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
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.
made Flesh So that you see from the undoubted Testimony of the Word into what a second gross Mistake this Author is fallen when he affirms that the Three Persons do act separately ad extra as I have now made appear in that very Instance by himself given of the Son's Incarnation 3. As to what is further objected by him viz. That these Persons are so far from being one in a Natural Sense that there is not so much as a Moral Vnion between them that they have different Wills c. Answ This whole Discourse upon due Search will be found to be false and idle for whereas he tells us that the first Person viz. according to Trinitarians will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person and that his Justice could not be satisfied without it when yet the Justice of the Second Person can be satisfied without it How false is this Where will he find any such Trinitarians as say That the Justice of the Second Person can any more be satisfied than the Justice of the First without Satisfaction nay do they not tell him that the Justice of the First and Second Person is one and the same Justice Should they talk as he makes them they would be as ridiculous as he could wish them I must tell him therefore that the Act of being offended with the Sins of Mankind as well as the Works of Creation and Providence may as truly be attributed to one as to another Person and alike to all notwithstanding that in respect of Order in operating some of these are more frequently attributed to one and some to another Nor do we matter for his bold and impudent Scoff of the Persons being a Committee of Gods where sometimes one is President and sometimes another is in the Chair and that accordingly things run in each of their Names being well assured that the one great and blessed God subsisting according to his infinite Perfection in Three Persons viz. as Father Son and Spirit may and doth as Scripture teacheth for the Manifestation of divine Order in the Operations of the Three Persons and for the Consolation of his People appropriate in more special manner some of his great Works ad extra to himself as Father some to himself as Son some to himself as Spirit tho all the Three do joyntly and equally concur in all and this without giving the least Colour for Polytheism or Multiplication of Gods But he adds That the Son viz. according to us is so far from being of the same Mind with the Father in requiring Satisfaction that he freely offered himself to suffer even to Death to appease the Wrath of the First Person and still intercedes Answ We have shewn that the Son is of the same Mind with the Father in requiring Satisfaction and we shall now shew that he is of the same Mind as to the giving of it for when he comes to give Satisfaction does he not expresly tell us Psal 40. 7 8 Heb. 10. 7 9 10. I delight or I come to do thy Will O God yea thy Law is within my Heart Can any thing be more evident than that it was the Father's Will as well as Christ's that he should make Satisfaction And did Christ freely offer himself to suffer even unto Death before the Hands and Counsel of God the Creator of Heaven and Earth had determined this way of Satisfaction by the Death of Christ See what Scripture saith Acts 4. 24 25 26 27 28. And do not all sound Trinitarians say the same But this Author should consider what Trinitarians tell him that our Lord Christ hath an Humane as well as a Divine Nature that to suffer Death and to intercede are Idioms of the Humane Nature and must not be attributed to the divine Nature of the Son and therefore he should be cautious how he fathers his own false Notions on these And what if Trinitarians set forth God as offended with fallen Man by the Person of the Father God as willing to recover and redeem saln Man by the Person of the Son for Reasons before mentioned Must therefore God the Father and Son have different Sentiments about Man's Fall different Minds and Wills about Satisfaction and Redemption Nothing more false I hope it 's cleared fully that the Three Persons in these as in all other real Acts ad extra do joyntly and equally concur Obj. But it 's yet hoped by this Author that he can baffle Trinitarians by their own Concessions For do not these grant saith he That opera Trinitatis ad intra sunt divisa And he does instance in the Father's Act of Generation whereby he gave Being to Son and Spirit wherein they did not nor could not act And what greater Argument saith he can there be that they are separate Gods than that they act separately Answ Suppose that Maxim Opera Trinitatis ad intrasunt divisa such that taken in a right Sense it may be granted yet that wicked Conclusion he would draw from it That the Three Persons act separately and so are separate Gods does no way follow from it which himself if he would but weigh the Matter well would be forced to acknowledge for what if these Acts be divided this in a sound Sense imports no more than that the Divine Essence by its two great Faculties of Intellect and Will doth exert those two great Acts ad intra one of eternal Intellection of its self another of eternal Dilection which Acts yet are so divided that neither the one can formally be said to be the other nor the Essence as with the one the Essence as with the other nor the Essence as with the Act the Essence as terminating the Act this is so clear that no rational Man can deny it and I question not but the Author himself will acknowledge it And yet these Acts tho thus divided do not so much as imply as he must needs confess any real Composition in God much less separate Agents or separate Gods Now if we bring what hath been said to the Persons in the Trinity we shall find that however these Acts ad intra absolutely considered be those essential Properties or Perfections which are as communicable as the divine Essence it self yet if we consider them as Foundations of relative personal Properties flowing and resulting from these Acts as for example of that personal relative Property of Generation to instance in that which this Author doth instance in and which Generation doth include both the foresaid internal Act of the divine Essence and also the relative Property of God the Father resulting from it and giving Denomination to it then this Act ad intra so limited by relative Property is the peculiar Act of God as Father and not of God as Son or Holy Spirit even as the divine Essence it self absolutely considered is common to Three Person but as limited by personal Property is peculiar to one and now I pray where
whatever of Action it may import appropriated here to the Holy Spirit yet it is but like all other Actions ad extra common to the Three as we have before fully evidenced P. 30. where he may find what is here or elsewhere by him objected in reference to these Acts fully answered But. Quest. 2. What then does this Author mean in telling of an hundred Actions which the Scripture relates of one God and denies of the other two Gods Does he charge Scripture and the divinely inspired Penman of it with Polytheism or asserting a Plurality of Gods Answ To do him Right I think this is not his Meaning but that by one God he means the true God and by the other two Gods two made Gods such as truly are not God but only have such a Name and are falsly advanced to divine Dignity by Trinitarians whom therefore he charges as Idolaters yea as bad or worse than Pagans More Stuff of like Nature he hath in his 9th Chapter which tho chiefly intended against Dr. Sherlock and his Party yet towards the Close of it as § 93 94. he does bitterly inveigh against the others as Polytheists and Idolaters having a Creed not stuffed with so many Lines as Contradictions yea and when it 's evident as he tells us that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguished from the Son as two Men or Angels can be In his 83. § he adds these things are so frequently objected and so little Care taken to answer them be our Writers that I thought I could not do better than to represent those to you that we may if it be possible receive a full and satisfactory Answer And now I hope the Christian Reader may fully see what this Author would be at and I should not thus far have raked into the filthy Dunghil of his Blasphemies but to make a full Discovery of him and that even the weaker and more incautious Readers may now see him in his perfect Colours For such Conclusions as these are clearly deducible from his own Words and the most candid Construction that can be put on them viz. 1. That God the Son and God the Spirit when worshipped by Christians with Divine Worship become meer Idols 2. That those Christians who adore these or either of these as true God are as gross Idolaters as Pagans who worship Stocks and Stones and in some respects more vile than they 3. That all such as write in Defence of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of divine Essence are simple Persons fond of venting absurd and silly Hypotheses and Books and Creeds stuffâ—d with nothing but flat Contradictions and what I pray will follow from these Conclusions but that 1. All Christians in the World for many hundred Years together were meer Idolaters yea as bad or worse than Pagan Idolaters 2. That Idolatry destroying the very Essence of a true Church Christ therefore for about a thousand Years i. e. from the Time that Arianism was exploded by the Christian World till the time that it was broached anew by Socinus had no true Church Could any Pagan or Mahometan have disgorged the Poyson of a bitter Spirit against Christ and his Members at an higher rate than this But this Man pretends to believe Divine Revelation let me then expostulate the Matter a little with him Can he cast all this Dirt on Trinitarians and not on Scripture and the sacred Writers of it yea on Christ himself Is it only Trinitarians that say Christ is God equal with the Father and doth not blessed Paul say the same Phil. 2. 6 Is it these only that say that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father and doth not Christ himself say the very same Joh. 5. 23 Do these only tell us that Christ the Son is the great Maker Preserver and Upholder of all things and doth not the great Apostle St. John in the first Chapter of his Gospel and Paul in the first Chapter to the Hebrews say the very same Is it these only that say that the Son is the mighty eternal God and doth not the great Prophet Isaiah say as much Chap. 9. Vers 6. stiling him the mighty God the everlasting Father or Father of Eternity Or is it only these who pay that same Divine Worship to the Son become our Redeemer which they pay to the Father in Conjunction with him and do not the innumerable Companies of blessed Angels and Saints yea ten thousand times ten thousand of these with every other Creature in his Kind pay the very same Let him consult Rev. 5. 11 12 13. and he 'll find they do and must all these therefore be Idolaters Oh Blasphemy And as to the blessed Spirit is it only the late Trinitarians who acknowledge his Infinity and Omniscience did not the Royal Prophet David do the same See Psal 139. 7 8 c. Is it only these that declare him to be the true God the great Searcher of Hearts and did not the great Apostle Peter in the Case of Ananias who lyed to the Holy Ghost declare as much when he told him Act. 5. 3 4. Thou hast not lyed unto Men but unto God And did not Ananias to his Cost find it so The Author might do well to consider who it is he casts his blasphemous Reproaches on were it only upon a Company of poor frail Men who possibly may err this were not so much but to cast these on sacred Scripture on the infallibly inspired Pen-men of it and on glorifyed Angels who say and do as much as Trinitarians do yea and on Jesus Christ himself and on the Holy Spirit this is dreadful Before he had gone thus far he might well have considered what our Lord saith Mat. 12. 31. All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven unto Men but the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto Men or if it be not too late I wish he might yet consider it and repent He pretends § 83. that his End in writing was to receive if possible a full and satisfactory Answer from those learned Persons to whom he writes and what if such an Answer come from one sometimes Member of one of those famous Universities to whom he makes his Address Is not this as much as may suffice both for detecting and confuting his fallacious arguing and for giving ample Satisfaction if he have an Heart prepared for Reception of it However this be thus much I can sincerely profess that for so much of his Letter as relates to those Trinitarians whom he doth abusively stile Nominal and who indeed are the sound and Orthodox Trinitarians I have been so far from overlooking any thing that might seem to have any Weight or to carry any Colour of Reason with it that I have chosen rather as to some of his Objections repeated again and again in different Places under somewhat different Terms to give Answer again and again rather than suffer the incautious
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
one exist in the other it 's neither this Author nor any other Man living how big soever these may swell with Pride that can shew any solid Reason to the contrary and when once divine Revelation hath assured us it is so who is this Man that dare fight against God Will he tell us that he hath been in Heaven or beheld from all Eternity what God by eternal Acts terminated on himself can do or not do To hear a vile Worm so talk as he doth what horrid Boldness is it Were I minded to do it I could easily instance in several things about the divine Attributes as difficult to be explicated and fully resolved as any he can propose to Trinitarians about the Existence of three Persons in the God-head and what then must we because of this call those divine Attributes into Question And rather not cry out with the great Apostle Oh the Depth 2. How uncouth then must the Notions of these Trinitarians be when applyed to the Incarnation and Satisfaction or to the Spirit or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Persons Ichallenge him or any of his Party how highly soever pretending to Reason to shew the Inconsistency of these Notions when so applyed with true and right Reason or that any such thing as Polytheism as he vainly pretends can be inserred from them Indeed if one should grant him that one so often begged absurd Principle of his viz. That if God the Son be the same God with the Father then he must be the same Person with the Father or if he be God and yet a distinct Person that he must be a distinct God Then it were no wonder if uno absurdo concesso mille sequerentur But when he 's told by Trinitarians a thousand times over that the Son altho' he be the same God with the Father or the same with the Father as to God-head Nature Essence Substance yet he 's not the same with the Father as to personal Property that altho there be three different Personal Properties in one and the same God-head yet that same God-head as limited by one Personal Property cannot be the same as limited by a different Personal Property that is cannot be the same Person however it be in it self the same God head still And now I pray why may not one and the same God-head or divine Essence as it is with one personal Property be not incarnate as it is with another be incarnate as it is with one be unbegotten as with another begotten as it is with one receive Satisfaction as with another make Satisfaction as it is with one send as with another be sent He must be quicker sighted than I that can see any thing like a Contradiction here as if contrary Predicates were here affirmed de eodem secundum idem ad idem c. when it 's clear they are not So that his loud Clamour Chap. 6. P. 17. § 50. That this Supposition That On Ch. 6. Of real Trinitarians Note here I shall not concern my self with these and consequently not with this or the Author 's following Chapters further ther than I find him inveighing against the Orthodox Trinitarians each Person is the same God carries with it an innumerable Company of most obvious Contradictions such as he tells us he will instance in § 50 51. will be found to be but a meer empty Sound without any thing of Sense or Reason and all his pretended most obvious Contradictions vanish into Smoak as any Smatterer in Logick might easily shew him That which hath been said might I hope satisfie a judicious Reader and serve for Answer to such further Cavils and blasphemous Invectives as this Author hath P. 24 25 26 27. and P. 31. § 93 94. of his Letter not so much against the Trinitarians as against the sacred Scriptures and the blessed God Father Son and Spirit as revealed in Scripture but I fear his glorying if I should so much as seem to pass them over Therefore Obj. 1. As to what he saith chap. 8. p. 24 § 74. That none of the Trinitarians besides the Author of the 38 Propositions can say that any of their Persons is a most perfect God or a most high God or the only true God or supream God because there are two others as perfect as high as true c. will be found to be very idle and trifling if it be but considered that each Person in the most blessed Trinity is the most perfect high wise supream God because the same most high God with the other two Persons and neither a distinct God from them nor they distinct Gods from him as this Author doth falsly suppose and if each one be the same God with the other then each must be the most perfect high true supream God Object 2. As to what he saith § 76. of the same Page That Trinitarians do imagine that when Man was made there was a Consult of the whole Trinity about that weighty Affair and that one said to the others Let us make Man Answ The Author might do well to speak out plainly and tell us that his Design is to quarrel not so much with Trinitarians as with the Holy Scriptures themselves for the Words he quotes to quarrel with Let us make Man c. whose Words are they Are they the Words of any other Trinitarian save of Moses Gen. 1. 26. the infallibly inspired Penman of that Book or rather of the blessed Spirit himself as speaking by Mojes Our Divines I confess make use of this Scripture for proving a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the God-head and it 's a full and clear Scripture for that purpose but I cannot wonder at this Author if after his bold Attempt of stripping the blessed Spirit of his Divinity he proceed to that Height of Blasphemy as to make him speak falsly or ridiculously in Scripture Obj. 3. As to what he adds in the same § that according to the Trinitarians the Son as God really wanted Glory and prayed to the Father John 17. 5. to give it him telling us in a scoffing way it is strange that a most high God should want and beg of another to supply him Answ 1. It 's false that the Trinitarians suppose that the Son as God really wanted Glory they do indeed suppose that the Son as God being made Flesh or taking our Nature on him by his dwelling in a poor humane Nature during the State of his Humiliation had the Glory of his Divinity much obscured and eclipsed so that it did not shine forth with that Lustre as before otherwise the essential Glory was still the same and there was no want as to this but only as to its Manifestation which may very well agree to the most high God as this Author himself must be forced to grant if he will grant such a Variety of divine Providences towards the Sons of Men as make his Glory to shine forth brightly at some times but suffer
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
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
's our Author 's separate Agents or separate Gods necessary for Performance of these Acts ad intra when it 's clear that these Acts with the Terms of these Acts are only distinguished and divided as before amongst the Three Persons by relative Properties and where 's that Polytheism or Multiplication of Gods which he would so gladly charge on Trinitarians Doth his arguing here flow genuinely from the Doctrine of Trinitarians or only from the false Notions and Dreams of his own Brain Is there any thing in all this Discourse affirmed of God but what may be affirmed and what himself cannot but affirm of every Angel and of every Humane Soul save with this Difference that these Acts ad intra in the blessed God being infinite and essential are therefore generative and productive of Persons in the God-head when in Angels and Humane Souls where they are but finite and accidental they are not productive in like manner After all this when it is so evident from divine Revelation without which we should for ever have been silent that the Acts ad intra as they are in the infinite eternal God do differ in their Products so as Trinitarians affirm from those Acts ad intra which are but the Acts of finite Creatures and when this stands in no real Contradiction to Reason or the Light of Nature but tho transcendent to it yet when once revealed is found to stand in sweet Consistency with it I wonder what it is this Author would be at unless it be instead of subjecting himself to the written Word and divine Revelation to take on him to be a Controuler or rather scornful Gain-sayer of it As to his 79. § we have shewn before that Creation is the Work tho of one glorious Being yet as subsisting in three Persons and here tho we readily grant that there is but one supream Preserver and Governour of all things yet we must tell or rather let the Scripture tell him That this supream Upholder and Governour of the World is the great God Father Son and Spirit Son and blessed Spirit joyntly and equally concurring with the Father in this great Work and not the Father as separated from them for this see Heb. 1. 3. Is not the Son expresly said here to uphold all things by the Word of his Power Andis not the Saints new Birth Illumination Instruction or Direction attributed to the Holy Spirit Can any thing be more evident than that these glorious Persons do act joyntly with the Father in the Preservation of the Creatures as well as in their Creation How falsly then does he conclude § 80. That Creation Preservation and supream Government of the Vniverse demonstrate that there is but one Divine Person And that the same Conclusion in his said § 80. drawn from Adoration Love and Gratitude due to God is as false as the former I have fully before evidenced P. 24. As to his 81. § I must tell him 1. That all sound Trinitarians do acknowledge as fully as himself or any other that there is but one divine Being or God with a Power to know and do all things 2. That the Heathens were without Excuse for worshipping several 3. That for him to say that these Trinitarians do pay divine Worship to more than one necessary spiritual Being is a Charge so notoriously false that Satan himself could not have acted the Part of a more false Accuser But he tells us § 80. That it can no way allay our Crime to call them Persons instead of Gods since paying divine Worship to them does as much rob the only one of his due as if we called them so many Gods Answ Do we in worshiping Three Persons rob the only one of his Due when in express Scripture Language 1 John 5. 7. we profess that these Three are the only One and the only One is these Three viz. Father Son and Spirit If in that Adoration we pay to the Son and blessed Spirit we should pay it to them as separated from the Father excluding the Father from sharing in it he might have had some Colour for what he says but when the Father is not excluded but does equally share in it nay when we do profess that in all that Adoration we do direct to One of the Three yet we as truly include all the Three viz. Father Son and Spirit as making up the only one compleat and adequate Object of Worship the blessed God even as he who does sincerely direct his Worship to God as Redeemer does yet truly include God our Creator and Sanctifier will not his whole Charge be found to be false and blasphemous Calumny In his 82. § he tells us that not only Vnitarians but all Mankind that worship but one divine Being are greatly scandalized at those Christians that pay divine Worship to several and he beseecheth these to let him understand how the Heathens in their Devotions did or could do more to distinguish their divine Beings than these do by praying to each by himself and terminating their Devotion on each Answ If this Author have a Mind to be satisfied I hope I have said enough to satisfie him in this and to let him see that these Christians are so far from imitating the Heathen in their idolatrous Worship of more Gods that none but a Person grosly blinded with Heathenish Malice taking almost everywhere his own silly and false Hypotheses for granted Maxims and inferring his Conclusions from such Principles durst have ventured to have charged them with it Obj. But it is objected Do we not in our Creed expresly say The Son is very God of very God and how can we after that pretend they are the same God Answ Well enough for the Creed imports no more than that the Son is the very same God with the Father tho as cloathed with a different relative Property through eternal Generation he be God of God in such manner as is largely before declared Obj. But he tells us here there are a hundred Actions which Scripture relates of one God and denies of the other two Gods as God the Spirit descending in a Bodily Shape the Father and Son not descending Answ 1 Tho that Scripture Mat. 3. 16 17. does signally evidence the Truth of Three Persons who in Christ's Baptism did differently represent themselves viz. Voce Pater Natus corpore flamen Ave which made one of the Fathers say to one doubting of the Trinity Abi ad Jordanem videbis yet no such thing as a Plurality of Gods can be inferred from any Actions here performed To mention that which himself does instance in viz. God the Spirit 's descending in a Bodily Shape I suppose he must needs grant here that Action of descending cannot be attributed to God in a proper Sense and therefore supposing the Spirit to be God as Trinitarians say can only be attributed to him in a tropical Sense suited to any manner of conceiving which is ordinary in Scripture and