what they suppose the three to be they must inevitably run into Polytheism or Vnitarianism Answ 1. And is there then no Medium betwixt these two Extreams One would have thought that the Writings of so many learned Men as have writ on this Subject if he had not resolved to have shut his Eyes against clearest Light should have convinced him that there is Do not these expresly tell if we must repeat things again that these three are three Persons that however three Persons cannot exist in one singular finite Essence where Personality flows from the Termination of Essence yet three Persons may exist in one singular infinite immense Essence where Personality flows from Essence after a different manner which the boldest Arians and Sacinians dare not deny And if Personality does not result from divine Essence as it does from created Essence why there may not exist three Persons in the one when yet there can but
And does not that Scripture John 1. 1 2 3 14. expresly affirm that the Word stiled the only begotten of the Father was in the Beginning was with God was God the great Creator and Maker of all things that without him was not any thing made that was made It 's a Wonder this Author when he reads such a Scripture as this can forbear for to cast forth Reproaches on the divinely inspired Evangelist himself for could any Trinitarian have with greater Evidence set forth That 1. this Word was from the Beginning and before the Beginning of all created Beings and therefore from Eternity 2. That in this Beginning he was with God and therefore a distinct Person from God the Father 3. That he was God viz. the same blessed God with the Father as to Essence 4. That all things were made by him and that without him was not any thing made that was made that therefore the Father did make nothing but in Conjunction with the Word or Son not in Separation from him as this Author would have it And as nothing that was made was made without this Word so this Word himself was not made except he make himself but is the eternal increated Being Let this Author shew now if he can what he hath to charge Trinitarians with which he may not as well charge on this blessed Apostle Obj. But this Author is so far from granting the Concurrence of the Son or Spirit to the doing of the same Actions with the Father notwithstanding Scripture does most clearly testifie it as in the Texts before cited that he does boldly aver That this is apparently false the Scripture being fâ—ll of Actions especially those they do to one another as one being sent by another their going from and returning to one another which is impossible to suppose they all equally concurr'd in a little after he adds That they viz. Trinitarians cannot deny but Father Son and Spirit act separately ad extra even with respect to the Creatures and to prove this he asks Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the other took him into theirs or were limited to him He further adds They are so far from being one in a natural Sense that there is not so much as a moral Vnion between them they have different Wills and Inclinations for instance the first Person will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person nay they say his Justice could not be satisfied without it the Son is so far from being of the same Mind that he freely offer'd himself to suffer to appease the Wrath of the first Person and still intercedes to the Father The third Person neither gives nor receives Satisfaction Answ 1. I know no divine Actions ad extra which are expressed in Scripture whether in a proper and literal or in a tropical and improper Sense but they may well enough agree to Father Son and Spirit and they may equally concur in them It 's true our Lord saith Joh. 16. 25. I came forth from the Father and am come into the World Again I leave the World and go to the Father But these Words do import no more than that the Word being made Flesh and dwelling in that Humane Tabernacle did for such time as that Humane Nature was upon the Earth manifest the divine Glory in it and so his leaving the World and going to the Father imports no more than his ceasing from such a Way for Manifestation of the divine Glory and from thenceforth reserving such Manifestation for Heaven stiled God's Throne so this makes nothing at all to the Author's purpose only imports God's making in the Person of the Son Manifestations of his Glory after different ways sometimes in the Humane Nature on Earth which is his Footstool sometimes in Heaven which is his Throne so Joh. 14. 26. our Lord saith but the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things What Action is there the Words being rightly understood wherein one Person may not concur as well as another If the Author say the Father's sending the Spirit to teach the Church is such an Action I answer The Father's sending here imports no more than the Father 's willing that the Church be taught and illuminated by the blessed Spirit this being a Benefit which Christ hath purchased for it and this teaching such as in respect of Order in operating is more especially appropriated to the Third Person but dare this Author therefore say that the Father does therefore exclude himself either from willing that the Church be taught or from teaching it himself when the teaching the Church all things is such a peculiar Work of God that as it does infallibly evidence the true Divinity of the Holy Spirit so the joynt Concurrence of Father Son and Spirit in it So we see the grand Arguments of this Author against the Trinity which he thinks to be invincible are no other than such as do arise from his own Misunderstanding or perverting the Sense of Holy Scriptures 2 As to that Query of his wherewith he thinks doubtless to silence all Trinitarians viz. Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the others took him into their's or were united to him Answ The Author in this labours under a double gross Mistake of the Doctrine both of sacred Scripture and of Trinitarians 1. In his confounding God-head with Personality For doubtless the Humane Nature of Christ is truly united to that God-head which is common to the Three Persons as divina charismatum communicatis and as that Name Immanuel God with us or God in our Nature do clearly import And as that Scripture Act. 20. 28. To feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood does evince tho at the same time it be but united to the Personality of one of these viz. the Son and through the Contrivement of eternal Wisdom be made to subsist wholly Substantiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the God-head as limited by personal Property that so this glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might become a meet Representative or Sponsor for us 2. Tho it be granted for the Reason aforesaid that only the Person of the Son did take the Human Nature into his Subsistence yet this imports no more than passive Reception of that Humane Nature into his Subsistence which was added or united to it by the real joynt Action of the Three blessed Persons and wherein they did equally concur like as they do in other Actions relating to the Humane Nature See Psal 16. 10. compared with Acts 2. 24. Yea do act joyntly as well in preparing a Body or Humane Nature for the Person of the Son compare Heb. 10. 5. with Luke 1. 35. as they do in uniting that Person with the Humane Nature John 1. 14. The Word was