Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	answer_v	believe_v	true_a	2,903	5	5.1595	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing T1221; ESTC R10019	21,341	116

A Seasonable VINDICATION OF THE B. Trinity Being an Answer to this Question Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury And the Right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Now Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill MDCXCVII THE PREFACE OUR Modern Socinians who are pleased to call themselves Unitarians having not only Disputed but most Blasphemously Ridiculed the Doctrine of the B. Trinity for the Conviction of such Gainsayers and the Confirmation of Others it is thought fit to Publish the following Discourse faithfully Collected from the Learned Works of Archbishop TILLOTSON and Bishop STILLINGFLEET Concerning Bishop STILLINGFLEET I shall say nothing because he is alive to Answer for himself But as to Archbishop TILLOTSON I hope it will appear even from this Collection That his Grace was very far from being a Socinian however his Memory hath been very unworthily Reproached in that as well as other Respects since his Death A VINDICATION OF THE B. TRINITY Q. WHY do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity A. Because it is a very Rational Doctrine that is there is the highest Reason to believe it Q. What do you mean by this word Trinity And What Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief A. I shall Answer this Question in the very words of the Church of England Whose Doctrine I am fully perswaded is Orthodox and Catholick There is but one living and true God everlasting without Body Parts or Passions of infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible And in Unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons of One Substance Power and Eternity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Art 1. The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance For there is one Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet they are not Three Gods but One God Athan. Creed It is very meet right and our bounden Duty that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto thee O Lord Almighty Everlasting God Who art One God one Lord not one only Person but three Persons in one Substance For that which we believe of the Glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any difference or inequality Pref. on the Feast of Trinity O holy blessed and glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God have mercy upon us miserable Sinners Lit. This is what we believe concerning the Trinity And that this is very Rational Doctrine and that we have the highest Reason thus to believe I shall endeavour to evince when I have first explained the Nature of Faith in General by shewing What it is to Believe and what this act Believe doth denote when applied to any Object Q. What is Faith or Belief in General A. Belief in general I define to be an Assent to that which is Credible as Credible V. Bishop Pearson on the Creed p. 2. Q. What is meant by this word Assent A. By the word Assent is expressed that Act or Habit of the Understanding by which it receiveth acknowledgeth and embraceth any thing as a Truth Id. Ib. Q. But are there not several other kinds of Assent besides Faith by which the Soul doth receive and embrace whatsoever appeareth to be true A. This Assent or Judgment of any thing to be true being a general Act of the Understanding is applicable to other Habits thereof as well as to Faith Id. Ib. Q. How then is this Assent which we call Faith specified and distinguished from those other kinds of Assent A. It must be specified as all other Acts are by its proper Object Id. Ib. Q. What is this Object of Faith A. This Object of Faith is that which is Credible as Credible Q. Why do you repeat the word Credible and say Credible as Credible A. To denote the twofold Object of Faith viz. Material and Formal Q. What is the Material Object of Faith A. The Material Object of Faith is the thing to be believed or something which is credible Q. What is the Formal Object of Faith A. That whereby it is believed or the Reason why it is believed Q. What is it to be Credible A. That is properly Credible which is not apparent of it self either in respect of our Senses or Understanding nor certainly to be collected either antecedently by its Cause or reversely by its Effect and yet though by none of these ways hath the Attestation of a Truth V. Bishop Pearson p. 3. Q. What then is that kind of Assent which is called Faith A. When any thing propounded to us is neither apparent to our Sense nor evident to our Understanding in and of it self neither certainly to be collected from any clear and necessary Connexion with the Cause from which it proceedeth or the Effects which it naturally produceth nor is taken up upon any real Arguments or Relations to other acknowledged Truths and yet notwithstanding appeareth to us true not by a Manifestation but Attestation of the Truth and so moveth us to assent not of it self but by virtue of the Testimony given to it In plain terms When we therefore acknowledge a thing to be true for this only reason because we are told that it is so Then and in such a Case we do properly believe it And the Assent that we give to such a Truth thus attested is neither Science nor Opinion but Faith Id. Ib. Q. The nature of Faith in general being thus explained I am now prepared to be instructed by you in this important Question Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity A. Though this Doctrine of the Trinity viz. That there are Three distinct Persons in One and the same undivided Divine Essence is neither apparent to my Sense nor evident to my Understanding for being a great Mystery I could never have known it unless it had been Revealed and now it is Revealed I am not able to comprehend it yet since it is testified and declared by an All-knowing and most just and faithful God who can neither deceive nor be deceived I do therefore give my Assent unto it as a most credible Truth and as such I do firmly believe it Now that God who is infinite in Wisdom and Knowledge doth fully know himself and perfectly understand his own Nature And also that He who is infinitely Good and Faithful cannot deceive us for it is impossible for God to Lye this I shall not pretend to prove but can fairly

of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the Christian Church hath always believed a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature V. Two Dial. Part II. p. 31. THE CLOSE THE Unitarians themselves cannot deny that many Things certainly are the particular manner of whose Existence we can neither Comprehend nor Explain Therefore though the particular Manner of the Existence of these Three Differences or Persons in the Divine Nature expressed in Scripture by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost is incomprehensible by our finite Understandings and inexplicable by us that is though the manner of the Union and Distinction between them is above our Reach and Comprehension yet considering the infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature which are so far above our reach God may justly oblige us to believe those Things concerning Himself which we are not able to Comprehend And of this I hope I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse FINIS THE CONTENTS THE Doctrine of the Trinity is a very Rational Doctrine P. 1 What is meant by this Word Trinity and what Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief 2 What is Faith or Belief in General 5 Why we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity 10 How it can be proved that God hath Revealed it 12 Object Neither the word Trinity nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture Answer'd 14 Object 'T is the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed Therefore the Clergy of the Church of England are resolved to Defend it Answer'd 19 Object 'T is above Reason Answ. 22 'T is not repugnant to Reason to believe some Things which are incomprehensible by our Reason 24 Object 'T is contrary to Reason Answ. 44 Object Three Divine Persons are Three Divine Substances Therefore Three Gods Answ. 59 The Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation largely considered 75 The Close 104 Catalogue of some Books Printed for B. Aylmer A Conference with an Anabaptist Being a Defence of Infant-Baptism In 8vo Price 12 d. A Theological Discourse of Last Wills and Testaments In 8vo Price 12 d. A Discourse concerning a Death-Bed Repentance Price 6 d. A Seasonable Vindication of the B. Trinity Being an Answer to this Question Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury And the Right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingsteet now Lord Bishop of Worcester Price 12 d A Short Exposition of the Preliminary Questions and Answers of the Church Catechism Being an Introduction to a Defence of Infant-Baptism Price 2 d. Directions in order to the Suppressing of Debauchery and Prophaneneness 2 d. A Discourse against Blasphemy Being a Conference with M. S. Concerning 1. The Rudeness of Atheistical Discourse 2. The Certainty and Eternity of Hell-Torments 3. The Truth and Authority of the Holy Scripture 2 d. A Discourse against 1. Drunkenness 2. Swearing and Cursing 2 d. The Plain Man's Devotion Part 1. Being a Method of Daily Devotion fitted to the meanest Capacities 2 d. The Plain Man's Devotion Part 2. Being a Method of Devotion for the Lord's-Day 2 d. These are the price of each of these small Books single but for the encouragement of those that are so charitably inclined to give away some quantities of them they may have them at Ten shillings a hundred At Brab Aylmer ' s in Cornhill These above all Writ by the Reverend William Assheton D. D. Six Sermons concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of Our Blessed Saviour His Sacrifice and Satisfaction And of the Unity of the Divine Nature in the B. Trinity By his Grace John late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury In 8vo Certain Propositions by which the Doctrine of the H. Trinity is so explained according to the Ancient Fathers as to speak it not contradictory to Reason A Second Defence of the Propositions Both by Edward Lord Bishop of Glocester A Brief Exposition on the Creed the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments To which is added the Doctrine of the Sacraments By Isaac Barrow D. D. And late Master of Trinity College Cambridge This on the Creed never before Published Being very different from the Volume of Sermons on it In 8vo Now in the Press A Defence of the Blessed Trinity By Isaac Barrow D. D. Never before Printed Price 1 s. Interrogant enim nos aliquando Infideles dicunt Patrem quem dicitis Deum dicitis Respondemus Deum Filium quem dicitis Deum dicitis Respondemus Deum Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis Deum dicitis Respondemus Deum Ergo inquiunt Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres sunt Dii Respondemus Non. Turbantur quia non illuminantur cor clausum habent quia clavem fidel non habent Aug. in Job Tr. 39. Ubi cogitare coeperis incipis numerare Ubi numeraveris quid numeraveris non potes respondere Pater Pater est Filius Filius Spiritus Sanctus Spiritus Sanctus est Quid sunt isti Tres non tres Dii Non. Non tres Omnipotentes Non sed Unus Omnipotens Hoc solo numerum insinuant quod ad invicem sunt non quod ad se sunt Id. Ib.

suppose it as being granted by the Socinians themselves The only thing therefore for us to prove and which they deny is this viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed by Almighty God For if we can make it appear that an infinitely Wise and Faithful God hath Revealed it we shall then easily convince them That there is the highest Reason to believe it Q. How then do you prove that God hath Revealed it Where hath God told us That there are Three distinct Persons in the same undivided Divine Essence and Nature A. Were I to Discourse an Atheist or a Deist then since all Conviction must be ex concessis I ought to prove these Two Things 1. The Possibility and Necessity of Divine Revelation 2. That the Books of the Old and New Testament which by way of Eminency we call the Scriptures do contain this Divine Revelation And that in these Books God hath Revealed so much of his own Nature as is necessary for us to know in order to our Salvation But since these Unitarians do profess themselves Christians and consequently to believe the Holy Scriptures I shall have so much Charity for them at present as to suppose it And shall treat them as such And then the only thing I am to prove is this viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed in the Scriptures Q. But neither the word Trinity nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture How then can you pretend to prove a Trinity of Persons from the Scriptures A. Though neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the Sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery be any where to be met with in Scripture yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose Name every Christian is Baptized and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another as we use to speak of Three several Persons So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture yet these Three are there expresly and frequently mentioned And Trinity is nothing but Three of any Thing And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father Son and Holy Ghost yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word whereby to express the distinction of these Three For which reason I could never yet see any just Cause to quarrel at this Term. For since the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another as we use in common Speech to distinguish Three several Persons I cannot see any reason why in the Explication of this Mystery which purely depends upon Divine Revelation we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth And though the word Person is now become a Term of Art I see no cause why we should decline it so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words V. Archbishop Tillotson's Sermon on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 19. Here then I fix my foot That there are Three Differences in the Deity which the Scripture speaks of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost and every where speaks of them as we use to do of Three distinct Persons And therefore I see no reason why in this Argument we should nicely abstain from using the word Person Id. Sermon II. on John 1. 14. p. 120. Q. You confess then that the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture However may these Unitarians reply Have you not found it in the Athanasian Creed And because the Church of England hath owned this Creed by taking it into her Liturgy that you may approve your Selves true Sons of the Church therefore say they you are resolved to Defend it V. Pref. to Mr. Milb p. 7. A. We assert Three Persons in the Godhead Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed but because the Scripture hath Revealed that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given This we verily Believe that the Scripture hath Revealed and that there are a great many Places of which we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds on which we believe the Scriptures And if there are Three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them what must we do in this Case Must we cast off the Unity of the Divine Essence No that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father That we cannot do unless we cast off those Books of Scripture wherein those things are contained V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vind. of the Trinity p. 112. Q. But is it not trifling to prove a Doctrine by Scripture which as the Socinians pretend is contrary to Reason It being a known Rule which I shall express in the words of Bishop Stillingfleet That Whatever speaks a direct Repugnancy to any of the Fundamental Dictates of Nature cannot be of Divine Revelation V. Orig. Sacr. p. 172. For the Law of Nature and of Right Reason imprinted in our hearts is as truly the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles V. Bishop Sanderson's Ser. 4. ad Cl. p. 78. And therefore since Truth is never contrary to it self is it not impertinent to prove this Doctrine of the Trinity by the Scriptures which is not only above Reason but plainly contrary to it A. As to its being above Reason which they are loth to admit any thing to be this I think will bear no great Dispute Because if they would be pleased to speak out they can mean no more by this but that our Reason is not able fully to comprehend it But what then Are there no Mysteries in Religion That I am sure they will not say because God whose Infinite Nature and Perfections are the very foundation of all Religion is certainly the greatest Mystery of all other and the most incomprehensible But we must not nay they will not for this reason deny that there is such a Being as God And therefore if there be Mysteries in Religion it is no reasonable Objection against them that we cannot fully comprehend them Because all Mysteries in what kind soever whether in Religion or in Nature so long and so far as they are Mysteries are for that very reason incomprehensible Vid. Archbishop Tillotson Serm. II. on Joh. 1. 14. p. 117. I desire it may be considered That it is not repugnant to Reason to believe some things which are incomprehensible by our Reason provided that we have sufficient ground and reason for the belief of

Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense V. Consid. on Expl. of the Trinity in a Letter to H. H. p. 4. Now what Reply hath his Lordship made to this A. This is a very bold Charge and not very becoming the Modesty and Decency of such who know at the same time that they oppose the Religion publickly established and in such things which they look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith V. Vind. of the Trinity p. 54. These words contain in them so spiteful so unjust and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that I could not but think my self concerned especially since they are Addressed to me to do what in me lay as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit towards the clearing the Fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion as they call it viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at by them V. Pref. p. 2. Q. 'T is a seasonable Service to the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that a Person so eminent for Learning and Prudence hath at this juncture undertaken the Defence of the B. Trinity But in what manner doth his Lordship propose to Defend it A. Without running into any new Explications or laying aside any old Terms for which he could not see any just occasion For however thoughtful Men may think to escape some particular Difficulties better by going out of the common Roads yet they may meet with others which they did not foresee which may make them as well as Others judge it at last a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for that purpose Why then are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them We had much better satisfy our selves with that Language which the Church hath received and is expressed in the Creeds than go about with new Terms to raise new Ferments especially at a time when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries No Wise and Good Men can be fond of any new Inventions when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them And it is a great pity that any new Phrases or Ways of Expression should cause unreasonable Heats among those who are really of the same Mind Vtd. Pref. p. 2. and 31. and Vind. p. 106. Q. But how can these Unitarians pretend that the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to Reason How and in what manner have they attempted to prove it What Grounds have they for such a Charge as this of Contradiction and Impossibility A. I shall draw up the Charge in their own Words Theirs they say is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible But wherein lies this Impossibility That they soon tell us Because we affirm that there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them true God and yet there is but One true God Now say they this is an Error in counting or numbring which when stood in is of all others the most Brutal and inexcusable and not to discern it is not to be a Man V. Hist. of the Unit. p. 9. n. 7. For we cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three We are most certain that One is not Three and Three are not One. V. Def. of Hist. of Unit. p. 7. So that here is an Arithmetical as well as Grammatical Contradiction For in saying God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost yet not Three Gods but One God a man first distinctly numbers Three Gods and then in summing them up brutishly says not Three Gods but one God V. Acts of Athanasius p. 13. Which is plainly as if a man should say Peter James and John being three Persons are one Man and One Man is these Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Is it not now a ridiculous Attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under pretence of teaching them a Creed V. Notes on Athanasius's Creed p. 11. This is their Charge And 't is very freely spoken with respect not merely to our Church but the Christian World which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward Kicking as for their Stupidity V. Bishop of Worcester's Defence of the Trinity p. 101. It is strange boldness in men to talk thus of Monstrous Contradictions in things above their reach But some have so used themselves to the Language of Jargon Nonsense Contradiction Impossibility that it comes from them as some men swear when they do not know it Id. p. 76. But that the Rudeness of these Unitarians in thus condemning the Christian Church may more fully appear let us proceed very distinctly to examine this matter Do you therefore First give their Objection its full strength and then through Divine Assistance I 'll return you my Answer Q. Are not Peter James and John Three distinct Humane Persons A. 'T is granted Q. Are not Peter James and John Three distinct different Men A. Who doubts it Q. Is it not a Contradiction to say That Peter is James or that James and John are Peter A. This likewise must be acknowledg'd Q. Is it not a Contradiction to affirm That Peter James and John being Three Men are but One Man And is it not equally absurd to Declare That One Man is these Three Men A. Sure I cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three But am most certain That One is not Three and Three are not One. But what of all this Q. Observe what follows Are not the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Athanasian Creed Three distinct different Divine Persons A. I firmly believe it Q. And if these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Gods is it not a Contradiction to say there is but One God A. To say there are Three Gods and yet but One God is doubtless a Contradiction But who affirms There are Three Gods Q. Doth not the Athanasian Creed A. No. That Creed expresly saith There are not Three Gods but One God Q. If you will not renounce your Reason I do thus prove it to you The Father is God There is One. The Son is God There is Two The Holy Ghost is God There is Three Are not here Three Gods Do you think me such a Fool that I cannot count One Two and Three A. Thus indeed the Unitarians do wisely argue But can these Men of Sense and Reason think that the Point in Controversy ever was Whether in Numbers One could be Three or Three One If

no means follow that if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which he cannot comprehend he hath no reason afterwards to Believe what he himself Sees This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing because it strikes at the Foundation of all Certainty and sets every Man at Liberty to deny the most plain and evident Truths of Christianity if he may not be humoured in having the absurdest things in the World admitted for true The next step will be to persuade us that we may as well deny the Being of God because his Nature is incomprehensible by our Reason as deny Transubstantiation because it evidently contradicts our Senses Id. Ib. p. 32. Q. As Transubstantiation evidently contradicts our Senses So these Unitarians pretend that the Trinity as evidently contradicts our Reason And then say they are not these Two Doctrines loaded with the like Absurdities and Contradictions A. So far from this that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is delivered in the Scriptures and hath already been explained hath no Absurdity or Contradiction either involved in it or necessarily consequent upon it But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is big with all imaginable Absurdity and Contradiction As the Unitarians themselves do acknowledge And therefore I am not now concerned to prove it Q. However you are concerned to defend the Trinity The Contradictions and Absurdities of which as these Unitarians pretend are as great as those of Transubstantiation A. I cannot help their Pretences But if their Prejudices will allow them to examine my Reasons I shall yet further endeavour their Conviction And that I may do it the more effectually I shall desire You as their Advocate and in their Name to produce those Absurdities which appear the most dreadful Q. I shall reduce all to these Two which comprehend the rest 1. How there can be Three Persons and but One God 2. How these can agree in a Third and not agree among themselves For the First it seems very absurd that there should be Three Persons really distinct whereof every one is God and yet there should not be Three Gods For nothing is more Contradictious than to make Three not to be Three or Three to be but One. A. I hope now you will give me leave to make an Answer to your Difficulty as distinct as possible It is very true that according to Arithmetick Three cannot be One nor One Three But we must distinguish between the bare Numeration and the Things numbred The repetition of three Units certainly makes three distinct Numbers but it doth not make Three Persons to be Three Natures And therefore as to the Things themselves we must go from the bare Numbers to consider their Nature We do not say that Three Persons are but One Person or that One Nature is Three Natures but that there are Three Persons in One Nature If therefore One Individual Nature be communicable to Three Persons there is no appearance of Absurdity in this Doctrine And on the other side it will be impossible there should be three Gods where there is one and the same Individual Nature For Three Gods must have Three several Divine Natures since it is the Divine Essence which makes a God V. Two Dial. Part. II. p. 24. But of this there hath been given so full an Account in this Collection that those who shall seriously and attentively consider it will I hope through God's Blessing receive Satisfaction Q. But yet you have not Answer'd the other great Difficulty in Point of Reason viz. That those Things which agree or disagree in a Third must agree or disagree One with the Other And therefore if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the Father If not then they are really the same and really distinct the same as to Essence distinct as to Persons and so they are the same and not the same which is a Contradiction A. Now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel because you say it implies a Contradiction Which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at But this terrible Argument is grounded on this mistaken Supposition viz. That the Divine Essence is no more capable of communicating it self to Three distinct Persons than any Created Being is The Reason of that Axiom being That Created Things by reason of their finite Nature cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one and therefore those which agree in a Third must agree together But supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Individuals it would be presently answered The Axiom did hold only where they did adequately and reciprocally agree and not where they did agree only in Essence but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence For where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible in the same Individual Nature the Agreement in that cannot take away that Difference which is consistent with it which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature Q. But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question and therefore this is a Petitio Principii or taking that for granted which is in Dispute A. I do not think it to be so where the Reason is assigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Nature to which there can be no Parallel And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians to send us to Created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment concerning a Being acknowledg'd to be Infinite Q. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite as well as the Divine Nature And therefore as Created Persons do take in the whole Nature so Infinite Persons will do the Infinite Nature A. No question but the Persons are Infinite in regard of the Nature which is so but if an Infinite Nature be communicable to more Persons than One every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self Q. If the Difference be on the account of Infinity then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence A. I answer that infiniteness of Number is no Perfection and as to the Number of Persons we follow not our own Conjectures nor the Authority of the Church but Divine Revelation which hath assured us that there is but One God and yet there are Three that are One. Which depends not merely on the Place of St. John but the Form of Baptism is remarkable to this purpose which joyns together the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost without any other distinction besides that of Order and Relation And it is against the Fundamental Design of Christianity to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religion And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love