A Defence of the Doctrines of the HOLY TRINITY, and Incarnation Placed in their due Light.  
In Answer to a Letter, written to the Clergy of both Universities.  
THat there is One is only True God, is most Frequently and Earnestly inculcated in the H. Scripture in both Testaments: yet doth the same Scripture give the title of God to Three distinct Persons: and to reconcile such an Unity with such a Trinity, is the present endeavour of many pens; among which some have been so unhappy, as to produce nothing but a more irreconcilable enmity between themselves.  
To avoid the undecencies into which the dispute hath lately transported (especially) Two great Doctors, I choose to follow a greater than them Both; who shunning the Elenctical way,) hath cast his sentiments into 28 Propositions; and I presume to build on upon his foundation. For it is easier to stop the mouth of an Adversary, than to satisfy an Inquisitive mind, desirous to see the Truth, not only Defended, but positively Established.  
I shall not recite all the 28 Propositions, supposing it sufficient to reduce them to this summary, viz.  
The name of God is used in Scripture, in more senses than one.  
Self existence is the first and highest of all Perfections: and in the highest sense belongs to the Father alone.  
The other two Persons derive their beings from the first, and therefore are not beings Absolutely Perfect in reference to their manner of Existence.  
The Only self existent may derive all other Perfections, but That of self-existence upon other beings; each whereof must have a right to the name of God in a sense next to That which is peculiar to the Father.  
If such Being proceed from the original self-existent by way of Natural and Necessary Emanation, they are Equal in all other Perfections: and it is so far from a Contradiction to say, they are Equally Eternal, that it is a flat Contradiction to say the contrary.  
This giveth the second and third Persons their due honour, without robbing the Father of what is due to him as the Original of their Divinity.  
To these Propositions of this judicious author, I add  
1. The Second and Third Person proceed from the first by way of Natural and Necessary Emanation: and when our Church speaketh of Generation, & Proceeding, she regards not o much Exactness of Expression, as the Capacity of the Vulgar; who else might take them to be Creatures.  
2. Spiritual Emanations are analogous to Corporeal; yet not subject to all the same laws, They come from their Originals, as Consequents do from their Antecedents, from which they so proceed, as still to remain in them, yet not as Parts of them: E. G. Let the Antecedent be This, viz. God is a being infinitely perfect. From This Antecedent necessarily proceed these Consequents viz. God is infinite in Wisdom, and ●. God is infinite in Power, Of these we may more Truly then Properly say, they are begotten or proceed from the Antecedent; yet are they eternally contained in it, nor is the Evidence of the first Diminished, but Confirmed, by the confident belief of the other two: nor (for the same reason) is the honour of the Father lessened by what is paid to either of the other.  
3. The same Being may have many Properties, which do not make it so many several Being's, but One so much the more Perfect, We doubt not but God hath many Perfections, whereof we cannot have the least Idea.  
4. All that we can know or need to believe concerning God, is comprehended in Three Properties. 1. Original Being is Father of All other Being's: This implieth Goodness, Mercy, Infinity, Eternity, All-sufficiency, Justice, etc. 2. A Perfect being must be a Thinking Mind, the Word is the immediate Issue and exact Image of the Mind, This Implieth Wisdom, Veracity, Omniscience, etc. 3. Goodness and Wisdom would be Useless without Power to execute; and the H. G. is the doer of wonderful works, and the mover of our Minds. This is Power, Providence the Sanctifier, Comforter, etc.  
5. Divine Properties are not Concretes, which receive their Being's by Participation from some Universal Nature: but are themselves That Universal Nature, from which all Particulars receive whatever Measures they enjoy. St. John, to express the Infinity of God's Love, speaketh in the Abstract, God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in Him: and if we will speak exactly, we must speak of all the rest in the same dialect.  
6. Concretes, which receive by Participation, enjoy only their Measure. But the Universal Nature is Immense; That which is but an Adjunct in Creatures, is Essence in God: and every Property is God Himself under its peculiar Idea.  
7. Though the Second and third Properties be not equal to the First in point of Independence, in a Physical sense; because they derive their being from him; yet they are so, in a Logical sense; because the First can no more be without either of Them, than either of Them can be without the First. We therefore do not rob the Father, when we adore either of Them, because we do not Separate, (though we Abstract) them in our Minds. Yea, some of the Christian Fathers have not thought it necessary to be exact, even in Abstracting: for they sometimes ascribe to One, such acts as properly belong to Another.  
8. The belief of such a Trinity is safe from Both Extremes. On the one side, it is out of danger of Tritheism, and on the other of Trifleing, But Three Spirits sound so like three Gods, as to affright a timorous mind. and Three Modes or Internal Relations make such a Barren Speculation, as cannot justly pretend to any place in our Devotion, or in That Scripture, which is therefore given by inspiration of God, because it is profitable, etc.  
9 If Those Three, which we have styled Properties, be capable to advance their substance to the character of PERSONS, we may safely communicate with our Church, both in her Creeds, because than they will be Three Persons and One God; and in her Litany too, because then, the Second and Third will not be either such slight things in Themselves, or so regardless of Us, as to be unworthy of our adorations.  
This therefore must needs be worth our enquiry; wherein we may the better hope for satisfaction; because it will not be matter of Discourse, but Fact, which is less subject to Doubts and Objections.  
PLato and his followers saw so much of the invisible things of God by the things which were made, as to discover that there must be One (and but One) Self existent being, which must be Good, Wise and Powerful. These Three Properties, they celebrated under the Common characters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Subsistence, Principles, Causes, etc. under their Respective ●●●es of 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Being, the Good etc. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word or Reason etc. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Soul.  
2. This plain truth they so sublimed as to multiply Mysteries, Difficult, if not altogether Impossible to be understood. For they still believed the Unity of God, but so discoursed of the Three, that they seemed to make every one a several God: Insomuch, that the Best and Wisest of all heathen Princes M. Aur. Antoninus said, I thank God that having such a passion for Philosophy, I did not fall into the hands of any Sophist, that I did not amuse myself in reading their Books, or answer the vain Subtleties of their Discourses.  
3. This Gnostick humour of the Sophists wrought in all ages: and Origen (thank him) plainly distinguisheth the Gospel into Sensible and intellectual; appropriating the Former to Children, and the Later to Adult and Exalted understandings. And another age (accounting it no less honourable for the Gospel, to exceed the discoveries of Reason (even in Natural Theology) than for Themselves to surmount the capacities of the Vulgar) so disguised the Doctrine of the Trinity, that as occasions varied, they sometimes Professed, and sometimes Denied it, to be the same with That of Plato.  
4. The Consequents were Lamentable, Religion was degraded from a reformer of Manners to a refiner of Wits, and filled the Christian world with Debauches and Disputes.  
5. The First most Cruel and most Durable contention was That with Arius, which was not ended when the Catholics fell into a controversy between the Greeks and Latins, concerning the title of the Three. The Greeks would call them Subsistences: This the Latins thought too much, and would not allow them to be more than PERSONS, And Greg. Naz. celebrateth it, as one of Athanasius' best performances, that he indulged to both parties the use of their own expressions.  
6. The Greeks therefore kept possession of their Platonic word, Subsistences, which being not Classical, needed to be explained. The most Authentic paraphrase was That of Justinian and his Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So the Geeeks never acknowledged the Trinity to be more than Three Properties in the Godhead.  
7. On the other side, what the Latins meant by their word PERSON, St. Ang. hath given us a full account, not of his Own private thoughts, but of the general sense of the Christian World. The word PERSON he saith was taken up for want of a better, that might import Tria quaedam, Three Somewhats, of which he could not give a clear Idea. And at the foot of the account we have this memorable Summum total Aeternus, Sapiens, Beatus, haec tria sunt Trinitas, quae appellatur Deus. Thus far we meet no other Trinity, but of Properties in God.  
8. But when Religion fell under the empire of the Schoolmen, the poor word PERSON was so racked, as to exceed Both extremes. When they will talk Mysteriously they so discourse, that if I can reconcile their Trinity of Persons with the Unity of God, I must be obliged to them for their nice instructions; if I cannot, I must reverence their more exalted apprehensions: Yet when they speak to a learned reader, they debase the word so low, that it shall not signify so much as a Porperty. The truth hereof is (perhaps) all that we can learn in the writings of the two angry Doctors, who with equal confidence vouch the same authority of the Schools; the one for three Spirits, the other for three Modes and Relations.  
9 All agree in This for the Definition of a Person, that it is an Intellectual Substance differing from all others. By the General, but most Irregular interpretation of This Definition, the Later half is utterly idle. For if every single Substance already differ from all others by its mere Existence; what means the addition of those needless words? It is intolerable in Definitions, to have the one half impertinent: but so it must be, if an Intellectual Substance and a Person be terms Aequipollent and Convertible, as some contend.  
10. Common practice supplies this defect. For it tells us that one Person differeth from all others, not by his single Existence, but by some proper marks, peculiar to himself: And since one man may wear many such Characters, he may thereby sustain as many Persons. Thus the great oracle of language saith of himself. I who am but One man, sustain Three Persons, mine own, that of an Accuser, and that of a Judge; and a very late writer of Animadversions on a Postscript, etc. makes his entry with such a frump, as intends to Ridicule, but effectually Verifies the Doctrine. The Doctor (saith he) or Dean, or Defender (no matter which I name, for They Three are One) Are they so? then what can be answered to these questions? Is not the Doctor a Person? Is not the Dean, a Person? Is not the Defender a Person? If the same Man may be Three Persons, Why may not the same God?  
11. The angry Doctor, that so frequently complaineth of the Church of England, for not engaging in his quarrel; and in every page pleadeth the Church, the Church, confesseth that his Hypothesis appeared first in the eighth or ninth Century: What a misery is it that we have lost so many of that Church's Doctrines! The Mystery of Transubstantiation! the worship of Images! the fires of Purgatory etc.  
12. God be blessed, Our Church is reform both from the Corrupt Doctrines, and Cruel Spirit of the eighth and nineth Century. In our present question, either she sits silent, or insinuates the same sense which we have heard from St Augustin. For in his First Article, wherein she stablisheth the Unity of God and Trinity of Persons, she nameth the Three comprehensive Attributes, Goodness, Wisdom, and Power.  
How this is to be understood, I appeal to the Church of France, which in the Sixth Art. of her Confession de foy, saith, This Holy Scripture teacheth us, that in this One and Simple Divine Essence which we have confessed, there are Three Persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father the First Cause, Principle and Origin of all things. The Son, his Eternal Word and Wisdom. The Holy Ghost, his Virtue, Power, and Efficacy.  
13. The Holy Scripture, by a Prosopopaeia, proper to the Time and Place wherein it was written, representeth the divine Properties, as Speaking and Acting in the manner of Complete, Intelligent Substances. Concerning the Second Person this is plain Fact in the First, eighth, and nineth Chapters of the Proverbs of Solomon: the Third is not otherwise a Person, than the Second; So the Consequence is indifferent to Both.  
The sum therefore is This, that as the former Classis of Propositions prove by plain Reason, that every Divine Property is God, so doth matter of Fact prove, that no Authority, Humane or Divine, obligeth us to believe more than this, that the Divine Trinity of Persons is only a Trinity of Properties.  
I envy not those Eagles, that can soar higher, and see more: my simple Ambition pretendeth to no more than is necessary to reconcile the Word of God in Scripture, with the Dictates of Reason; and the peace of my Conscience, with Conformity to the Church; which having obtained by the help of what I have said, I desire to communicate as far I can to those that want it: To the Socinians especially, of whom I have so good an Opinion (Errors excepted) that I should look upon it as a great Blessing, if I might help towards their Peace with our Church.  
BUT there is another, and greater Obstacle; and I must either leave my work half undone, or so represent the other Doctrine of the Incarnation, that Rational and Conscientious Men may apprehend it lawful to communicate with us, as well in our Liturgy, as our Creed. I therefore think necessary to add some Propositions concerning that Article also.  
1.  believeth J. C. to be his Saviour, must needs think himself obliged to pay him all the honour that he can think consistent with Scripture and Reason.  
2. The Scripture declareth J. C. to be as much God, as is possible for a Man to be. This appears from many Texts, particularly from the Words of St. Paul, who saith, that in him dwelleth all fullness of the Godhead bodily; and from those of our Saviour himself, who saith, God gave not the spirit by measure unto him; which import no less, than that God gave him as much Divinity as possibly he could.  
3. To determine how much God Can do, is more derogatory to his honour, than to say he Hath done more than he really hath done: For the later is only an innocent Error in matter of Fact; but the other, is a saucy confinement of God's Omnipotence.  
4. It is not impossible, or so much as difficult, to apprehend, that the Wisdom of God (which implieth his Purity) should unite itself to a Man without Self-Existence and Omnipotency: and so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be incarnate without the joint Incarnation of the Father and the H. G.  
5. If we believe not Christ to be God Eternal: yet if we believe him Deified in Time; whether we compute that Time from his Conception in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin (as some) or from his exaltation to the Right Hand of God (as others.) This will justify our Adoration of him: and since Practice is the only end of Speculation, we need not doubt, but our Gracious Redeemer will allow for our innocent failings in the Later, when we pay him his due in the Former.  
6. Though we adore him under the Character of the Son of David, yet we thereby intent the Person that is the Son of God, and our worship is properly directed to his Divinity, since That only can Hear and Grant Prayer.  
7. If these Propositions be true, then is there no danger 〈◊〉 communicating with our Church, both in Creed and Liturgy; but in departing from her, there is double danger of two great Sins, viz. Schism and Sacrilege.  
WHat I have thus said, I hope may convince the Socinians, that they may more safely Communicate with our Church, than trouble her Peace: and I need not speak of the other comprehensive side of the word to show how Two Natures may make One [Person] B because That Notion hath no place in the Devotions of our Church, and because it is exemplified in a paper very lately published in form of a Letter directed to the Clergy of both Universities, as to One Person, though the Author cannot imagine they should all meet in a consult: nor doth one of the Universities ever answer the Books which they dislike, but by a decretum to burn them. He therefore must write to them, not Conjunctim, but Divisim: and if so, must not take unkindly if any One answer the Request (shall I call it or Challenge) that is made to All.  
This I speak because I have lately learned, that some men call it spitting it in their faces, if a man write against their opinions.  
And Dr S—th employeth his talon of scolding at me for so do; and aggravates the crime, as therefore intolerable, because I never had any conversation with him; wherein he hath done himself the honour to profess that he wrote against Dr Sherlock, not out of love to Truth, but Malice to him.  
He is (indeed) so civil to my Hypothesis, as not to give it one hard word; and I shall this way also oppose him: for I shall not meddle with his Person; but against his Hypothesis, shall put this case, A Doctor, a Prebend of W. a Canon of C. C. a Rector of I. and one or more Sine cura's it W. and a Landed man, are every one a Distinct Person; yet All meet in one Man: suppose now it were possible for me to make All these Personalities as useless to him, as so many Modes, or Internal Relations; would not this more justly provoke his rage, than the harmless writing against his Opinion? Yet this is the consequence of his Hypothesis: For the notion of a mere Internal Relation, depriveth every Person of his Honour, by depriving the World of the Inte  
The Socinians cannot object to me the same heavy provocation: I have conversed with some of the chief of them (and that, very amicably) whom I believe to be excellent persons, and by what I see in them. I judge of the Generality of the Party: This I take to be so far from a Restraint upon me, that it is one of the reasons which induce me to endeavour to make them like myself; and in order thereto, if they be sincere (as I hope) I pray them to practise all their Objections upon their own Trinity of Humane Persons: I shall here give them a short Specimen of it, in answer to that Paragraph in the now mentioned Letter, which is the first after the Introduction, and containeth the Substance of the whole, that is afterward objected against our Hypothesis.  
In that Entry upon the dispute, (after some lines cast away upon proving the Absurdity of contending about the meaning of the word PERSON by its place in the Creed, which proveth its Necessity) the Author proceedeth to say that Those that pay the highest adoration to a Person have no different Ideas of God and a Divine Person. To this our Tally answereth, that those who honour Dr Sherlock most, have an Idea of Will. Sherlock, different from the Ideas of Dr, Dean, and Defender. And for a fuller and more formal answer I add, that the Idea may be Adequate, and so it will comprehend the whole of him; or Inadaequate, and so it may be restrained to any One of his Characters: So the Adequate Idea of God comprehendeth All Divine Perfections; but by an Inadaequate Idea, That Perfection of God may be contemplated in any Divine Property, which constitutes a Divine Person.  
To frame another Idea of God, (saith the Letter) it must be lower, and consequently Blasphemy against God. No (say I) it is no robbery to the Dean, to speak of him as Doctor, if we leave him all the deuce of his Deanery: Nor is it Blasphemy to consider any one of God's Properties by way of mere Abstraction, while we Deny him not the Honour due to him from all the rest.  
In a word (saith the Letter) if a Person be God, there can be no real difference or distinction between them, for no Being can be but itself; it is the same with itself, and distinct and different from all other: Yes, Dr. Sherlock may be the same Individual Man; though different from himself, with respect to his Different Characters; so God, etc.  
By this Specimen it appears easy to go through every clause of the Letter that concerns our Hypothesis. My great fear is, that the Socinians Confidence of Victory will make them reject all terms of Accommodation: Yet will not my labour be quite lost with Him, who accepteth Sincere, though Successless Endeavours, and hath said, Blessed are the Peacemakers.  
FINIS.