are proper to intelligent Beings that belongs to the one and not to the other it shews that they are more than distinct Modes they are distinct intelligent substantial Beings and are not the Father and Son in Scripture frequently opposed to one another as intelligent Beings The Father 's knowing and loving the Son is not the Son 's knowing and loving the Father but each has a numerical distinct Knowledge and consequently distinct Essence Answ The whole of this his reasoning is idle and perverse like the former and is grounded on either a grosly ignorant or a wilful Mistake of the Trinitarians Doctrine The divine Acts or Operations according to these are either ad intra or ad extra the Author's Discourse in the Beginning of the following Chapter relates to those ad extra where we shall consider them but his Discourse here to those ad intra as the Father's knowing and loving the Son the Son 's knowing and loving the Father Now these are acts of the divine Nature or Essence as reflecting on it self and lay the Foundations of relative Properties never to be altered because from these acts and their terms the personal Properties result as hath been shewn before therefore according to his Doctrine these internal acts are in Nature before the personal Properties or Personality And yet according to Scripture Phrase they are attributed to each Person with respect to another in as much as each Person hath the divine Essence with its Acts and Operations under a relative Mode appropriated to him and so the Father is said to love the Son and the Son to love the Father How I pray What as this Author would have it with two acts of Love really and numerically distinct and these as flowing either from two meer Modes or if not so from two really and numerically distinct Essences How absurd is all this when it 's evident to any Smatterer in Theology that the internal acts thenselves are of the divine Essence and only their Distinction from relative Modes so that there 's no need either of more numerically distinct Essences for Performance of these acts or to have them attributed to meer Modes or to have the divine Person ungodded and their true Subject destroyed as this Author does vainly and idly pretend What he adds § 42. is to no more purpose unless he could prove that we make the divine Acts Titles Attributes of one Person really distinct from the Acts Titles Attributes of another which he can never do The Author in his following § viz. 43. would make the World believe that the Orthodox were forced to this way of explicating themselves about the Trinity because they had no other way to keep up the Face of a Trinity and avoid professing the apparent Tritheism of the Nicene Fathers who held the Three Almighty substantial Persons were no otherwise one God than because they had the same common Nature even as Three Men having the same Humane Nature are but one Man Answ Not to mention here the old false Trick of seeking from the multiplying of Persons in God to multiply Substances and Almighties As to that open Tritheism of the Nicene Fathers as holding the Three Persons no otherwise one God than as Three Men partaking of one common Humane Nature are one Man it is such an impudent shameless Calumny that it can deserve no other Answer than to have the Brand of a notorious Lye set upon it such a false and blasphemous Notion as that God should be a Genus to more divine Persons so as Man is a Genus to singular Men I know not whether it ever entred into the Heart of any but that it should be the Notion of the Nicene Fathers and entertain'd by them is so expresly contrary to their Canons and the Orthodox Doctrine of the Fathers at that time that it needs no further Confutation Obj. As to what is added by the Author § 44. besides his Reproaches which will light on himself there 's nothing but what we have had before over and over and hath been so fully answered in our having shewn that the glorious Almithty Being doth not propagate Personality by Termination of Extension so as a finite rational Being doth and that it 's highly consistent both with Scripture and Reason and that he doth this by the aforesaid reflex Acts terminated on himself that no more needs be added here But § 45. he tells us that granting there are never so many Modes yet if each Person has the divine Substance he must necessarily have all the Modes because they are Modes of the divine Substance each Person has the divine Substance as limited by a peculiar Mode or relative Property and therefore cannot possibly have all the Modes quite contrary to what is absurdly inferred by this Author Ans I come now to Chapter 5. to weigh the Author's Reflections On Ch. 5. on the Hypothesis of Dr. W. S. of the Author of the Trinity placed in its due Light and the rest of the Nominal Trinitarians In this Chapter the Author tells us that besides the Abettors of this Opinion there are a great many Trinitarians who no otherwise differ from the Vnitarians but in Name whose Trinities they not only allow but contend for some of them say and Dr. Wallis hath writ in Defence of it That the three Persons are only three external Denominations of God according to the three different Operations of his Goodness towards his Creatures in creating redeeming and sanctifying them a little after he saith Others say that the three Persons are the same in God as Faculties in Man viz. Vnderstanding Will and Memory Others that the three Persons are the three Attributes of God Power Wisdom and Goodness Here you have his Charge But Answ 1. I shall believe it to be a false Charge so prone I find him to charge things on the Trinitarians till such time as he doth quote the Author at least his Book and Page where the Mattter charged is expresly contained 2. Tho I readily grant that those three Denominations of Creator Redeemer Sanctifier are three external Denominations of God according to the different Operations of his Goodness towards his Creatures in creating redeeming and sanctifying them yea and that these three different Operations Imo omnes operationes ad extra according to Scripture Joh. 13. chap. chap. 5. 17. and the granted Maxim sunt trium personarum communes yet withal I affirm that in respect of the Order that is amongst the three Persons the Holy Scriptures do in a more special manner appropriate the first kind of these Actions as the Acts of Creation to God the Father as first Person and those which in Nature are next to these as of Preservation and Redemption to God the Son and those which come last in Order as the ultimate compleating Acts to God the Holy Ghost and accordingly do appropriate the external Denominations of Creator Redeemer Sanctifyer as resulting from the said Acts.
it to be eclipsed and not manifested to these at other times But 2. Seeing the Author would seem so quick-sighted as to find an Argument in this Scripture John 17. 5. against the Divinity of Jesus Christ but so stark blind as to find none in the same Scripture for it I would therefore improve it a little for getting the Scales of his Blindness removed and whereas our Lord Christ prays Glorify me with thine own self with that Glory which I had with thee before the World was Hence I argue if the Glory that Christ the Son had with the Father before the World was was not the increated Glory of the Son as most high God which this Author does ridicule then it was but the Glory of a created Being But that could not be For 1. If it was but the Glory of a created Being then there was a created Being before Creation yea before the first Moment of Creation But that 's impossible and the Author himself who is so good in finding out Contradiction where there 's none will sure see a Contradiction in this The Consequence is undeniable for the very first Moment of Creation God gave Being or Existence to the Heaven and Earth as the Phrase in Gen. 11. clearly imports and yet the Son had his Glory with the Father before this i. e. through the boundless Tracts of Eternity Let the Author answer this Argument if he can But 2. If the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was no other than of a created Being then it highly concerns this Author to declare what created Being he means for 1. it could not be that of his Humane created Being for Christ had no such Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary If then the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was was the Glory of such Being it must then be the Glory of such Being when there was no such Being if this be not downright Contradiction I know not what is 2. It could not be the Glory of Angelick created Nature for Scripture is express that Christ took not on him the Nature of Angels Heb. 2. 16. Besides Scripture sets him above all Angels making him the Object of their Worship Heb. 1. 6. yea in the very same Place where it mentions them as ministring created Spirits it mentions the Son as God having an eternal Throne and as the great unchangeable Creator of this great World Heb. 1. 7 8 10 11 12. Now if the Son did exist before the World and yet neither as God Angel or Man I wonder what Species of Beings this Author will reduce him to He who in Scorn so often asks the Trinitarians what a something they mean by a second or third Person in the Trinity may well be asked what a something he means by the Son of God as having Glory with his Father before the World was and what a Compound he will make the Person of our Redeemer as consisting of an Humane Nature and of some other yet never before heard of pre-existing Nature I doubt before he have done he 'll turn that great Mystery of God manifested in the Flesh into a meer Chimaera but I tremble to mention such Blasphemies 4. As to what this Author adds P. 25 26 27. of his Letter § 77 78 79 80 81 82 83. tho I find little besides idle Repetitions of former Matter which hath already been fully answered yet some few Remarks I shall make and 1. Whereas he tells us P. 25. That it is impossible that the same numerical Act of Creation could be done by three Persons because the self same Act could not be done three times and if one Person does an Act no other can do the sels same Answ Such Stuff as this and that which follows argues the Author's gross Ignorance about the divine Persons whom he supposeth to be separate divided Beings like Humane Persons acting divisim separatim were this so his arguing would be to purpose But he knows well enough and so his Ignorance will be found to be wilful Ignorance that the Three Divine Persons according to the Doctrine of all Orthodox Trinitarians are not divided Beings Minds Natures Essences but one and the â—ame most pure and simple divine Beings Minds Natures Essences with three distinct relative Properties which do not so much as make any real Composition in that one glorious Being and yet are true Relations arising from their proper Foundations in that one most simple immense Being as he may easily understand from what hath been said if he have a Mind to be informed and so he might have satisfied himself that it contradicts no Idea of ours at all that one divine Person does the very same numerical Action another does 2. Whereas in the same Page he does insinuate That infinite Divine Wisdom teacheth Men he means according to the same Doctrine of the Trinitarians that there are two needless and useless Persons in God himself whose Actions are to no manner of purpose only to do what the first Person is not only all sufficient to do but actually and wholly does that if the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act they are no other than necessary Agents and all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing the same Acts he wholly does Answ This whole Discourse is false and impious and not without greatest Calumny fixed on Orthodox Trinitarians For may he not find if he will but take notice of it generally averring 1. That the Second and Third Persons are so far from being needless and useless that they do as necessarily subsist in the divine Essence as the first Person 2. That altho the Father has a free Will and Power to do or not do viz. ad extra whatever he pleaseth yet this must be so understood that he hath this in Union and Conjunction with the Son and Spirit and not as divided or separated from them Therefore what he would infer that the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act the Father doth consequently that they are no other than necessary Agents that all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing what he wholly does is idle and blasphemous as if the Power of doing aâ—d Will for doing were the sole Power and Will of the Father and not the joint Power and Will of Father Son and Spirit or as if the Son and Spirit did not in entire Conjunction with the Father perform the same Act ad extra and with the same Freedom when the Act is the Joynt Act of all Three And I pray is that we say here the Language only of some late Tritarians and not the Language of sacred Scriptures yea and of Christ himself What else do those Words of our Lord import John 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work did not the Father work Miracles Did not Christ work the same in Conjunction with him
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. By Richard Frankland LONDON Printed for A. J. Churchill and sold by F. Bently Bookseller in Halifax 1697. A PREFACE TO THE READER EVER since the Divine Oracle sounded the Alarum of War between the Seed of the Woman and Serpent's Brood Gen. 3. 18. the Devil and his Agents have spit their Poyson against our blessed Lord Jesus the Captain of our Salvation For some Thousands of Years the World was invelop'd in the Mist of Ignorance Heathenism Barbarism Scythism and Hellenism overspread the Face of the Earth And when the Gospel-Sun appeared in our Horizon the Heathen raged Kings and Rulers raised all the Militia of Earth and Hell And by the joint Conspiracy of Jews and Gentiles this Son of God was abused rejected crucified And since his Resurrection by the Power of his God-head and glorious Ascension to the right Hand of the Majesty on high What a Number of Hereticks have attempted to pull him down from the Throne of his Glory and degrade him of his Deity the most orient Pearl in his Crown Strange were the Figments of Gnosticks and Valentinians of old the Followers of Simon Magus who overturned Gospel Revelations by their Aeones Combinations Conjugations Genealogies and unintelligible Imaginations Cerinthus and Ebion in the first Century affirmed that Christ was only a Man begotten between Joseph and Mary Cerdon and Marcion in the second Century denied the Verity of Christ's Humane Nature and Sufferings In the third Century Theodosian also denyed Christ's Divinity Artemon said Christ was not existent before he took Flesh of the Virgin The Sabellians denyed the Three Persons in the God head Yes they affirmed that the Father cloathed himself with our Nature dyed called therefore Patripassians Samosetanus also denyed Christ's Divinity The Maniches held the same heretical Opinions which did at last center in Arius and spread through the World A. D. 324. condemned by the Council of Nice Nestorius contradicted the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ Eutichus confounded these two Natures saying The Humane was swallowed up by the Immensity of the Divine The Agnoitae denyed the Perfection of Knowledge in the Divine Nature of Christ Others called Christ only the adoptive Son of God all these had their Followers Yet God raised up learned Men to oppose and suppress these Hereticks in all Ages Some of them came to astonishing Ends by the just Judgment of God and some by the Sentence of Men as Servetus at Geneva A. D. 1652. Gorgius Blandrata Petrus Statorius vented pernicious Errours in Poland but the later dissembled and was found in his Bed with his Neck broken But the Errours settled in Faustus Socinus A. D. 1565. born at Sens A witty Scholar got his Uncle Laelius Socinus's Books comes into Poland writes a Book De Jesu Christo Servatore at Cracovia whereof he boasted and was answered by several in a Disputation The Orthodox confounded the Anti-trinitarians from plain Scripture-Texts and ancient Writers so that Religion mightily prevailed But some falling off to Tritheism Anabaptism c. they regarded not what Principles they owned so they were but Enemies to the Doctrin of the Trinity One thing is observable several in that confused Company denying Religious Worship to Christ Socinus contended with them but was silenced and bafled by his own Principles who held that Christ was meer Man therefore by consequence it would be Idolatry to worship him There were also several Errours broach'd by Socinus that the Condition of the first Man was Mortal that there 's no original Sin that Christ was not an High-Priest on Earth that he made no Satisfaction for Sin that we are not justified by his Righteousness but our own that the wicked shall be utterly annihilated at the last Day These he contended for in their Synods and prevailed so by the Help of Smalcius and other Artifices that in 24 Years he got his Opinions enthron'd in Poland which are not rooted out to this Day Whosoever desires to read more of this History of Socinianism may find much more in Dr. Owen's Answer to Mr. Biddle and his Preface to it Surely 't is a thousand Pitties that in England a Goshen a Land of Light where the Gospel-Sun hath shined in its Meridian Splendor such black Fogs should rise out of the bottomless Pit as to darken our Horizon Trinitas saith one est verae Theologiae Fundamentum quae consesequentes omnes fere Doctrinas quasi animat Who so denies the Trinity denies his Baptism for we are baptized in or into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost It 's true the Racovian Catechism asserts Three and pronounces them to be no Christians who do not believe it but deny that there are three Persons or Subsistences in the God-head But our Divines prove it by the Essential Name Jehovah essential Properties Operations But see more of this in the ensuing Treatise The other dangerous and damnable Doctrine is that of denying the Lord that bought us 2 Pet. 2. 1. revived out of the Rubbish of ancient Heresies Who could imagine that Jews and Turks should be bred in England Denying Christ's Divinity doth cut the very Sinews of our Hopes of Redemption and Consolation Neither Angels nor Men could have pacifyed God's Wrath or satisfied Justice or brought in everlasting Righteousness Such Doctrines undermine and pluck up the Pillars of our Christian Religion and yet in these licentious Days such Heresies are publickly broach'd by more learned Scholars and some confident Ignoramus's I have read that Quakers say we deny the Person of him whom you call Christ and affirm that they that expect to be saved by that Christ without them will be damned in that Faith O horrid Sacrilege unheard of Impiety Methinks the Question of our blessed Lord that non-plust the Pharisees Mat. 22 45. should puzzle these Antichristian Spirits that deny Christ's Divinity If David then call him Lord how is he his Son Is the Son greater than the Father Surely the God-head of the Messiah advanceth him above King David It s true the Plumb-line of Reason is too short to fathom this Mystery but where Reason cannot wade Faith must swim having so good a Card and Guide as the Holy Ghost The Trinity of Persons and Hypostatical Union of God-head and Man-hood in Christ being so fully revealed in Scripture let us hold them fast and contend for them as our Free-hold This is the Attempt and Design of the ensuing Treatise which was put into my Hands by a very reverend and dear Brother whose Praise is in the Gospel who is better known to the World by the successful Fruits of his indefatigable Labours sounding viva voce than by legible Characters in Scripture having spent much Time and Strength in his peculiar Province with much Advantage to the Church of God His Learning and Capacity
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
be Three that bear Witness in Heaven and that these Three are One that himself as Father did before the World was and from Eternity beget the Son in the Form of God and equal to himself that the Holy Ghost in like manner is God proceeding and sent from the Father and Son we can now safely follow God and improve sanctified Reason to the getting of true and right Notions about this sublime Mystery and for Defence and Vindication of it and dispelling the Mists of those vile Aspersions and seigned Contradictions black-mouth'd Hereticks would fasten on it and we can as truly tell the Author that however this Mystery be a very high Mystery yet it is not as he would perswade wholly unintelligible but that we may have true Ideas of the Father begetting and of the Son 's being begotten and of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from Eternity and that this was not after some gross manner as the Author seems to suppose but in such a way as might agree to the most pure and simple Spirit yea we may tell him that from one and the same numerical eternal Essence acting upon its self by its internal Acts and likewise terminating those Acts and so laying the Foundations of relative Properties Three relative personal Properties with the Three blessed eternal Persons do necessarily emane without the least Appearance of a Contradiction the divine Essence so acting or reflecting on its self by eternal Intellection with the relative Property of Generation as flowing from it being God the Father The divine Essence as reflected on by and terminating the said Intellection with its relative Property of being begotten being God the Son the Splendor of the Father's Glory the eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the express Image of the Father's Person making a full and entire Representation thereof And how agreeable is this to many Scripture Phrases relating to the the Person of the Son And the same divine Essence as reflected on or terminated by that other Act of the same Essence and which may be stil'd the Love or Dilection of the Father and Son with its relative Property of being sent or proceding being the third Person or Holy Ghost the amiable Spring-head and Fountain of all that good which God communicates to his Creatures the all-searching quickning Spirit Deus spiratus missus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And give me leave to ask the Author our high pretended Rationalist who dares with his dark and glimmering Light so boldly contradict divine Revelation telling us that for the Father to beget the Son to be begotten the Holy Ghost to proceed and that these Three should be One and the Son to be equal to God the Father that such Language is nothing but mere Contradictions tho the express Language of the written Word Let me ask him I say according to the preceding Interpretation of the Words what Shew or least Appearance of a Contradiction can he find in them For the Divine Essence by an eternal reflex Act to know its self and so by a like act to love it self and for the same Essence to terminate each act is that which he neither can nor dare deny because that these are essential divine Perfections falling under our distinct inadequate Notions of the same glorious Being and which can no more cease to be than God can cease to be God where then comes in his Contradiction Object Will he say that according to these our Notions of a Trinity it follows that there are but three Persons and yet nine Persons That they cannot be multiplyed beyond three and yet may be multiplyed in infinitum Answ The quite contrary follows For according to these our Notions of the divine Essence so acting upon it self as aforesaid and so terminating the said two internal essential acts viz. of Intellect and Will it 's impossible the Persons in the divine Essence as flowing from them should either fall short or exceed the Number Three because according to these these we have to come up to his own Terms distinct Ideas of so many and neither fewer nor more viz. of a Person acting or begetting of a Person conceived or begotten and of a Person beloved or proceeding But will he say as he doth expresly § 26. That Obj. If it be not essential to the Nature of the Son and Spirit so to produce more Persons equal to themselves their Nature is not the same with the Father's and they want Perfections which he hath Answ It 's essential to the Nature of Son and Spirit as well as of the Father absolutely considered to be productive of more equal Persons tho it be not essential to the Nature of the Son and Spirit as limited by personal Property because by these it 's rendred incommunicable and cannot be so productive Therefore it 's very idle what he would infer that the Nature of the Son and Spirit is not the same with the Father's because they want Perfections which he has because the Nature still whether of Father Son or Spirit absolutely considered as such hath the very same essential Perfections tho as this is limited by personal Properties importing three Persons actually to exist in it from Eternity it cannot be said to produce them de novo and to be still productive of them so that we may justly say here that whosoever shall affirm that Essence as common to Father Son and Spirit is not productive of Three Persons let him be Anathema and whoever shall affirm that Essence as limited to Father Son and Spirit by personal Properties is still productive of Three Persons de novo let him be Anathema for Essence so limited the Three Persons exist as actually produced and therefore cannot remain to be produced Again will the Author say that the Father now producing no Persons equal to himself has lost a Perfection that 's essential to his Nature and consequently ceaseth to be all perfect as § 26 How vain and idle is all this When the act of begetting or producing in God is essential to the divine Nature and so can no more cease to be than the Nature it self it being an eternal act identified with the Nature and an eternal Foundation of such Relation as that of Son to Father which must there therefore be continued for ever the Foundation being continued otherwise than in the Creatures Having premised thus much for Explication of a Mystery which the Author most blasphemously pretends to be a Mystery of Anti-Christ wholly inexplicabable and unintelligible and having shewed that however it be a most sublime Mystery much transcending Reason and the Light of Nature yet being once fully reveal'd in the Word that it 's so far from standing in flat Contradiction to Reason and natural Light that it 's found to have a sweet Consistency with Reason and Light of Nature Having I say permised thus much I proceed now to his 〈…〉 3. third Chapter of the Nominal Trinitarians as the Author thinks meet tho without
And does not that Scripture John 1. 1 2 3 14. expresly affirm that the Word stiled the only begotten of the Father was in the Beginning was with God was God the great Creator and Maker of all things that without him was not any thing made that was made It 's a Wonder this Author when he reads such a Scripture as this can forbear for to cast forth Reproaches on the divinely inspired Evangelist himself for could any Trinitarian have with greater Evidence set forth That 1. this Word was from the Beginning and before the Beginning of all created Beings and therefore from Eternity 2. That in this Beginning he was with God and therefore a distinct Person from God the Father 3. That he was God viz. the same blessed God with the Father as to Essence 4. That all things were made by him and that without him was not any thing made that was made that therefore the Father did make nothing but in Conjunction with the Word or Son not in Separation from him as this Author would have it And as nothing that was made was made without this Word so this Word himself was not made except he make himself but is the eternal increated Being Let this Author shew now if he can what he hath to charge Trinitarians with which he may not as well charge on this blessed Apostle Obj. But this Author is so far from granting the Concurrence of the Son or Spirit to the doing of the same Actions with the Father notwithstanding Scripture does most clearly testifie it as in the Texts before cited that he does boldly aver That this is apparently false the Scripture being fâ—ll of Actions especially those they do to one another as one being sent by another their going from and returning to one another which is impossible to suppose they all equally concurr'd in a little after he adds That they viz. Trinitarians cannot deny but Father Son and Spirit act separately ad extra even with respect to the Creatures and to prove this he asks Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the other took him into theirs or were limited to him He further adds They are so far from being one in a natural Sense that there is not so much as a moral Vnion between them they have different Wills and Inclinations for instance the first Person will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person nay they say his Justice could not be satisfied without it the Son is so far from being of the same Mind that he freely offer'd himself to suffer to appease the Wrath of the first Person and still intercedes to the Father The third Person neither gives nor receives Satisfaction Answ 1. I know no divine Actions ad extra which are expressed in Scripture whether in a proper and literal or in a tropical and improper Sense but they may well enough agree to Father Son and Spirit and they may equally concur in them It 's true our Lord saith Joh. 16. 25. I came forth from the Father and am come into the World Again I leave the World and go to the Father But these Words do import no more than that the Word being made Flesh and dwelling in that Humane Tabernacle did for such time as that Humane Nature was upon the Earth manifest the divine Glory in it and so his leaving the World and going to the Father imports no more than his ceasing from such a Way for Manifestation of the divine Glory and from thenceforth reserving such Manifestation for Heaven stiled God's Throne so this makes nothing at all to the Author's purpose only imports God's making in the Person of the Son Manifestations of his Glory after different ways sometimes in the Humane Nature on Earth which is his Footstool sometimes in Heaven which is his Throne so Joh. 14. 26. our Lord saith but the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things What Action is there the Words being rightly understood wherein one Person may not concur as well as another If the Author say the Father's sending the Spirit to teach the Church is such an Action I answer The Father's sending here imports no more than the Father 's willing that the Church be taught and illuminated by the blessed Spirit this being a Benefit which Christ hath purchased for it and this teaching such as in respect of Order in operating is more especially appropriated to the Third Person but dare this Author therefore say that the Father does therefore exclude himself either from willing that the Church be taught or from teaching it himself when the teaching the Church all things is such a peculiar Work of God that as it does infallibly evidence the true Divinity of the Holy Spirit so the joynt Concurrence of Father Son and Spirit in it So we see the grand Arguments of this Author against the Trinity which he thinks to be invincible are no other than such as do arise from his own Misunderstanding or perverting the Sense of Holy Scriptures 2 As to that Query of his wherewith he thinks doubtless to silence all Trinitarians viz. Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the others took him into their's or were united to him Answ The Author in this labours under a double gross Mistake of the Doctrine both of sacred Scripture and of Trinitarians 1. In his confounding God-head with Personality For doubtless the Humane Nature of Christ is truly united to that God-head which is common to the Three Persons as divina charismatum communicatis and as that Name Immanuel God with us or God in our Nature do clearly import And as that Scripture Act. 20. 28. To feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood does evince tho at the same time it be but united to the Personality of one of these viz. the Son and through the Contrivement of eternal Wisdom be made to subsist wholly Substantiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the God-head as limited by personal Property that so this glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might become a meet Representative or Sponsor for us 2. Tho it be granted for the Reason aforesaid that only the Person of the Son did take the Human Nature into his Subsistence yet this imports no more than passive Reception of that Humane Nature into his Subsistence which was added or united to it by the real joynt Action of the Three blessed Persons and wherein they did equally concur like as they do in other Actions relating to the Humane Nature See Psal 16. 10. compared with Acts 2. 24. Yea do act joyntly as well in preparing a Body or Humane Nature for the Person of the Son compare Heb. 10. 5. with Luke 1. 35. as they do in uniting that Person with the Humane Nature John 1. 14. The Word was