A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nominal and Real Trinitarians.  
Non Partûm Studiis agimur, sed sumsimus arma  
Consiliis inimica tuis, Discordia vecors.  
Printed in the Year 1695.   

Of the Nominal, and Real TRINITARIANS.  

The Distinction of Trinitarians, into Nominals and Realists; and the Design of these Sheets.  
IT will easily appear, to all that have seen the late Prints between the Trinitarians and Unitarians; That the Questions controverted between us, are managed here, on another Foot as they speak, in another Method, and by different Arguments, than in Foreign parts, or by the Latin Writers. Among other remarks that we have made and urged, the English unitarians show; That their Opposers do indeed all go under the common name of Trinitarians, but are (in truth) a great many several and contrary Sects. They all cast up their Caps, and cry, Trinity, Trinity: But the Ideas they have of the Trinity, and consequently their Faiths concerning this (pretended) Mystery, are so many and so contrary; that they are less one Party among themselves, than the far more Learned, and far greater Number of them (I mean hereby, the Nominal Trinitarians) are one Party with Us. As much as the Socinians are clamoured on, for (abominable, intolerable) Heretics; there is nothing more certain than that the Nominal Trinitarians, who are truly and properly the Church, and who are by much the Majority of Christians, are altogether in the same Sentiments concerning Almighty GOD, and the Person of our Saviour; that we are.  
This is one of the Points that I shall insist on, and evince in these Sheets: but I shall argue divers other Matters, these two especially. That the several Sects of Real Trinitarians are guilty of a manifest Tritheism, their Doctrine (necessarily and immediately) infers three Gods: and that the Nominal Trinitarians have causelessly innovated the Language of the Holy Scripture, and of the (Primitive) Church, concerning GOD, and the Person of the Lord Christ. I said, in the Language of Scripture, and of the ancient Church; for they have retained the Primitive and true Doctrine, only they have not kept to the Form of sound Words. I will speak, first, of (our Brethren) the Nominal Trinitarians; then of the Tritheistick Tribes, or Realists.   

Of the Nominal Trinitarians; that these are the Church.  
THE first observation to be made on the Nominals, is; that these are the Church; which I prove by two (incontestable) Arguments.  
1. Their Doctrine has been espoused by a General Council. The Council assembled at the Lateran, in the Year 1215, established (in the most ample manner, and most express Terms) the Doctrine of the School-Divines or Nominal Trinitarians; and condemns, in the Person and Writings of Abbot Joachim, the Doctrine of the Real Trinitarians, as Heretical and Mad; I use the very words of the 2d Canon of that Council. To this Argument, I must note two things.  
First, This Council was more truly General, than almost any of the Councils that are so called. Here were present 1200 Fathers; the Ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, the King of the Romans, the Kings of France, England, Arragon, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, and divers others: Here also were the five Patriarches, (partly in Person, partly by their Legates) the Roman, Constantinopolitan, he of Jerusalem, the Antiochian and Alexandrian; whose Presence (by themselves or their Legates) is supposed necessary towards constituting an Ecumenical (or General) Council.  
Secondly, Divines and Canonists do not give the name of Heresy to any Doctrine, because 'tis rejected by a great number of Learned Men, or by a National Council: but they reckon it Heresy, if it has been censured by a General Council, which represents the Universal Church. Be the mistake never so great, let it have been condemned by never so many Writers; whether Fathers or Moderns, or both: 'tis only Error, 'tis not Heresy, unless it has been Anathematised by the Catholic (or Universal) Church; and the Catholic Church is never understood to speak, but by a General Council; which for that reason is called the Church Representative.  
Briefly, Heresy and the Faith can be declared, but only by a General Council; the General Council at the Lateran (in Rome) has avowed the Doctrine of the Nominal Trinitarians, and Anathematised the Hypothesis and Explication of the Real Trinitarians: therefore, say I, the former are the Church; the latter are Heretics. I am amazed, when I hear some Real Trinitarians say in their Books; That the Doctrine of the Nominals never had any other public Authority, but the Creed and 2d Canon of the Council of Lateran: for what other equal Authority thereto can it have; is not a General Council the highest Court of the Church? Her Canons declare the Faith, her Anathemas Heresy. And what other Council ever was so General as this; in which were assembled, the Emperor, and Kings of the East and West, the Latin and Greek Churches, 1200 Fathers; and what especially makes a General Council, the five Patriarches of Christendom.  
What will the Realists say here; that this was a Popish Council? First, it would be News indeed, that the Roman Catholics are not Orthodox, in the Questions concerning the Trinity, and the Incarnation. It has ever been granted to them, both by the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Church of England, that they are sound in Fundamentals; in the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Satisfaction, and such like: their Error consists, in the Additions they have made to the Fundamentals; and namely, by their Doctrines of Indulgences, Transubstantiation, Worship and Invocation of Images and Saints, and the rest. And is the Greek Church also Heretical in the Doctrine of the Trinity? for in this Council, the Greek Emperor and Church were represented, as well as the Latin Church: nay, of the five Patriarches here present, four of them belong to the Orient, or Greek Church. When the Realists have turned themselves all ways, they will find themselves held, and even bound by the Authority of this Council; which is too Great and Venerable to be (openly, or directly) disclaimed.  
'Tis objected to this Council, by Mr. Spanheim, the present (Learned) Professor at Leyden; that they assented to, and published 70 Canons in 20 days Time; and that the Canons were not framed by the Fathers, but by the Pope. These are frivolous Exceptions, unworthy of so Learned an Historian: for 'tis not at all to the purpose, who contrived these Canons; seeing they were approved, assented to, and published by the Council. Canons are ofttimes composed by some particular Father in a Council; sometimes by a Committee of the Council, sometimes (as in the present Case) by the Precedent: but by whomsoever they are drawn up, they are not the Canons of that Person or Persons; but of the Council, when the Council has examined, approved and voted them. But Mr. Spanheim doth not find Fault with this Council, for their Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the Canons that refer to any part of that Article; but because it was convened, under pretence indeed to carry on the War against the Saracens, in the Holy Land; but really to raise a Crusade (or Holy War) against the Albigenses, and to confirm the Vassalage of John King of England to the See of Rome, against the Consent of the English Peerage; that is (in short) to enlarge the Jurisdiction, and increase the Authority of the Western Patriarch, or Bishop of Rome.  
2. My second (as I said, incontestable) Proof, that the Nominal Trinitarians are the Church, is, that the Divinity-Chairs, and all Writers, whether of Controversy, or Systems, have ever followed the Doctrine of the Schools (which is the Doctrine of the Nominal Trinitarians) and the Creed, and 2d Canon of the (beforesaid) Council of Lateran, in declaring the Doctrine of the Trinity. They all take it, as the Council-Schools and Nominals do, for their Foundation; That there is but one only and selfsame Divine Substance: and in that Substance, but one (infinite) Understanding, but one (almighty) Energy, and Will, in number. Which is to say, there is but one really Subsisting (divine) Person, or God is but one subsisting Person; though in a Critical or Classical Sense of the word Persons, namely, when Persons is used only for various Relations of the same really subsisting Person, we may say there are three Divine Persons. A subsisting Person is (by Confession of all) one particular Substance, having (one) Understanding, Will and Energy (or power of Action) in number: therefore God being (according to the Council, Schools, and all Nominals) one Substance, or one particular spiritual Substance, with one only Understanding, Energy and Will; he can be, according to them, but one subsisting Person, though he may be more Metaphysical or Classical Persons, that is, more Relations or Properties. This, I say, is the Doctrine of that Council, of the Schools, and of the Nominal Trinitarians; and it has always been approved and taught by the Divinity-Chairs, and by the Writers both of Systems and Controversy; therefore the Nominals, not the Realists, are the Church.  
I shall grant, that the real Trinitarians have on their side, the most (and most considerable) of the Fathers; reckoning from about the Year of Christ 140, and meaning those Fathers, whose Writings have been suffered to come down to our Times; and excepting out of the Number, the Party in the first Nicen Council, which some little time after the breaking up of that Council, were considered as the Orthodox Party, and the Church, and were persecuted as such by the Arians: But the Nominals have what is much more considerable, all the Moderns; accounting the Moderns from the Council of Lateran, or the Year 1215. Since that Council, Learning, and more especially Theological Learning, has not only been revived, but greatly improved; the later Divines have been better Critics, Interpreters, Philosophers, than the Fathers were; and the two last Ages only, have afforded more Hundreds of able Divines, than there were single Persons of the Fathers. Of the Latin Fathers, only St. Jerem would have been accounted a Learned Divine in our Age; and of the Greeks, Origen, Eusebius, the two Gregory's, Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and four or five more: had the rest wrote in any part of the two last Ages, they should undoubtedly have been reckoned among the Scribblers. The Nominals therefore, if you demand Authority, produce a General Council, not only establishing their Hypothesis, or Explication of the Trinity, but denouncing Anathema to the contrary Doctrine and the Realists: if you require a Poll, if you will be judged by most Votes, they have for them an hundred (far more Learned) Moderns, against one Father who can be cited for their Opposers, the Realists.   

Why the Nominals are so called; their Doctrine, and Agreement with the Unitarians.  
THE Church then, as I said, is unquestionably the Nominal Party; and this Party is so called, because as the Realists are denominated from their believing three distinct Divine Spirits or Minds, who are so many real subsisting Persons: so the Nominals believe three Divine Persons, who are Persons in Name only, indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person. This will appear by all more fully and clearly, by the account I shall now give (in their own Words and Terms) of their Doctrine, Hypothesis, or Explication.  
The Nominals are one Party in several Subdivisions; they must be called one Party, because their Explications so far agree, as really to leave but one God, and one Divine Person properly and physically so called. All the Divisions of the Nominals accord, that there is but one only and selfsame Divine Essence and Substance, the Divine Substance according to them, is one in Number: not, as the Realists hold, one in Properties only; which indeed were only a likeness of Substances, not an Unity. As the Divine Substance is numerically One, so (according to the Nominals) is the Divine Understanding, Energy, and Will; they are not repeated as the Persons are, but they are one as strictly and properly, as the Essence or Substance is one: Or more clearly, if it may be, thus; as there is but one Divine spiritual Substance, so there is but one (omniscient) Understanding, but one (omnipotent) Energy, but one (most Holy) Will. They allow indeed of three Persons in the Sense hereafter declared; but all these Persons have but one Understanding, one Will, one Energy in Number. Having laid this honest and sound Foundation, they take a Latitude, and without quarrelling with, or censuring one another, in declaring what is to be meant by the three Persons. One saith, they are only three Acts of God, whereby he is denominated after three several manners. On the account of his Creating, Redeeming, and Sanctifying Mankind, he is called three Persons: for (say these Gentlemen) a Creator is a Person, a Redeemer is a Person, a Sanctifier is a Person. If you reply, true; but one Person may perform all these Acts, and sustain all these Denominations: they answer, you have rightly understood them, for they intent not to say, there are three (Divine) physical or subsisting Persons, but three Persons in a Critical or Classical (or if you will, Metaphysical) sense of the word Persons. For instance, three such Persons as one Man, who happens to be a King, a Husband, and a Father, may be said to be. Every Body knows who is that Learned Professor that preached this Trinity, first in three Sermons to the University of Oxford, with great applause; afterwards maintained it with no less Approbation among the London Divines, in divers Letters by him published. The Socinians, not only never denied three such Persons in God, or such a Trinity, but as willingly avow it, as this Professor himself, his Learned Auditory at Oxford, or his Admirers at London. Why are we Heretics, while he is not only confessed to be Orthodox, and Catholic, but is esteemed as (a worthy and deserving) Apologist for the Faith? Why may not the Author of the Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius, or he of the Considerations on the Explications and Defences of the Trinity, succeed to this Professor in his Canonship, at Christ-Church? It cannot be denied, that could they but prevaricate, they might pass for as Orthodox, and as sound Trinitarians, as the very greatest and bitterest of their Calumniators: their Faith concerning God is the same, both for Sense and Terms; but the Professor, though a real Unitarian, and only a Nominal Trinitarian, can asperse Socinus, they (on the contrary) see no reason to disclaim their Friends and Partisans.  
Other Nominals soar high; they explain their Trinity after a very peculiar and surprising manner. The Father, say they, is the Fountain of the Deity, the Author and the Cause of the other two Persons; he is original Mind and Wisdom: who from all Eternity most perfectly understood himself and his own Perfections, and also Willed (that is, Loved) himself in a most perfect manner. No one will doubt (say they) that God always, or from all Eternity, perfectly understood himself: and 'tis Natural and Connate to every Being that hath Understanding, to Will (or Love) himself; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Self-love is an Affection naturally arising in intellectual Being's; 'tis the first Affection of such Being's, and adheres inseparably to them. But seeing whatsoever understandeth, doth understand by conceiving within itself an Image of the thing understood; therefore the Father (as hath been said) understanding himself from all Eternity, conceived within himself (from all Eternity) a most perfect Image of himself. Which Image, because thus conceived, and as it were generated by him, is called the Son; 'tis also called the Wisdom of God, his reflex Wisdom, because 'tis the Wisdom that resulteth from the Father's understanding himself, and his own Perfections. As God understandeth, he Willeth also (or Loves) himself: this second Act, or God's Loving himself, is the Holy Spirit or third Person; as understanding himself (or the reflex Wisdom of original Mind and Wisdom) was the second Person of the Trinity. To understand one self, and to love (or will) one self in created and finite Being's, are but only Acts of the Understanding and Will; but in God, we call them Persons. Though nothing can be more ridiculous, than this account of a Trinity; yet to purchase their quiet, the Socinians are content to wear a strange, and odd Badge. For Peace-sake, they will say with our Holy Mother the Church, Understanding (or reflex Wisdom) is a Person, and Love another Person; and these two, with original Wisdom, shall be called a Trinity. Indeed we could wish, that so grave a Matron as the Church, would leave off Trifling: but seeing for the main of it, the thing is true; for 'tis true, that the Father is original Mind or Wisdom, and he Understands, and Wills himself; we can bear with a little impropriety in speaking of Things. The Church requires us to say, Father, Son and Spirit, Trinity, three Divine Persons, but she declares at the same time, that the meaning only is, God (or original Mind) Understands and Loveth himself: it would be hard if Sons should contend with a Mother, about a few (uncouth, or ill-chose) Terms and Words, on which she (confessedly) puts a sober meaning, a Sense no way contrary to the Unity of God, or that there is in truth but one subsisting Divine Person.  
Well, here are two Explications of the Trinity, by the Nominals. The first saith, the Trinity of Divine Persons are the three external Acts of Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification; or God considered as the Creator, the Redeemer, and Sanctifier of the World, or of Mankind. The other saith, the second and third Persons of the Trinity, are indeed three Acts of God, but they are internal Acts, even his Understanding and Loving himself: So that the whole Trinity is original Mind (or the subsisting Person of the Father) Knowing and Willing himself; so these two Parties. But another Division of the Nominals tell us, the Divine Persons are not bare Acts of God, whether External or Internal, but they are three Attributes of God: Goodness, Wisdom, and Power, say they, are that Trinity which the Church teaches; and she teaches no other. But then, say I, 'tis evident again, that the Church and the Socinians are well agreed; for the latter, no less than the former, believe this Trinity; and the only Heretics in these Questions, are the Real Trinitarians, who believe a Trinity of three really subsisting Persons, three distinct Spirits, three (Almighty, All-knowing) Being's.  
But they are not very many, though they are Learned Men, that speak after these manners: the Schoolmen, and the Divines that follow them, and who more properly are the Nominal Party, deliver themselves in other Terms; though in the main, in what truly gives to them the Name of Nominal Trinitarians, all the Divisions of them perfectly agree. Because we litigate in the English Tongue, and contest these Questions only with English Writers; it will be fit to represent the Doctrine of the Schools, or the Party which (I said) are more properly (it may be) the Nominal Trinitarians, out of the late Books of Dr. S—th against Dr. Sherlock. They teach, that God or the Trinity is one (Numerical selfsame) Spiritual and Divine Substance, one (only) Spirit, one (solitary) Being. And though he is three Persons (by which, what they mean we shall see presently); there is in the whole Trinty but one (infinite) Understanding, one (sovereign) Will, one (almighty) Energy or Power of Action in Number. This one Divine inteltectual Substance, or really subsisting Person, is (at it were) distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes, or relative Subsistences: which Subsistences or Modes are so entirely Relative, that their very Subsistence is nothing else but their Relation; their Relation is not somewhat consequent upon, or supervenient to their Subsistence, as in created Persons, but is one and the same with it. These relative Modes being three in Number, are the three Personalities of the Deity; but the concrete and abstract Terms (namely Personalities and Persons) are but only different ways of expressing the same thing. And therefore as we describe the Personalities in the Godhead, by Relations; relative Subsistences, relative Modes, relative Properties, or such like: So we say also that every Person (as well as every Personality) in the Trinity is wholly Relative; that is, that which makes the first Person in the Trinity to be a Person, makes him to be a Father; and what makes him to be a Father, makes him to be a Person; so that (as we have but now said) both Persons and Personalities in the Trinity are merely Relations, or relative Properties of the one (selfsame) Divine Substance, Being, or Spirit. These three relative Modes, Relations, or relative Properties, in the Divine Substance or Godhead, are Innascibility or Paternity, passive Generation, and passive Spiration; in plainer English, to Beget, to be Begotten, and to Proceed or be Breathed: the first maketh the Person of the Father, the other two make or constitute the Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Sum of what Doctor S—th saith in his last Book, or Tritheism Charged, pag. 156, 157. Mr. Hooker (Author of the Ecclesiastical Policy) expresses this Doctrine, though not so fully, yet more intelligibly to the Unlearned, in these words. The Substance of God, with this property to be of none, doth make the Person of the Father; the very selfsame Substance in Number, with this property to be of the Father, maketh the Person of the Son; the same Substance having added to it the property of proceeding from the other two, maketh the Person of the Holy Ghost: So that in every Person there is implied both the Substance of God, which is one, and also that Property which causeth the same Person [that is to say, the Divine Substance with one of the three Properties before said, as suppose the Property to be of none] really and truly to differ from the other two. That is, to differ from the Divine Substance considered under the Properties to be of the Father, and to proceed from the Father and Son. Mr. Hooker then, as well as Dr. S—th, understood the Doctrine of the Schools and Church concerning the Trinity, to be this. That there is but one infinite intellectual Divine Substance in Number, which Substance is the Subject (if we may so speak) of sundry Divine Attributes, such as Omnipotence, perfect Goodness, consummate Holiness, and the rest: none of which Attributes is more than once in the Divine Substance or Godhead; there is in God but one Omniscience, one Omnipotence, one Holiness, one Goodness in number; as the Nature or Substance is but one in number, so each Attribute is but once (not thrice) in the Nature, or Godhead. But then besides these Attributes, there are also three Persons in God; not subsisting Persons, for that would plainly make three Being's, three Spirits, and three Gods; but three such Persons as in very Deed are but so many Properties, or Modes, or if you will give them any the like Name. Such Properties as Grammarians and Classical Authors (and after them, Metaphysicians) call Persons: for according to them, a Father is a Person, a Son is a Person, a Sanctifier is a Person; and whosoever sustains these three Relations (or any other the like) is by them called three Persons. Thus, for example, M. Tullius, acknowledges in every Man no less than four Persons; namely, first, The rational Nature, by which we differ from Brutes; next, the particular Properties (of Body and Mind) which distinguish one rational Nature (or Man) from another; thirdly, the circumstance, or manner of Life of each Man, as that he is a Rich Man or a Poor; lastly, The Profession that any one takes up, as to be a Civilian, a Professor in Philosophy, a Pleader, a Poet, or Writer to the Stage. De Officiis; l. 2. c. 30, 32. A Person then in grammatical, critical speaking, is not a subsisting Being; but some either (characterizing) Property, or some Relation, or State, of a subsisting intellectual Being: and it is of Persons, critically so called, that the Church would be understood, when she says, there are three Persons in God; she doth not mean three subsisting Persons, or Persons who are called Persons, because they are so many intellectual Being's. Dr. S—th very well understood the Doctrine of the Schools, when he notes; that the three Divine Persons are three relative Subsistences, but so (saith he) that their Subsistence is nothing else but their Relation; that is, they are mere States, Modes, or Relations, which (in a sense) subsist in the Divine Substance, Nature, or Godhead. Which indeed is to say, God is three Persons, as any particular Man, may be three Persons: for the same Man may be a Father, a Son, and may proceed from two others; namely, from Father and Mother. And though this is not the very manner of God's being three Persons; yet the ternary Personality in God is sounded on the same Notion and Conception of the word Persons: and that Conception no more destroys his real Unity, whether as a Being, as a Spirit, or as God, than that threefold Personality in a Man, makes him to be more than one Man, or than one subsisting Person. The short is, according to these Gentlemen, God is but one subsisting (or real Person: but this one (physical) Person having three (internal) Relations, is thereby three relative Persons; three such Persons as one Man (or one Angel) who happens to have three Relations, is. The three relative Persons no more contradict the Unity of God, than the theeefold Relation of Solomon, namely, as Son of David, as Father of Rehoboam, and as proceeding from David and Bathsheba, contradicts his being but one Man, or one subsisting and physical Person.  
It is well known, what Judgement the Real unitarians make of this Explication of the Trinity. Mr. How (because he delights to be civil) contents himself to say; the Real Trinitarians will judge, it is not Sense; View of the Considerations, pag. 50. The Bishop of Gloc. thinks it can have little better Success, than only to make sport for the Socinians; so he concludes his 28 Propositions in his 2d Defence of them. But Dr. Cudworth cries, 'tis the Philosophy of Gotham. Nay, Mr. How himself, though out of regard to so great a Party as the Nominal Trinitarians are, he will only say of their Explication, 'tis not Sense; yet he reckons P. Lombard, the supposed Parent of this Explication of the Trinity, one of the four Evangelists of Antichrist. Dr. Bull also, and the Learned Author (Mr. J. B.) of the Answer to Dr. S—th's Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock; say a great many bitter things of the Divines of the Schools, by occasion of this (senseless) Explication of the Trinity. These Gentlemen cannot bear it, that the same intellectual Substance in number, which is but only to say the same numerical Person, should be made to be three Persons, because of three (pretended) internal Relations, or a threefold Relation to himself, which he is (absurdly) feigned to sustain. They confess, that the same intellectual Substance, or subsisting Person, may be a Father, and Son, and may proceed from another, or others: but then these must be external, not internal Relations; that is, he cannot be Father and Son to himself, as is implied in the Scholastic Explication, because it supposes this Father, Son, and Proceeder, are really but one subsisting (or physical) Person, though they are three (and may be 300) Critical or Metaphysical Persons. If the Schools and Nominals said, God is three Persons, because of three external Relations, that is, three Relations to his Creatures: this might be understood, because the same Man may have three Relations to others, and is (on that account) called by Classical Writers three Persons, though now, and in the English Tongue that Sense of the word Persons is quite out of Use. But to talk of three internal Relations, or that the same intellectual Substance (which is to say, the same subsisting or physical Person) is Unbegotten, and Begotten, is of none, and yet proceeds from two; to make him a Father and a Son, when there is none but himself to whom he is either way so related: it is such piteous Trifling, as utterly destroys the Patience of the Realists that hear it; while others think that the Philosopher, who is said never to have laughed but once, might even have done it a second Time on this occasion. In very Deed, our Brother S—th has need of all his Talents and Helps, his Leisure, Learning, Wit, Courage, the Council of Lateran, and all the Moderns, to defend him against the insults of the Realists; who have here so manifest an Advantage, and are (for the most part) Men so able to take and manage it, that he will find at length, he has no way to rescue his Explication or himself, but by Recriminating; that is, by showing the as great Absurdity, and plain Impossibility of the Explication of the Trinity b the Realists.  
It may be worth while to inquire here, whether the Nominals do not know, or are not ware, that in very deed they are Unitarians, or (as some call us) Socinians? I am of Opinion they are sensible of it, and I ground myself on the express words of some of them, and those too the most esteemed: For example, Dr. J. Wallis, and Dr. S—th intimate plainly enough; that the Socinian Doctrine and theirs, is the same. Dr. Wallis answering to a Socinian, in his 3d Letter or Vindication of the Athanasian Creed, p. 62, 63. has these words. That which makes these Expressions [he means the Terms used by Trinitarians, especially this, God is three Persons or three Persons are one God] seem harsh to the Socinians, is, because they have used themselves to fancy that Notion only of the word Person, according to which three Men are accounted to be three Persons, and these three Persons to be three Men. But they may consider there is another Nation of the word Person, and in common use too, wherein the same Man may be said to sustain divers Persons, and those Persons to be the same Man, that is, the same Man sustaining divers Capacities. And then it will seem no more harsh to say, the three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are one God; than to say, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier, is one God: which I suppose, even to this Answerer [he means the Socinian, to whom he is there answering] would not seem harsh, or be thought nonsense. Here he saith these two things; 1. That three Persons when affirmed of God, are not to be taken as when we say, three Men are three Persons; but in that sense, wherein the same Man is commonly (he means by Grammarians and Classical Authors) called three Persons, because he hath three Capacities; as (suppose) of a King, an Husband, and a Father. This is the Sense, in which God is said to be a Trinity, or three Persons: he hath these three Capacities, of Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; and in that regard (or sense) is said to be three Persons. 2. That to a Socinian, this account not only will not be Nonsense, but not so much as harsh or uncouth. No one can deny, that the Doctor well perceived, that the Socinian Doctrine and his were indeed the same: a Sicinian, he says, would not be offended at this Explication of a Trinity of Persons; Person here not being intended for a subsisting Person, as a particular Man is, but for a Capacity only of a really subsisting Person. And whereas the Socinian Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity had said; if Dr. S—th and the Nominal Party believe but one Divine Substance in Number, which hath one only Understanding, one Will, one Energy or power of Action in Number, he is a Socinian or Unitarian; for in very Deed, this is but one (really) subsisting Person: Dr. S—th nothing abashed, with his usual dexterity and presence of Mind, answers to this effect; That so he believes, and so the Church believes, and that 'tis a good hearing, that the Socinians are come over to him, and to the Church, or fall in with him, and the Church. I cannot at present find the particular page of Tritheism charged, where this is said, not having made a mark against those Lines; but I remember well, that I report rightly the Sense of the Passage. His words need no Comment, they are a plain acknowledgement that (by that way of expressing themselves) the Socinians fall in with the Church, and with him. But whereas he saith, they fall in with the Church, as the Socinians are content, that in Honour to the Church it be so said: so the English unitarians (or as they call us, Socinians) claim it as their right; to be owned the first Discoveres, that all the Heats between the Church and the Socinians, have arose from this only, this they mistook one another's true meaning, by occasion of the canting un-scriptural Terms, Trinity, Persons (and such like) used by the Church.  
For it is most true, that though for Peace-sake we submit to the Language of the Church, as 'tis interpreted bby the Nominals; yet the Church's Terms are very improper: for the same single numerical subsisting Person (as the Church and the Socinians believe God to be) is not now in any Language called three Persons, by occasion of three Relations, Modes, or Properties adhering to him; tho 'tis confessed, the (Roman) Classical Authors so spoke.  
But whereas the Nominals, or the Church, since the Council of Lateran, that they may seem not to have departed from the Fathers, still talk of Trinity, Paternity, Generation, Procession, Hypostatical Union, Father, Son, and Spirit; on which (as we have seen) they put such a meaning, even those of them that speak most Harshly and Improperly, as no ways destroys the Unity of God, or that he is but one physical and subsisting Person; and hereupon the Realists insult them, as People that know not, or at best heed not what they say: the Socinians think 'tis even necessary, nay, a due Justice, to have more regard and respect for these their weak Brethren. First, We consider; that after all the improper Terms, impertinent Language, and unsignificant, and sometimes dangerous Words, used by the Nominals; all the Denominations of them agree at length, in this Sound and Orthodox Explication and Conclusion, that there is but one Divine intellectual Substance, but one infinite Spirit, but one subsisting Person of God. Secondly, The Nominals choose indeed to speak (almost, a Realist would say altogether) Nonsensically, and to retain the dangerous Tritheistical Terms of the Fathers, Trinity, etc. but this was, that they might restore the true Faith and genuine Christianity, without Noise and Tumult: the School-Divines, and Council at Lateran, reform the corrupted Doctrine of the Church, by only interpreting (soberly and dextrously) the Language and Terms, which their Tritheistick Predecessors had brought into the Church, into her very Liturgies, and Creeds.— So many Councils, so many Fathers, and from them so many Nations had affirmed a Trinity of Divine Persons; that to oppose this Doctrine, would have begot endless Strises, bitter Contentions and Persecutions: and after all, probably the Reformers would have come off no better than the Socinians have done; that is, with all the clear Truth they have of their side, and all their Dexterity and Wit in managing it, being overpowered by the numbers of the contrary Herd, they should have been answered with Penal Laws, and Sanguinary Prosecutions of the those Laws. They took therefore a Course that would do their Business, unperceived by the most; and when perceived by some few, it would not be hard to convict them of Tritheism, and explode them as Tritheists; and so de facto they served Abbot Joachim. And then getting their Explication (of the Trinity) confirmed by the Council of Lateran, they happily restored the public Profession (and Faith) of the Unity of God, by an Authority which none dares to contradict: for a General Council (as was before noted) is the highest Court of the Church; that last Tribunal (on Earth) from which there lies no Appeal.   

Of the Noetians and Sabellians.  
THERE is yet another Branch of Nominal Trinitarians, more ancient far than those yet mentioned; for about the Year of Christ 200, the Noetians, and but a little after them the Sabellians arose: both these said, there is but one Divine Substance, Essence or Nature; and as the Substance of the Father, Son and Spiirt, is numerically One, so consequently (said they) there is but one Person of God; Father, Son and Spirit, are but only three Names of God, given to him in Scripture, by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature. For in regard of the Creation, God is called the Father: he is named the Son, as he wrought Miracles and accomplished the whole Work of Man's Redemption, by the Lord Christ, in whom he dwelled after a peculiar and extraordinary manner; and who indeed was the Son of God, by miraculous Conception in the Womb of Holy Mary: He has the Name of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, from his omnipotent Energy or Power, by which he effecteth all things. In a word, the Noetians and Sabellians held, that God is but one subsisting Person; yet that with respect to things without Him, he may be called (as the Modern Nominals now speak) three Relative Persons: the one subsisting Person of God sustaineth the three Names of Father, Son and Spirit; which being the Relations of God towards things without him, he is so many Relative Persons, or Persons in a Classical critical Sense.  
And this too is the Explication of the Trinity, by that Party in the first Nicene Council, who contrived the word Homousios, or Consubstantial; by which they meant, that the three Divine Persons have all the same Substance: and this is the Party, which after the breaking up of that famous Council, and upon the sudden Prevalence of the Arian Faction, were persecuted by the Arians; and were considered by all others as the true Nicene Party, till about the Year of Christ 380, the Realists obtained that it should be said, that God is tres Hypostases, three subsisting Persons. Indeed there are several Commas in the Nicene Creed, very hardly reconcilable to the Sabellian Doctrine: but as there were three powerful, and almost equal Parties in the Nicene Council, the Arian Party, the Realists, and the Sabellians; the latter thought it enough, if they could procure Homousios (consubstantial) to be inserted into the Creed. For that ambiguous Word may be interpreted in favour of all those Parties. It may be interpreted the same Substance, the very same, or same in Number, and so it establishes the Sabellian Doctrine; or the same in Kind and all Properties, and so it countenances the Realists; or it may be understood of like Substance, and so it pleases the Ariani molles, the moderate Arians: though the rigid Arians in the Council would by no means admit of it; they rather chose to lose their Bishoprics. But when the Council was broke up, it was perceived by the other Parties, that the zealous Assertors of Homousios (of the same Substance) were all of them Sabellians; believed that God is but one subsisting Person, and therefore destroyed the real Existence of the Son, whom the Arians as well as the Realists took to be a subsisting Person, not a relative Person, a Respect or a Name only. And as the Arians discovered, that the Homousians were indeed Sabellians; so these latter charged the Arians and Realists as guilty of a manifest Tritheism, because they so interpreted Homousios, as to make Father, Son and Spirit, to be distinct, intellectual Substances, or subsisting Persons. Let us hear their own Historian, Socrates, L. 1. c. 23. After the Council, the Bishops wrangled about the word Homousios. Those that were for it, were censured by the contrary Party, as Sabellians; and were called Impious, because they destroyed the real Existence of the Son. Those that were against it, were condemned by such as were for it, as reviving Gentilism, or the belief of more Gods. And this Truth, that Sabellianism was then taken to be the Nicene Doctrine, or the same with the Doctrine of Consubstantiality, is owned by the Learned Critic H. Valesius, in his Notes on Sacrates, L. 1. c. 24. For whereas the Historian saith, That Cyrus' Bishop of Berea was deposed, for holding the Sabellian Doctrine: Valesius notes hereupon, in these words; that is, for the Doctrine of the Consubstantiality, or the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, which Council brought in the Homo-usiotes, or Consubstantiality.   

The Sum of what has been said, concerning the Nominals.  
THESE at length are the Divisions of the Nominals. They all agree, that the three Persons of God are not subsisting Persons; they are not so many distinct Lives, Understandings, Wills, or Energies, which (together with a particular Substance) make a subsisting Person, and if they are more than one, they make so many physical real or subsisting Persons: no, they are Persons in a quite different Sense, from that vulgar acceptation of the word Persons. They are either three Attributes of God; Goodness, Wisdom, and Power. Or three external Acts; Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification. Or two internal Acts of the subsisting Person of the Father; that is to say, the Father Understanding, and Willing himself and his own Perfections. Or three internal Relations; that is, three Relations of God to himself: namely, the Divine Substance or Godhead, considered as Unbegotten, and Proceeding. Or three Names of God, ascribed to him by the Holy Scriptures, because he is the Father of all things, by Creation; and because he did Inhabit and Operate (after an extraordinary and miraculous manner) in the Person of the Man Christ Jesus, who was verily the Son of God by his wonderful manner of Conception; and (last of all) because he effecteth all things (more especially, our Sanctification) by his Spirit, which is to say; his Energy or Power.  
Every one sees, these are very crude Conceits to be dignified with the Name of Mysteries: but withal the Reader is to know, that the Mystery is still behind. For the Mystery lies not here, that one subsisting Person is made to be three Relative Persons, or three Names, or three Attributes; or that God is called Father because he Created all things, Son because he Inhabited and Operated in the Son our Lord Christ, or Spirit because he is that Almighty Energy which effected all things: for all this, though very harsh and improper, is yet intelligible; and the manner of speaking in Ancient Times, did warrant such ways of expressing themselves, as may be seen in the Classical Authors, both Romans and Greeks. But it is Mystery, because (or, as) when you apply any of these Explications of the Trinity, to the Incarnation, the Hypostatical Union, or the Satisfaction; 'tis next to impossible, to make any degree of Sense of it: for how can we say that an Attribute, or a Property, or a Name, or to be Begotten, or any such like was Incarnate, or Satisfied for Sin? as also because the Terms Generation and Procession cannot, without most remote and ridiculous Subtleties, be applied to three Attributes; or to Understanding, and Willing ones self; or to the same Unbegotten, and unproceeding Substance; or to Creation and Redemption and Sanctification. In short, our poor Brethren the Nominals are here purely constrained and forced to call their Doctrine Mystery; because 'tis so hard to find a way, to reconcile it to the ordinary Forms of speaking, that is, to common Sense. Therefore here the Realists glory over them; here they have an ample Field, for Wit and Sarcasm to parade in: here they ask the Nominals an hundred malevolent pleasant Questions; to which they answer, by objecting Profaneness to the Questionists, and by the serious word Mystery. Moreover they (the Nominals) comfort themselves, that the whole Mystery (or Absurdity) of their Doctrine, consists only in the Terms [Trinity, etc.] which they are forced to retain, to preserve the Church's Peace; not in the Sense, or thing intended: for the meaning and Sum of their Doctrine, as they explain it, is; there is but one Divine subsisting Person; not more such Persons, for that were to say more Gods.  
Besides, after all the dry Bobs of the Realists, on the Nominals; themselves must take their turn of being jeered. For when their Explications come to be examined; and their Contradictions to, and Comdemnations of one another as Tritheists, are considered: the Nominals will seem to be profound Philosophers, deep Sages, in comparison with these their Opposers; and these Opposers (the Realists) such awkward, uncouth Rustics, that a great deal of Charity or Discretion must be used within one's self, to be civil to them. But I shall not consider their Persons or Doctrine, as the Nominals do; neither with Raillery, nor Anger, as the manner now is: but only as desirous to convince them, that they have as causelessly departed from the Doctrine of the Church, as dangerously.   

Of the Realists: that they are divided, into two Factions; which comdemn each the other, of manifest Tritheism.  
THE first Observation, to be made on the Real Trinitarians, is; not only that (as has been said) they stand Condemned and Anathematised as Heretics, by a General Council, and by all the Moderns, who are more, and more Learned than the Fathers; or that they are every day challenged and impeached of Tritheism, by Learned Men of the Nominal Party, and Appeals made to Universities, and the Divinity-Chairs, against them: But they themselves being divided among themselves, censure one another as manifest Tritheists. They are divided into many Parties, but all those Parties are again bandied into two principal Factions; that can never be reconciled to one another.  
One of these Factions saith, that the three Divine Persons are every way equal: namely, Coeternal, alike Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. Most of the Fathers, after the Year 380, were of this Persuasion: because they plainly saw, that to ascribe any Perfection, or degree of that Perfection, to the Father, more than to the Son or Spirit, is to say in effect; that the Father only is true God, not the Son or Spirit, because whosoever hath not omnimodous Perfection, cannot be God. And for this reason, they affirm, and earnestly contend; That any one of the three Divine Persons, is equal to all the Three; the whole Trinity is not greater, or more perfectly God, than any one of the Trinity is. Surely a strange Paradox, that one Third should be Equal, or Equivalent to the Whole. Yet the Modern Realists, the most hold this Opinion, as well as th' Ancients did.  
But the more Learned and Ablest of the Moderns, detest so much as the Mention of three Equal Divine Persons: for what are three Gods, say they, of three equally Supereminent and All-sufficient (subsisting) Persons are not three Gods? If they are Equal in Dignity and Power, as well as Coeternal; we can possibly have no other Notion of three Gods, but three such Persons. Therefore these Gentlemen suppose, that the Son and Spirit are inferior to the Father in all things; but only this, that they are Coeternal with him: they are Subordinate to him, Dependent on him; and are Omnipotent (and the rest of the Divine Attributes) not ad intra, or of themselves, but only as he concurs with them to all their Actions. Episcopius (Instit. l. 4. c. 32.) and Dr. Cudworth (Intellec. System, pag. 603, 604.) largely defend this Opinion; and condemn those of undeniable Tritheism, who make the Son and Spirit to be equal to the Father. But to know the Writers, who believe the equality of the Son and Spirit with the Father, from those that deny it; this Rule most commonly will serve. They that say the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (God of himself, and Independent) generally hold the absolute Equality of all the three Persons; and that one Person of the Trinity, is equal to the whole Trinity: for if he were not, they plainly, see, he could not be perfect God; for something would be wanting to him, that is found in the whole Trinity. But those that deny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do (more commonly) make the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father; not only in Dignity, but in all other Respects: but these, though they ground themselves on the Authority of the Nicene Creed (which in direct opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or God of himself, affirms, the Son is God of God, that is, God of, or from the Father) seldom care to speak plain, that they may avoid giving Offence.  
Let us consider the Arguments, with which these two Factions of Realists attack one another: and what effectual use the Nominals make of those very Arguments, to ridicule and destroy both Parties, and their common Principle or Foundation, namely this; that the Divine Persons are subsisting Persons, not Persons, but only critically so called.   

By what Arguments the Parties of Realists, attack and oppose each the other; and what (effectual) Use, the Nominals make of this Contention.  
FIRST, say they who affirm the Equality; if the Son and Spirit are Subordinate in Dignity and Authority, and inferior in Power and other Divine Attributes: it seems self-evident, that either the Father only must be said to the truly God, because he only hath omnimodous Perfection, and in the highest Degree; or that there is one Great God, and two Inferior or lesser ones. To this, they that maintain the Inequality of the three Persons, answer; by retorting the Argument, thus: If the Divine Persons are equal, then there are three Omnipotents, and three Omniscients; which is the very Notion of three Gods, and is denied in terminis (or expressly) by the Athanasian Creed, which saith, not three Almighty's, but one Almighty, etc.  
But was it ever heard, since the Creation of things, say (the common Enemy to both) the Nominals; that two contending erroneous Parties, did more effectually ruin one another's common Mistake? For as 'tis self-evident on the one Hand, that it being the very Definition of God (the Notion that all Men have of him) that he is a Being Omnimodously (or absolutely) Perfect; therefore if the Son or Spirit want some Perfections, or some degree of Perfection, neither of them can be God, but the Father only: So on the other hand, 'tis noless incontestable: that three Distinct, and (really) subsisting Persons, each of which possesses all Perfections, and every degree of those Perfections, must (of necessity) be three Gods. Why do not these unhappy Men, say the Nominals, see; that three Almighty's, and three Omniscients, are most certainly three Gods: and that on the contrary, if only one of them is (internally and verily) Almighty, as well as Superior in Dignity to the other two; he only is true God, they are Gods only by Courtesy and Civility of Speech? Do not the two contrary Arguments of these unlucky Reasoners, make a Dilemma; that overthrows their common Foundation, even this, that the Persons of the Trinity are subsisting Persons? Have they not shown us, how to argue successfully against them both; for we learn from themselves, to say: either the (imagined,) subsisting Persons of their Trinity are equal, or not equal; if equal, they must be three Gods, because nothing is wanting to any of them toward making him a perfect God; if unequal, only one of them is properly and truly God, the other two by Civility and Courtesy only; they may be Gods to those that have a mind to compliment, but wanting some Perfections, or some Degrees of Perfection, neither of them can be God in a Theological or Philosophical Sense. But the Pleasure and Sport of the Nominals increases, when the Realists seek to extricate themselves from these Noozes. For example.  
The Realists that are for the Equality, say; Father, Son, and Spirit, though omnimodously Perfect (and subsisting) Persons, are one God, by their mutual Concord and Agreement: So also Origen, and other Antenicenes, make out the Unity of God in a Ternary of Persons; though they did not believe the Equality. To this, the Nominals answer; the (supposed) Divine subsisting Persons are hereby loving Friends; which is a good Hearing, for should three Almighty's fall out, what would the World do? but if they are not only distinct, but subsisting Persons, they are as much three Gods, in a proper and natural Sense, as if they were never so much at odds; Concord doth not make a Real or Physical Unity, which is the Unity of God, but only a Moral Unity, or such as is between Friends or Allies.  
Other Realists, almost all the Moderns, see, and confess this; therefore they say, their Gods are one; because they are in one another. But say the Nominals, God is in his Creatures, more especially in the Faithful, and they in him; as our Saviour himself witnesses: are they thereby all but one God? is the Creature deified by being in God, and he in us?  
No, no, say others; but the Divine Persons who are thus in one another, have like Substances, Natures, and Properties: which cannot be said of God and the Creatures. Admirable again, cry the Nominals; but remove this one Scruple. If these resembling Gods, are so united in their Substances, or so in one another; that their Substances are continuous, like the Parts of the same Angel, or like the (assignable) Parts of the same Divine Person, 'tis plain that by such an Union (or mutual Immeation) of their Parts, they are become but one (subsisting) Person in number, which is what the Nominals and Socinians contend for: but if they are only so united, or so in one another, that their Parts are only Contiguous, like Wine and Oil shook together, and yet never incorporating; this is but only Contact and Juxta-position, and doth not make the three Persons to be one, much less one God, any more than all the Men in a close Crowd are one Man, or than the Wine and Oil (before-said) are one Substance. In a word, say the Nominals, who sees not; that the three Divine subsisting Persons, having like Substances or Properties, or what is all one, like Natures, are but only Gods resembling one another? and whether they be in at out of one another, likes are never the same.  
'Tis well; but it may be, they have better luck, who say the Divine Persons are not equal; but the Second and Third are subordinate in Authority, and inferior in their Perfections. The Objection. against them, is; that hereby, either the second and third Persons, are neither of them God, but only the First: or here is one great God, and two lesser. They reply, that as a Father and his two Sons, are one Master of the Family; though the Authority and Power is in the Father, and only secondarily derivatively, and less absolutely in the Sons: So Father, Son, and H. Spirit are one God, because the two latter (though subject and inferior to the former) have like Authority and Power with him, for that he always concurs with them. But the Nominals cry; this is not one God, in a Physical or Natural Sense, but only in a Political: and that the (supposed) Father of the Family and his two Sons, may as well be said to be one Man; as one Master, For in very Deed, only the Father is Master; though he delegates Authority and Power to his Children, during his Pleasue: or if Power and Authority is absolutely and irrevocably conferred on them, they are as much Masters as he; and there is no longer one Master, but three.  
Secondly, Another Argument of. those that contend for the Equality, is; if the Son and Spirit are unequal to the Father, and he only hath omnifarious Perfection, with all degrees of those Perfections: then the two former are very unnecessarily superadded to the latter; he is perfect God without them, they add nothing to him; we can understand them but only as Foils to set off, and to recommend. his Perfections.  
This Reasoning also is retorted, by them that hold the inequality of the Persons in the (supposed) Trinity: for they reply; if there are three equally perfect (Divine) subsisting Persons, two of them are redundant, or more than needs. If we suppose them, say these Gentlemen, unequal, we leave but one God; because the Second and Third are God but only as they are united to the First, by his Concurrence with them, and by their Subordination and Subjection to him: but if we say, they are equal; here are two unnecessary Persons supposed not only without any cause for it, for any one of these absolutely perfect Persons is sufficient for himself, and for the Creation; but the Unity also of God, the first and most important Article of Revealed Religion, is lost, because it cannot be imagined, but That three (subsisting) absolutely perfect Persons must be as truly three Gods, as one such Person (which no Body will deny) is one God.  
Here again the Nominals see, and take their Advantage: 'tis well, very well argued, Gentlemen, say they, on both sides. For 'tis so true, as not to be questioned; that if the subsisting Persons which you have imagined, are unequal, and only one of them is All-sufficient, for himself, and for the Creation: the two impotent Persons are but dead Weights; of no use, but only that the other may be the better pleased at his own Perfection, when compared with their Littleness. And 'tis true again, what the other Party says; that of three subsisting All-sufficient Persons, two are not only redundant, but take away the Unity of God: for if 'tis true, that one such Person is a perfect God, three of them (for that very Reason) must be three perfect Gods. Why do you not perceive, say the Nominals to the Realists, that your own Arguments destroy your Hypothesis? one perfect Person and two imperfect Persons are indeed one God, but the whole Godhead than is in the perfect Person, as We and the Socinians contend: and three (subsisting) absolutely perfect Persons are a Trinity, not only of Persons, but (because each of them is absolutely Perfect) of Gods. O strange Inadvertence, say these Gentlemen! that Men should not see, that one perfect Person is alone a (most) complete God, and is not helped to be more so, by the addition of two Imperfects: and that three perfect (subsisting) Persons either are three Gods, or one cannot be one God; but one perfect Person is the very Definition of God, dictated to us by Natural Light.  
Again, Thirdly; Say they that hold the Equality of the Persons. If the second and third Persons are inferior in Power, and other Divine Attributes, and Subordinate in Dignity and Authority; they must be infinitely Inferior, and infinitely Subordinate; for whatsoever is short of infinite Perfection, is infinitely short of it: for if a Perfection is not Infinite, 'tis but only Finite, which is infinitely short of Infinite; as all both Philosophers and Divines agree. Let us apply this, to the (supposed) subsisting Divine Persons: if the Second and Third are less Perfect than the First, they are (for that Reason) but finitely Perfect, and consequently are infinitely short of the Perfection of the First. But will you say, in the hearing of sober and descerning Persons; that a finite Perfection or Person is God? God, say the Party that hold the Inequality; but if it is so certain (as you take it to be) that two less perfect Being's can neither of them be God, but only an absolutely perfect Person: it will follow however, from this very Reasoning, that three perfect Persons are three Gods. Because for that very Cause, why you affirm, that of two less perfect Persons, neither of them can be God; you must say, three perfect Persons are three Gods: for the weight of your Argument, laying in this Supposition, That only a perfect Person, and every such Person, is a perfect God; you must either give up that, or own that your whole Reasoning is Impertinent and Null.  
The Nominals turn also this Concertation against the common Hypothesis of both these Parties of Realists. How well, say they, and surely is it argued by the former; that Persons less than absolutely Perfect, are (of necessity) but finitely Perfectly, and consequently cannot be Gods, or God? and 'tis as sound urged; that if this be a good Reasoning, if imperfect Persons cannot be Gods or God, and a perfect Person is, than three or more perfect Persons must be more Gods: because as Imperfection or less Perfection denies Godhead; so the omnimodous absolute Perfection of Persons, must make so many Gods as there are such Persons.  
But hitherto of the first Observation on the Realists; that the two grand Factions of them, and which include all their lesser Parties, condemn one another of Tritheism: and that the Church, or Nominal Trinitarians, turn the Arguments of the contending Parties of Realists, against them and the Principle for which they strive; namely, That the Persons of the Trinity are subsisting Persons; when indeed 'tis only God that really subsists, the Persons of the Godhead are only Persons critically so called, that is, they are only Relative Subsistences, they are but only the internal Relations of God to himself, or his external (threefold) Relation to his Creatures.   

That the Realists themselves do not dissemble their Tritheism.  
MY next Observation on them, is; That themselves do (sometimes almost openly, and explicitly.) own and profess their Tritheism; both the Ancients, and Moderns; both those that hold the Equality of Persons, and those that deny it. Let us take some Examples, of this.  
Arnobius calls the Father, and in contradistinction to the Son, Deum Principem, the principal God; he calls the Son, Deum ex Principis Dei jussione loquentem, The God who speaks by the Commandment of the chief God. l. 2. p. 81. But can it ever be avoided; that a principal God, and a less principal God, who speaks only by command from the chief God, are too Gods?  
Justin Martyr calls the Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God who is Servant, to God the maker of all things. Dialog. cum Tryph. pag. 279. Are not God the Servant, and the God to whom he is Servant, most certainly two Gods? do not these Predications manifestly suppose and imply them to be distinct Gods: can the same God in number, be said to be Servant and Lord; and that too (as they speak) ad Idem, or ad Eundem, with respect to the same thing or to himself?  
But Origen yet more expressly; we call the Son, the second God. Cont. Cells. l. 5. p. 258. And again, the first God (or the Father) worketh not; no nor properly speaking doth the (Son or) second God. Cont. Cells. l. 6. p. 318. Shall not a first and a second God be allowed to be two Gods; could this Father more plainly declare his Tritheism?  
I grant, that Origen and all the Ante-Nicens, were such Realists, as held the Inequality of the three Divine Persons; but still they believed them to be so many Gods. Origen was is much of Opinion, that the Son is inferior to the Father; that (with Arius) he will not allow him to be truly Co eternal, but only the oldest of the Creatures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he, contr. Celf. l. 5, p. 257.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he is so far from thinking that the Son is Almighty; that he every where denies that he may be Prayed to: except only as to a Mediator, who (saith he) is to Pray with us, and for us. Origen's first and 2d Books concerning Prayer, have so many Arguments directed against Praying to any but the Father; and particularly that we should not Pray to the Son, he calls them Fools that do: that it well appears indeed, he held Father and Son to be subsisting Persons, as the Realists do; and that he durst say, there are two Gods, a first and a second God: but yet that in Truth, the Supreme Divinity (or true Divinity) is in the Father only. Which also is the Opinion of all the Ante-Nicens, and was the Doctrine that Arius (afterwards) maintained: with whom, those Modern Realists who hold the Inequality, do (almost) wholly symbolise; it may be said, that most of those who hold the Inequality of the supposed three Divine (subsisting) Persons, perfectly agree with the Ariani molles, the moderate Arians.  
But here comes one, that will make all the World to know the inmost thoughts of the Realists; he perfectly (and in terms) discovers their Secret. 'Tis St. Basil, called by his Party of Realists (who hold the Inequality) Basilius Magnus, Basil the Great, To those, (saith this bold Man) who accuse us, as holding three Gods; we answer: God is not one, in Number, but only in Nature. He means, as the Nature of Man, namely, the common Humanity, is one; but there are many particular Men, Peter, James, John, etc. So the Nature of God, or the common Divinity is one; but there are as truly more Gods in number, or more particular Gods, as there are more particular Men; Father, Son and Spirit are each of them as truly a God, as Peter, James and John, are each of them a particular Man. This famous Passage is to be found in Basil's 141st Epistle, ad Caesarienses. Again (Adu. Eunom.) In the Number and in the Properties, there is a Diversity or Multiplicity; in the Properties by which each Divine Person is characterised, we believe a Diversity; and an Unity, only in what makes the Deity. i.e. In the Divine Attributes, that are common to all the three Divine Persons: for each Person has Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence, perfect Goodness; which Attributes make the Deity, as Rationality and Risibility make the Humanity. Basil then held; that to this Question, how many Gods, it must be answered: three Gods in Number, or three Personal Gods, and one in Nature or Divine Properties. Which is to say; in very Deed, three Gods: but yet Gods so resembling one another, that from the sameness of their Attributes or Essential (not Personal) Properties, they may be called one God; even as all Men, or Mankind from the sameness of their Nature, namely, the Rational, are in common speech often times called Man. Which Comparison, or Explication of their Meaning and Doctrine, is often used by St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nyssen; the Patriarches and Founders of those Realists, who affirm the Equality of the (supposed) Divine subsisting Persons.  
As for the Modern Realists, they are only some late Writers of our own Nation; the first and chief is Dr. Cudworth, after him followed Dr. Bull: then Dr. Sherlock, my Lord the Bishop of Gloucester, Mr. How, Mr. Milbourn, Mr. J.B. in his late (Learned and Bitter.) Answer to Dr. S—th. Some of these are for the absolute Equality of the Divine Persons, in all Essential Attributes; such as Power, Wisdom, Omnipresence: but some, as Dr. Cudworth especially, will allow the Son and Spirit to be equal in nothing to the Father, but only that they are Coeternal; and by this, he thinks, he sufficiently acquits himself of Arianism. But both Parties most openly avow their Tritheism; and that many ways. By saying; there are three infinite Spirits, three Omniscient Minds, three Divine intellectual Substances; three Divine Persons as really Subsisting, and as truly Distinct and divers, as three Angels or three Men are. Again, by their Explication of the Possibility, and the Manner, of an Unity in Trinity. Some of them saving; three subsisting Divine Persons are one God, by a certain most close Unition of their Substances; Others, by mutual Consciousness, of one another's Thoughts and Actions; or because, besides their having like Substances and Properties, they are also in one another. They see nor, what 'tis marvellous Men of their Sense should not see; that several subsisting Persons each of which is a perfect God, three Almighty's, three Omniscients, whether Conscious, or not Conscious to one another, whether in or out of one another, whether agreeing or at odds, none of these Foreign Considerations can so alter the Case, but that all Three must as truly be three perfect Gods, as each of them (is confessed) to be one perfect God.  
But let us hear Mr. J. S. in his late Answer to Dr. S—th's Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock. For as this Gentleman is well skilled in these Questions; so he delivers his Mind without much Reserve: he seems not to be afraid, to say what he thinks; because 'tis so certain, that the Fathers (after the Year 380.) were in the very same Sentiments concerning the Trinity; namely, that the Persons of the Trinity are really distinct and subsisting Persons, and equally have all Divine Perfections, in the highest Degree. He faith, pag. 141. Each distinct Divine Person, is as completely and perfectly God; as each distinct Angdical Person is a complete perfect Angel. He demands at pag. 75. Will the Animadverter (Dr. S—th) deny; that one Divine Person is one God? I will answer for Dr. S—th. 'Tis Heresy, to say; that the Persons of the Trinity are as distinct, as three Angelical Persons: for Angels or Angelical Persons are distinguished in their Substances, and have so many several Understandings, Wills and Energies; but in all these Respects, the Persons of the Trinity are not distinct, but are (Identically) the same. Nor is one Person of the Trinity as completely and perfectly God; as an Angelical Person is completely and perfectly an Angel: for one Angelical Person is a complete and perfect Angel; but all three Persons of the Trinity, and not one only, are necessary to complete the Notion and due Conception of one God. Therefore to his Question, Is not one Divine Person one God? I answer, no; three Divine Persons are one God: that is to say, taking the word Persons in the Sense that the Church intends it, namely, for Relative Persons, or the threefold Relation of the Deity. But taking a Divine Person, as this Author and his Fellow-Realists do, for a subsisting Person, a distinct intellectual Being, and Infinite Mind and Spirit; I answer, and the Church also so answers: that indeed every such Person is one God, and three such are three Gods.  
Page 85. When God is said to be three Persons, the term God is taken in a Logical Sense; and is equivalent to a terminus Communis, or a Species. As who should say; there are truly three Gods, in a proper, physical, and natural Sense of the word God: for the words. God and Man are specifical Terms; the former implies divers (personal) Gods, as the other implies many (personal and individual) Men. He is so far from being ashamed of all this; that he adds again,  
Page 85. The Fathers of the Nicene Council, nay the whole Eastern Church did appropriate a the title one God to the Father; and God of God to the Son. The Fathers meant thereby, the Son is God (not of or from himself, but) from, or by, or of the Father. See what use Mr. J. B. makes of this, at pag. 91. The Phrase God of God does necessarily imply a Multiplication of the term God, in some Sense or other. And one and the same numerical God (in concreto) can never be God of God and not God of God: these two cannot be verified of the same Subject; of one and the same God, in concreto, or in Person. 'Tis Heresy in excelsis; and the last words in Person, designed only to blind his true meaning, or to mollify it to those that happen to understand him, do but increase the grossness of his Tritheism. He hath said (in those words) in effect; the Nicene Creed, and Oriental Church acknowledging one who is God of God, this God (who is God of, or from God) cannot be the same God with him from or of whom he is God, namely, with God the Father: these two must be several Subjects, different Gods. This avowed Tritheism, I say, is neither hid nor sofmed by adding; different Gods, in concreto, or in Person: for it was never said (or so much as thought) before, that the multiplication of Persons in the Godhead, or these expressions, God the Father, God the Son, God the H. Spirit, would warrant any one to say several Gods, or that God of God is not the same both Subject and God, with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. In short, that which this Author and his Party of Realists intent, and say, (though somewhat Covertly and Artificially) is; that as all the Men in the World, in concreto, are notwithstanding sometimes expressed by the general abstract word Man: So the three Gods, in concreto, three Personal (really subsisting) Gods may also be expressed; but they care not how seldom, the seldomer the better, by that (scurvy, Socinian) abstract word God.  
I have not made these (short) remarks on Mr. J. B. with a malevotent Intention; to create Envy, or to raise up Enemies, to him: I shall confess, that as broadly as he has spoke; St. Sasil, Gregory Nyssen, and other Fathers (after the Year 380) so Taught, and so Spoke; and I have before given some instances of it; as I shall give more, in the Continuation of my Answer to Dr. BuII's Defence of the Nicene Faith, and Judgement of the Catholic Church. But all that I design, is only; to appeal to the World, whether the Realists have not notoriously owned and professed their Tritheism, with which they are charged, not only by the Socinians, but by the Nominals; which is to say, by the Church. Dr. S—th is but one Man, he is only a private Doctor; but he has rightly understood the Doctrine of the Church: if a General Council were again to assemble, they would certainly espouse his two Books; he hath said neither more, nor less, nor otherwise, than the Catholic Church (since the Council of Lateran) has constantly taught. Mr. J. B. is a Learned and very discerning Person, so are other Realists of this Nation (I must not say, of the English, or of the Catholic Church, for they are departed from both) who have lately written against the Socinians: but they have opposed to ours, such an Explication of the words God, Persons, Trinity; as Dr. S—th hath deservedly called a Trinity of Gods; nor will they be ever able to wipe off the Imputation. Mr. J.B. must not think, he has answered Dr. S—th: he hath only, sometimes mistaken him; sometimes misreported, or perverted, his plain and obvious Meaning; or quarrelled with the Doctrine of the Schools, and of the Lateran Council, (which is to say, of the Catholic Church) to make room for the (exploded) Tritheism of St. Basil, and some other Fathers.  
The Doctrine of the Catholic Church, Mr. J.B. knows well, can be fetched only from General Councils; the Church is never understood to speak, but by a General Council: particular Fathers are but only particular Doctors; they are not the Church, how many soever they are. Therefore I desire Mr. J. B. to tell me, what Council ever used his Language; that one Divine Person is one God, as perfectly one God, as one Angelical Person is one perfect Angel? In what Council shall we find, that the word God is equivalent to a Species; which is to say, the Divinity no less than the Humanity (or the Manhood) comprehends several Individuals, of the same both Nature and Denomination: as there are many Men, in concreto, so there are divers Gods also, in concreto. Can he direct us to that Council, which teaches; that God of God, and God not of God (that is, Father and Son) are not the same God; or that the term God implies any Multiplication? Did ever any Council so far apostatise from Christianity, as to deny; that there is but one numerical God: and call that Doctrine the Faith of Jews, Mahometans, and Heathens? But this is Mr. J. B's Language, and the Doctrine of all the Realists; they all intent as he has said: nor will any of them censure his Book, but applaud it as a great and extraordinary Performance. I do not regard the Impertinences of Mr. Tho. Holdsworth (of North-Stoneham, near Southampton) in his late Impar Conatui, which he hath opposed to Mr. J. B. This Orlando has vomited up his Crudities, on a Person too much above him to take notice of him; and all that I shall trouble myself to say of him, is: that if, as he has been careful to tell us the Place of his Residence, and of his Vicinage, so he had also told us his Age; we might have guessed, with more certainty than now we well can, whether he raves, or dotes.   

The Realists speak much more Mystically, or Absurdly, than the Nominals.  
I Must make another Remark on the Realists; namely: That the absurd contradictory and impossible Things, partly expresty said by 'em, partly implied in their Doctrine, are far less tolerable or accountable; than the (forced) Improprieties, in the use of Words and Terms, by the Nominals, are.  
I confess, both Parties so often departed, from the common use of Terms and Words; that one as well as the other is frequently forced, to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Mystery: when they cannot assoil the Difficulties, objected to themselves by each other, or by the Socinians to both; when they find that the use of Words, and the nature of Things, are both against them, they cry Mystery; their Doctrine then (they confess) though a Truth, is however a Mystery, above the Capacity, whether of themselves or of any others. But then, say I; the Realists would cover such flat Impossibilities, such gross Contradictions to common Sense, in a Word such Monstrosities, under the cloak of Mystery: that they have infinitely more need of that (wretched) Blind, than the Nominals; who only by explaining their Terms, which Custom and Law have imposed on them, go a great way in fairly satissying all Difficulties; and when they cannot perfectly account for them, they make some small use of Mystery. To understand this; we must take a short view, of the (polite, happy) Things, said by them both.  
The Nominals teach, there is but one, (numerical) God, or one God in Number; who yet is three Persons. That the Father is God, the Son is God, the H. Ghost is God; yet all three are but one God, one God in Number, one selfsame God. They are perfectly ware, this were equally Impossible and Ridiculous; if 'twere not dextrously interpreted and explained: it would not be Mystery, or Mysterious Truth, but notorious Falsehood and Absurdity, they well know; if wholly left in these Terms, without an Explication. Therefore they declare, that by the term Persons, and the words Father, Son and Spirit, they mean not (with the Vulgar) several subsisting Persons; that is to say, So many intellectual Substances, with each his own particular Life, Understanding, Will, and power of Action; for they confess there is in God but one Substance, Life, Understanding, Will, Energy, in number: but three Persons in God are so many States, or Respects, or Properties, or Relations (or something equivalent to these) of the same over Divine intellectual Substance or Nature. And in this Sense also, according to the Nominals, the words Father, Son and Spirit (when used of God) are to be understood: namely, as Relations or States, all of them sustained by one and the same subsisting Person, or intellectual Substance; not as in so many Subjects, or as denominating variously three distinct Being's. They show, that so the Classical Authors, both Greek and Latin, spoke: and as their Language was adopted by the Church, in speaking of God, with great Propriety; so in process of Time, the use of Words being much altered, occasion was given to introduce the Heresy of the Realists; who unlearnedly understanding the old Words, in a novel Sense, have brought into the Church three Gods, instead of one.  
Again, they (the Nominals) say, the second Person of the Trinity (or of God) was Incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus; in such manner, that thereby the Lord Christ is God as well as Man. This also is called by that Mystical Name, the Hypostatical (or personal) Union. But they mean no more by it, than this; that God was as much and truly united to the Humanity, as the Human Nature is capable of: that is to say, in a most extraordinary, marvellous, and (to us) unaccountable Manner.  
When they say, O God the Father have Mercy on us; O God the Son, O God the Holy Ghost, have Mercy on us; they intent not hereby three Objects of Worship, or so many several Patrons and Helpers: but only as these are so many Relations and Respects of the Deity, either to himself or to us; so they invocate him by these Distinctions, or in these several Properties and Relations. In short, the whole Mystery consists in the Terms they use; and scarce at all, if at all in the Sense, or things intended by those Terms: which things (or sense) are received, and embraced by us the Unitarians; for we admit the whole Doctrine, as here declared and explained.  
But 'tis quite otherwise with the Realists; their Nonsense is in the thing meant, not in the Words or Terms. They say, there are three Divine subsisting Persons, three infinite Spirits, three omniscient Minds, three distinct Almighty's, as distinct as so many Angels or Men; each of them as truly, properly, adequately, and perfectly God, as each Man is a Man, and each Angel an Angel: and yet all of them are but one God. This, we confess, is Mystery with a Witness; the Mystery (every one sees) lies not in the Words and Terms, but the thing itself is absurd and impossible: to cry Mystery here, is to profess; that by Mystery, we mean Contradiction, and Impossibilities.  
The Excuses they make for this Mystery, are as mysterious, or more mysterious than the Mystery, for which they would apologise. For to say, these three (most perfect) Gods become one God, by their mutual Accord and Love, is; as if you should pretend, that by Love and Accord, three Men are one Man. And when they say, they are one God by likeness or sameness of Nature and Properties; and by being in one another: they might equally say, that two or more Angels, because they have the same Nature and Properties, and being Spiritual, do immeate, or are in one another, are thereby one Angel. These Explications of their Mystery, are assuredly as great Mysteries, as direct Contradictions to Reason and common Experience; as the Doctrine itself, of one God and three Divine subsisting Persons. But why do the Realists expect, that Mankind will be persuaded to accept such palpable abnegations of all consistent Sense, for Mystery: words that are hardly Sense, or of either ambiguous or obscure meaning, may be put off (with some or other, who care not for the Trouble of considering) for Mystery; but gross Contradictions, obvious and notorious Nonsense, will never be mistaken for Mystery. 'Tis true, People may be constrained to profess it, or to subscribe to it; but they never believe it, no not when (through a long habit of Submission to the Commands of others) they seem to themselves to believe it. I doubt not, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome, seem to themselves to believe the Transubstantiation; because having accustomed themselves to submit to the Declarations of the Church, they have never suffered any reluctance to arise in their Minds, against any of those. Declarations: notwithstanding, I am persuaded, not a Man of them truly believes that Mystery; were all Fears and Hopes, and other blassing Interests removed, they would presently perceive, that in very Deed they believe it not; their Reasons never assented to an impossible Proportion, nor could assent; but only (as I said) through a long habit of Submission, they did not discern, that they assented not to the Church's Declarations. And this, I believe, is true also, of all who pretend, or seem to believe any other inconsistent, or impossible Doctrines.   

The Tritheism of the Realists, not grounded on the H. Scripture.  
BUT this once more; 'tis not on a probable or prudent Ground, that the Realists sometimes pretend, that the Tritheism they impose has such a Foundation in Holy Scripture: that as on the one side, to believe the Trinity in their Notion of it, is a violence done to Reason; so not to own and profess it, would oblige them to as great a Violence, and Disobedience to Holy Scripture.  
I confess, I have often wondered; that Men so Learned and Discerning, as very many of the Realists are, should maintain such an Opinion; and after having made such Concessions to the Nominals, and to the Unitarians, as the Realists do. They grant it, to be certain and incontestable, not only in Reason, but in Holy Scripture, that there is but one God, but one Creator; they allow this to be so true and evident, that the Scripture ought never to be so interpreted, as in any degree to contradict this first Article of all revealed Religion: because to interpret Holy Scripture at any Time, or in any part of it, inconsistently with that Article, were to make it contradict itself, and that too, where it speaks most plainly and expressly. I say, this Foundation being laid, and agreed on all Hands; I have often wondered at the pretence of the Realists: for their Doctrine being a manifest Tritheism, as explained by them; in saying 'tis what the Holy Scriptures teach, they say, that the Sacred Scriptures contradict themselves. They would have it understood as a great deference, on their Parts, towards the Holy Scriptures; that they embrace and profess the Doctrine therein contained, though such Doctrine very flatly contradicts all Reason and common Sense, and withal other parts of the same Scriptures: but it were far more becoming such as they are, to express their Reverence for the Scripture, by interpreting it consistently with itself, and with Reason, as the Nominals and Unitarians do; than to expose it to the contempt and unbelief of all others, by such a Reverence of it as this Book needs not; that is to say, by pretending to believe it indeed, but believe it as manifestly inconsistent with itself; as well as with that Reason which God has infused into the Human Nature, for a Guide and Judge, in all either obscure or doubtful Matters. It is the Church and the Unitarians, that truly reverence the Scriptures; by rescuing them from senseless, and contradictory (which is to say, impossible) Senses.  
But supposing it were true, that the mere Words of some few (suspected, or ambiguous) Texts, did seem very much to favour the Doctrine of the Realists; yet seeing those Texts (as interpreted by the Realists) too plainly contradict evident Reason, and the Nature of things: why will not these Gentlemen see, that in such a Clash as this, We must interpret the Scripture consistently with Reason and the nature of things; because words will bear to be somewhat strained, much rather than things? The nature of Things, and the dictates of Reason, are Eternal and Immutable; they will not admit, or bear the least Stretches, Strain, or Violence done to them: but Words are of a very desultory and vagrant Meaning; they are sometimes to be taken Literally, or as they Sound, sometimes in a metaphorical or figurative Sense; sometimes in an Hyperbolical, that is excessive; nay, sometimes in an Ironical (which is to say, contrary) Sense: which being the Case of all Books and Writings whatsoever, there can never be a real Necessity of so interpreting the Scripture, that it should contradict the known Nature of things, plain Reason, or itself.  
Whereas some say here, and are willing always to repeat it; that the current of Scripture is so much, and so clearly, for such a Trinity as the Realists profess: that it would be manifest Violence, done to the Divine Word, to interpret it as the Socinians do. I answer, Cedò locum, name me the Text, or Context, alleged for the Doctrine of the Trinity; that is not interpreted by some of the most Learned Critics and Interpreters of the Trinitarian Party, in the same manner as 'tis understood by the Unitarians. Why do they pretend, that they are constrained, and by the clearness, and the current of Scripture; to profess a Trinity of Divine (subsisting) Persons: when all Learned Men know, that the Texts they have to allege, are so far from being the current of Scripture, that they are few in Number, and also of very suspected Authority, that is, they are justly doubted of, whether they are genuine original Parts of Scripture, or have been added to it; and so far from being clear, that they are extremely Ambiguous, and accordingly not only some, but even the generality of Trinitarian Critics interpret most of them, as we do; and not only most of them, but the Principal of them, more particularly the (objected) Texts that seem to impute the Creation of Things to our Saviour. As I said but now, Cedò locum, I demand that Text, or Context, which I will not show is interpreted by the most sufficient of their own Party, as we take it: but if so, as 'tis not the first Time this Challenge has been made to them; why do they (so untruly) pretend, that they are carried away by the Current of Scripture, and by the clearness of it, both on their sides? May they call a few single Texts (or rather, shreds of Texts the Current of Scripture: or talk of the clearness of their Texts; when they cannot allege so much as one, but is interpreted to an Unitarian Sense by some of their own (best) Writers, on the Scriptures, and of Controversy?  
With how much more Reason and Sincerity, may the Unitarians claim the current of Scripture; and that 'tis clear also, on their Side? For there is not a Page there, but speaks of God in the singular Number; there God is never called Persons, but Person: he is always spoken of, and to, by singular Pronouns, such as I, Thou, Thee, He, Him, Me; which are never used in any Language, but only of one single Person; never of three (subsisting) Persons.  
When the Realists say, the Scriptures are clear of their side; they mean it chief of those Texts, wherein Christ is called God: and of those, in which the Creation of the World, and of all things, is (or seems to be) attributed to him. But how often is the name God given in Holy Scripture, to those that either represent God, as Kings and Magistrates; or that are like to him in some very distinguishing Respect, or in whom he dwells after a peculiar manner, as Prophets, and Heroical Persons: is, not Moses (for one Instance) on all these accounts called God, and by God himself? And is it a Marvel then, that the Mediator also of the New Testament, as well as he of the Old, is dignified with this Name? And yet (as I have said elsewhere) I am well assured, that the Realists will never prove, against the Author of the Brief History of the Socinians; that the name God is really given to the Lord Christ, in any Text that is a genuine Part of Scripture: that is to say, that hath not been corrupted by the Zeal of Catholics, to make it more conformable to their Sentiments. As to the Texts, that impute the Creation of things, to the Son; that is, to the Lord Christ: do not all Learned Men know, that the best of the Trinitarian Interpreters, some of the zealousest Men of the Party, understand all those Texts of the New Creation; that is, of the Renovation of things on Earth, by the Ministry of Christ; and in Heaven, by his Exaltation above the Angels? And secondly, That neither is there any need of this; for those Texts may be thus translated: all things were made for him; and without regard to him, was nothing made that was made. Were made for him; that is to say, they were originally made by God, for the Messiah: namely, to subject them (in fullness of Time) to him, and to his Law. Which is the Interpretation of St. John Chrysostom, a most Learned Trinitarian, in the Opus Imperfectum, on St. Matthew.  
In short, I would not have it said; that the current of Scripture is, much less is clearly, on their side, who contend for a Trinity of Divine (subsisting) Persons: because 'tis so well known, that this (senseless, extravagant) boast of some small Writers of Controversy, is the Jest and Sport of their own Critics and Interpreters of Note; who have far more scorn for such Sciolists, than they have Enmity to the Socinians.   

Of the Unitarians; their Agreement with the Church.  
THE Unitarians, called also Socinians, are a Sect or Party, or Denomination of Christians, who have endeavoured to perfect that Reformation; that was so happily begun by Dr. M. Luther, Mr. J. Calvin, and here (in England) by Archbishop Cranmer.  
Dr. Luther subverted the Infallibility, and Supremacy of the Pope; the Worship and Invocation of Angels, and Saints; the (superstitious) monastic Vows; the Merchandise of Indulgencies, by which poor Sinners had been long cozened into a Belief, that they could buy the Pardon of their Sins, from the Pope and his Factors: and this not only without Restitution, Amendment, or Repentance, but without Confession; for that also was sometimes a Clause in their Bulls of Indulgence, that the Purchaser should be absolved of all his Sins, whether Confessed or not Confessed. The forms of Indulgences were so ample, that is, so General and Comprehensive; that Men of any Wealth never cared, what Sins they were guilty of: because they knew they could at any time, whether Dead or Alive, purchase their Pardon; if they had neglected it in their Life Time, 'twas but leaving so much Money by Will, for Masses and Indulgences, and they were sure all should be forgiven. The Story of the French Gentleman is well known; who being admonished by his Friend, of his horrible Cursing and Blaspheming; answered: Man, there is no fear, cannot I buy my Pardon of the Friars Augustine's? I would be forgiven for an Ounce of Gold, though I had ravished the Mother of God, and cut off both her Breasts. This was the state of Things, when Dr. Luther appeared, and opposed himself (so successfully) to these Corruptions; as I said, he entirely ruin'd the Market of Indulgences, Monastic Vows, Invocation of Saints and Angels, the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Chair of Rome.  
Mr. J. Calvin, besides that he greatly strengthened, and confirmed what Dr. Luther had begun; by his extraordinary Erudition, fine Wit, and indefatigable Diligence, in all which Mr. Calvin excelled the very greatest of the first Reformers: he carried the Reformation somewhat farther, than Luther had done. He took away the use of Images, which can serve only for a snare to the Weak; and for an Avocation, and Amusement, to the Discerning. His Doctrine concerning the Sacraments, has fewer Follies than, not only that of Rome, but, than Luther's; he rejected the Consubstantiation, as well as the Transubstantiation, and was not imposed on by the Doctrine of Ubiquity. I need say nothing of Archbishop Cranmer; because his Reformation is known to every Englishman: his Doctrine and Discipline being expressed in the 39 Articles, the Books of Homilies, of Canons, and the Common-Prayer.  
All Protestants have a great Reverence, for these famous and excellent Men; even those of us, who think, that their Reformation is yet very incomplete. I may add, that as much as these Reformers are detested, by the Papists; the very Papists, all Orders of them (from the highest to the lowest; from the Pope, to the Begging, and discalceate Friar) are greatly in their Debt. For now they have Learned Priests, Holy Popes; and the Kings and States of the Roman Communion, are no longer the Slaves of the Pope: all which was otherways, when there were no Protestants, of whom the Pope and Conclave and (the rest of their) Hierarchy might stand in some awe. The Popes consider now; that they must act Soberly, live Exemplarily, and inspect the Conduct and Sufficiency of the Clergy; else the Princes and People, now in their Communion, will desert to the Protestants.  
It was Dr. Luther, as odious as his Name among them is; who took off the Yoke, and filled the Chains, from the Necks and Hands of Emperors, of Kings and Nations. From laying prostrate, under the Feet of the Pope; from holding his Bridle, and his Stirrup; from expecting (after their Election by the Princes of the Empire) till the Pope should please to crown them, and thereby give them the Name and Power of Emperors; from Trembling, every time that a (crouching) Friar was turned, into a (boisterous) Pope: I say, from this miserable Vassalage, the Germane Emperors, and other Catholic Kings and States, are delivered; and care now, just so much, and no more, for his Holiness' Love or Anger; as the Example of his Life, or the actual Assistance he can lend to 'em, shall merit. Since Luther, the Clergy (also) of the Roman Communion, are Learned and exemplary Men; in their own Defence, and for their own Security, they must be so. And they dare now, withstand any new Encroachments on their Privileges, or their Revenues, by the Court of Rome. Nay, they have retrieved, in some Degree, their ancient Rights and Authority: for Rome dreads (and ever will dread) another Luther; in case she should (unjustly, or rashly) either oppress, or offend the inferior Clergy. Those of the Lay-Communion of that Church, are now led with a Pastoral-Staff; not hared with the Church's Thunder, Excommunications and deliver up to Satan. They are sent of no more Errands to Syria and Asia; in pretence, to rescue the Holy Sepulchre; in Deed, to enlarge the Papal Bounds, and Authority. They are fed now with much sounder Doctrine; and led, by a better Example. For now the necessity of Repentance, and Amendment, are taught; Indulgences are now owned, to be only Prudential and Charitable relaxations of Penance; Images are now used, only as Memorials of departed Saints, and Incentives to imitate their Example; the Sacrifice of the Mass is now only a commemorative Sacrifice, which even Protestants believe it to be; the Virgin Mary and the Saints are prayed to, only to pray with us, and for us: and the like abatement is made, in other Articles. And whereas with reference to the Example of their Priests, it has been a Proverb in some Places; He that will give his Child to the Devil, let him make him a Priest: now, and for almost two Ages last passed; their danger from the Protestants, as was said before, has reform their Manners.  
These are the Services, done by the first Reformers; as well to the Papists themselves, as to us of the Reformation: their Memory is glorious, and aught to be precious also, among us. But we say also; that the Augéan Stable was too foul, to be absolutely cleansed at once, even by Hercules and his Companions: Dr. Luther did a great deal, the Labours of his Companions and Seconds were very laudable; but much Filth is still left behind. We desire to be (fairly and candidly) heard, concerning some corruptions in the Faith; and some abuses in the Morality, still taught: and particularly, which is the Subject of these present Papers, concerning the Object of our Faith and Worship, Almighty GOD.  
We see, we own; that the Doctrine of the Church, meaning by the Church the Nominal Trinitarians, is sound, as to the Sense and Intention of it: but we (humbly) offer, that the Terms in which 'tis expressed, are unscriptural, and very Dangerous. The words Trinity, Incarnation, Hypostatical Union, are never used in Scripture; nor is God ever there called Persons, but Person. And 'tis evident, that by occasion of these Terms; the Vulgar have such a conception of the Trinity, as is certain Tritheism. When the People hear of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; they know not, that thereby are meant only so many Relations of God, either internal Relations to himself, or external Relations to the Creature: but they conceive in their Minds, such a Father, Son and Spirit distinct from both, as are so many several subsisting Spirits, so many distinct All-perfect Being's; in very Deed so many Living Gods, and not one God under three several Conceptions. For though they are taught to say, three Divine Persons and but one God; and that God the Father, God his Son, and God the Holy Ghost, though each of them is God, yet all of them are but one God: this last all of them but one God, because they know not how 'tis to be conceived with the other (namely, that each of them is God; and one of them is God the Father, another God the Son;) they utterly lose the Conception of one God, and retain only what is intelligible to them, namely, three Divine Persons, each of them a God.  
We think, that the Church having gained her Point, against the Fathers and Realists, in the Lateran Council; and having been in Possession of the Truth, for near 500 Years together: she may now fling off the Disguise hitherto used, the dangerous Tritheistick terms, Trinity, Persons, and the rest; she may now begin to declare the Truth she owns, in Terms and Words that are proper for it. Why does she frown upon those, nay, persecute them, that believe the Unity of God in the Sense that she holds it; only because they would cast out the Terms that so plainly favour the Tritheists, that is, the Realists? What has the Church to fear; has not the Lateran Council, and all Writers ever since, declared the Realists to be Heretics: therefore what need is there to retain their Terms, when we have discharged the Notions intended by them?  
'Tis true, we can say as the Church does, three Divine Persons; the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; taking these words in the Church's Sense, not for subsisting Persons, that is to say, Living, Spirits, but for Relations, Properties, Modes, or such like. We can say, God was Incarnate; meaning he did inhabit the Lord Christ, after an ineffable manner, and without Measure: which is really as much as the Church intends by the word Incarnation. We own the (eternal) Generation of the Son or Word, and Procession of the Spirit, by and from the Father; explaining ourselves, with the School-Divines, the Church, and divers Fathers, thus: that God or the Father, or original Wisdom, conceived a most perfect Image of himself, by understanding, and considering his own Perfections; and that he loveth (or willeth) as well as understandeth himself. We can even say, three Divine subsisting Persons; intending with Dr. S—th, the Schools, the Lateran Council, and the Church, Relative Subsistences, whose Subsistence is nothing else but their Relation. Which are Dr. S—th's express words, Tritheism charged, p. 156.  
I cannot but ask it again; why does the Church keep, or impose on us, such Words and Terms; as in their present Signification, destroy the Faith we both embrace; the Faith of the real Unity of God? We can say as the Church says, we can use her Terms; because we know her meaning: but we cannot but say of them, as Mr. Calvin did (when asked his Opinion) of the English Common-Prayers, Tolerabiles Ineptiae. For in very Deed, 'tis mere Trifling, and something worse; when the signification of these Terms and Words is wholly altered, from what it anciently was, yet still to retain them: while the Church knows at the same Time, that they give wrong Notions to the Vulgar, making all our People Tritheists; and serve also to animate, and harden the Realists in their Heresy.  
But I must do the Church this right, to confess; that most of her greatest Men, particularly the first Reformers, have published to all the World their hearty desire, that all these terms of the Realists were abolished; and all were obliged to use the Scripture-Language and Words only: which would heal all our Breaches, and perfectly restore our Peace; not only in this, but in (almost) all other Questions and Strifes. Let us hear, of so many as might be alleged, Dr. M. Luther, and Mr. J. Calvin.  
M. Luther complains; The word Trinity sounds oddly: it were better to call Almighty God, God; than Trinity. Postil. major. Dominic.  
Mr. Calvin is yet less pleased, with these kind of Terms; he says, I like not this Prayer, O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity. It savours of Barbarity;— the word Trinity is barbarous, insipid, profane, an human Invention, grounded on no Testimony of God's Word, the Popish God, unknown to the Prophets and Apostles. Admon. 1. ad Polon.  
Decemb. 17. 1695.   
FINIS.